Why Is Climate Change Theory So Hard to Understand?

a reply to: Herolotus

No one misunderstands it, the credibility is what is questioned. Humans are contaminating the world, and damaging its natural balance, anyone can see that. But the agenda of global warming is not good, and is a wasteful effort, designed to get more wealth and control over the people. Why don't they actually do something about the global warming if it is so bad? If global warming is destroying our world why is their no real effort to combat it?...Just a bunch of hot air

a reply to: cyborg41

But the agenda of global warming is not good

And so, conversely, the agenda of the status quo is?

Why don't they actually do something about the global warming if it is so bad?

Define "they." You mean "TPTB?" Good question.

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: jrod

The irony is that the real reason the public terminology was rebranded is so people like that would go around saying stuff like "climate change? climate changes all the time - it's obviously just a natural cycle!!"

Frank Luntz himself explains the exact reasoning right here at the 2:47 mark:

I think Fyrebyrd's post summed it up already:

originally posted by: Fryebyrd "But low education people who lack critical thinking and discrimination skills are easily hoodwinked by propaganda and other rhetorical tactics that confuse."

PR professionals like Luntz have always understood this. It's why we have leaked memorandum showing this has been their target audience since the very beginning:

I think this post is worth quoting for the discussion. Thanks for sharing the video.

originally posted by: guitarplayer
My post was in response to why climate change opponents do not listen to climate change claims. My question to the oil field geologist is that even with evidence contrary to what a person has been indoctrinated, taught there are biases that still remain that hinder a new paradigm shift in thinking.

Funny you bring that up?

Now, when the petroleum exploration companies put their money, their enormous big huge sums of money, which kind of geologists do they hire to get results?

Answer: the ones who go by the mainstream theories and understanding of biological generation of fossil fuels. When they explore, they find oil in the places one expects from biological processes. The chemistry is that of biological processes. Understanding the geological layers and connection to paleological processes and biology leads to results.

Why? Because they're right. Being right makes money. Being wrong loses money.

And when the insurance companies put their money for risk assessments, what climatolgists do they listen to? Yeah, you got it. The ones based on physics and not on nonsense.

a reply to: cyborg41

Why doesn't anyone do anything about global warming? It's rather simple. After the industrial revolution, growth = revenue. Our global society now requires a constant growth to just maintain. More people, more industry, more money. To actually do something about our current climate predicament would require drastic changes that would surely lead to extreme turmoil and, very likely, billions of death, and mass migration in the process.

You try to sell that to the public. I think those in power that grasp how dire our situation actually is are just biding time, hoping things don't get too bad too quickly, because once the climate starts to seriously impede food production, things will deteriorate rather quickly.

a reply to: Starling
No , dont need one. Do you ? Seems as much as you can only post short sentences that have nothing whatsoever to do with the thread . Just attack the grammar ? Peace...

OP here, just saying hello so that everyone knows I'm still around.

Interesting batch of comments, and a lot of despair. Mostly it seems the deniers are ready with facts and figures (perhaps dubious), while the supporters are just sad and wish the world could be a better place.

For my part, the goal of this thread was not so much to have a question answered with certainty, but to instead understand where most of the ATS population stood on the issue.

The consensus seems to be that Deniers think Supporters are victims of bad science or an outright corporate conspiracy. Supporters seem think that Deniers are victims of propaganda, ignorance, and greed (and also maybe another and completely different conspiracy).

What I wonder is this: Since it's too late, and while the cause is in question the consequences are less so (the sea level is rising, the ice is melting, etc.), why can't we as a population get behind a program to save what we can and do any good that is possible?

Maybe the solutions are damaging, and maybe they would cause economic and social upheavel, but seeing as how wars over land and resources are likely to cause chaos regardless, why not do the right and good thing?

Thanks all for the posts, your thoughts, and your consideration

Another Issue I'd like to address was brought up several times here; That the issue is not misunderstood at all - and that this thread is pointless, essentially - I disagree

From snowballs on C-SPAN to the declaration that NASA should not be involved in Earth Science, I do think the problem lacks understanding. Many believe because we still have winter and rain and whatnot, that there is no problem. Geologists I've worked with and worked for simply just shrug and say, "It's probably just an atmosphereic cycle we know little about", an assertion with little evidence to back it up, and certainly a less scientific and humanitarian attitude than supports of man-made Climate Change usually adopt.

Meanwhile millions are already affected, and hundreds of millions are in danger. We are sitting inside of a slow and great apocalypse that defies the expectations that entertainment and media have long supported; that disasters are quick and obvious, rather than slow and determined. So many seem to think that because they can't see the change right now, out their windows and on their doorsteps, that the problem must not and cannot be real.

The reason it is hard to understand because it is nothing but driven by politics and scientist who cannot agree what may be causing it or if it is even realy real.

nothing with the prefix elementary can be used to describe a system as complex as the planet we live on. the reason ts so hard to understand the theory is because it seems like once a month we get news that climate scientists are manipulating and\or ignoring data.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
nothing with the prefix elementary can be used to describe a system as complex as the planet we live on. the reason ts so hard to understand the theory is because it seems like once a month we get news that climate scientists are manipulating and\or ignoring data.

Again someone parrots this debunked talking point. There is NO real news of climate scientists manipulating data. Those who manipulate data to support an agenda or personal gain or NOT scientist, they are QUACKS!

Check out this video that maps CO2 from burning fossil fuels.