Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What pathology is at work in the minds of those who deny mankind is causing climate change?
1) Selfishness/cravenness
2) Ignorance/refusal to accept responsibility
3) Denial/inability to entertain opposing viewpoints
I tend to think all the sufferers of these afflictions have a role but think #2 the chief reason, along with the right wing media, which fans doubt and disinformation to an entirely gullible and uninformed audience
No one has every won an argument or convinced anyone of anything bymaking hateful and vicious comments about them. Trust me on this one.
This comment can also be applied to several other posts above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cburg's Rough
It is not because they are gullible, but because they already had their minds made up before they heard the information.
Speaking of having your mind made up, do you even entertain other points of view and pure scientific evidence on this subject?
Do many of you know how much dissension there is to what many scientists view as a facetious theory?
I would agree that it is highly possible that man is not helping the natural progression of climate change which will go on for as long as our earth exists, but I would follow that with my belief that even if we become as "green" as it's possible to be, it will have a micro effect on what is transpiring.
I continue to believe that it is the height of arrogance to believe that we can control these changes anymore than we can control when we leave this planet.
I don't buy into the global warming nonsense. Too many climatologist stand to make too much money from promoting the idea of the sky falling. Since acid rain, strip mining and nukes are no longer topical, bored hippies have also latched onto this ruse for their own reasons (mandatory deindustrialization). It's not a mystery really. The average global temperature dropped like a rock last year. But if you go to the loony left global warming sites, they are still posting the same hockey stick graphs with global average temperatures projected upward to infinity except they haven't updated them since 2007. Now they are calling it global weirding. That way no matter what happens, it is caused by human activity and very, very bad. It's really simple, just follow the money.
Take a look at this gem from the "An Inconvenient Truth" website.
"The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence.1 The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable."
Moving down the page we see that little 1 indicates the quote used is from an assessment report of IPCC.
1 According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this era of global warming "is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin" and "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence of the global climate.
An Inconvenient Truth Official Site: Global Warming Science, Climate Change Science, Facts & Evidence (http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/ - broken link)
"However, current climate models cannot fully account for the observed difference in the trend between the surface and lower-tropospheric temperatures over the last twenty years even when all known external influences are included. New reconstructions of the surface temperature record of the last 1,000 years indicate that the temperature changes over the last 100 years are unlikely to be entirely natural in origin, even taking into account the large uncertainties in palaeo-reconstructions."
No they didn't have thermometers 1000 years ago. They're guessing what the temperature might have been and are acknowledging they are having trouble with their models. Even the scientists who would potentially reap financial rewards in the form of research grants are uneasy about their claims. Al Gore leaves that part out. And since when does "is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence" compare with "New reconstructions of the surface temperature record of the last 1,000 years indicate that the temperature changes over the last 100 years are unlikely to be entirely natural in origin". Lots of hype designed to scare the **** out of people and sell his propaganda DVD.
Absolute BS. The people who will not make money off of climate change are the scientist. You can be sure than Exxon-Mobil will find a way and a lot of people will get good "green jobs" making the shift, but scientists will not be getting rich. It's actually a pretty sleazy accusation to make without any foundation.
What pathology is at work in the minds of those who deny mankind is causing climate change?
1) Selfishness/cravenness
2) Ignorance/refusal to accept responsibility
3) Denial/inability to entertain opposing viewpoints
I tend to think all the sufferers of these afflictions have a role but think #2 the chief reason, along with the right wing media, which fans doubt and disinformation to an entirely gullible and uninformed audience
Look up logical fallacy there friend.
When you want to discuss the science, by all means, have at it. Don't try to reflect on us what appears to be your own short comings. It is the oldest trick in the book, and to be honest, it is a bit insulting that you think people here are so stupid they would buy into it.
Absolute BS. The people who will not make money off of climate change are the scientist. You can be sure than Exxon-Mobil will find a way and a lot of people will get good "green jobs" making the shift, but scientists will not be getting rich. It's actually a pretty sleazy accusation to make without any foundation.
So how do researchers make money then? Are you saying that all of this research they are doing into various fields are of their own time and money? You do realize many researchers ability to function is dependent on funding? Funding that only exists if their research shows results?
Look, I am not saying that this is the case for all, but you can't say that there is no benefit to them producing results that would result in continued funding? The Pork Stimulus bill has a good amount of money being given for "climate science research". Do you think that would be in there if the research showed results other than they do now? Keep an open mind please. Educational and political organizations can be just as "bad" as the oil companies in their pursuit of money and power and in some cases, I would say they are worse.
Hahah...O dear GOD...ok, have you agreed on that all on your own??? Amazing, you know what, your right, I believe you of all people 100%. I think that you know SO much about the earth and our role in it (after all you did spend a WHOLE 1 hour thinking about it) that I'm going to forget all the experts and listen to you.
So, I guess because there is NOTHING we can do, let just sit back and wait to die.....WOW, I can't believe I didn't figure this out before.
Good. You will have more spare time--and will waste less of your finite resources that way.
So how do researchers make money then? Are you saying that all of this research they are doing into various fields are of their own time and money? You do realize many researchers ability to function is dependent on funding? Funding that only exists if their research shows results?
Look, I am not saying that this is the case for all, but you can't say that there is no benefit to them producing results that would result in continued funding? The Pork Stimulus bill has a good amount of money being given for "climate science research". Do you think that would be in there if the research showed results other than they do now? Keep an open mind please. Educational and political organizations can be just as "bad" as the oil companies in their pursuit of money and power and in some cases, I would say they are worse.
You come in here and post websites by guys that are on big oil's payroll, and then complain that the climatologists involved in the research are biased because of their funding?
I guess the only people we can believe are the guys that aren't earning a living off of the topic, the amatuers. That sounds like a great idea...
I continue to believe that it is the height of arrogance to believe that we can control these changes anymore than we can control when we leave this planet.
I have news for you. We've already had a massive impact on the land and the water on this planet. Why do you think it's difficult that humans can impact the atmosphere, just enough to influence small changes in something as dynamic as temperature?
I have news for you. We've already had a massive impact on the land and the water on this planet. Why do you think it's difficult that humans can impact the atmosphere, just enough to influence small changes in something as dynamic as temperature?
I completely agree. Everytime someone posts about the supposed 'arrogance' of thinking that humans could possibly have affected our world negatively I think of Steve Urkel from "Family Matters" saying "did I do that???" in a nasal whine. Its the lowest form of cop out. I want policy makers to register their positions on the issue and actually have to face the music when the fat lady sings.
You come in here and post websites by guys that are on big oil's payroll, and then complain that the climatologists involved in the research are biased because of their funding?
I guess the only people we can believe are the guys that aren't earning a living off of the topic, the amatuers. That sounds like a great idea...
I suggest it is possible, I do not conclude it is the case. You on the other hand conclude without evidence to support your accusation. All you have as evidence is that McIntyre once worked in mineral exploration (yet currently does not), yet can provide nothing more than that as evidence. You have no links of income support or any real shred of evidence to support your claim.
The problem with your position is that it is irrelevant to the data. That is, even if McIntryre was being funded by "Big Oil", it doesn't change the evidence of the data which HAS shown people like Mann, Brifta, Hansen, etc... to be faulty in their assessments.
You would know this if you were even vaguely informed on the issues, but the problem is that you are not operating at the level of the issues, rather you comfortably swirl around in political and unethical application of debate.
Again, if you wish to contest his data, by all means, do so. I am willing to discuss it, just as I am willing to discuss the "data" of anyone you provide. Otherwise, you are doing nothing more than playing a political patsy who is uninformed spreading rumor and gossip.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
