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.
On the contrary, people in this country are doing plenty about it. Look at all the hybrid cars that didn't even exist 20 years ago. They are still more expensive than regular cars but wealthy folks buy them because they are "doing good". That's just one example.
The pro-Climate Change folks are actually winning but a lot of them seem to take pleasure in calling the anti-Climate Change folks nasty names. I mean, what do they care if people on an internet bulletin board think Climate Change is a religion when you have the full weight of the United States government, every university in the world, plus the United Nations and all multi-national corporations on your side?
What kills me is the blatant arrogance of thinking that people who don't hold to the belief and argument -- it's nothing more than an argument --of alleged man-made global warming are wrong or necessarily dumb (or still worse) to not believe the opinion (beliefs) of others when not a single believer can produce dispositive proof that man-made global warming is real; i.e., not a single person, anywhere, at any time.
And yes, there is a political divide with believers largely lining up with the liberal community and non-believers largely being bent toward the conservative (prove your assertion) side. Even worse, there are liberals who hold that they are simply smarter than conservatives to recognize the truth that they cannot prove (snicker).
Still more insane, as far as smarts go, is that liberal voters drives will focus on the poorest of areas, including slums and ghettos, which certainly does not lend a shred of credence whatsoever to the belief that liberals are, in any way, intellectually superior en masse. Am I supposed to believe that the smartest people can be found or will be found in those areas?
As I said earlier, my Mother did not raise me to be a fool.
Go back through this entire thread. Observe that this is STILL the tactic-of-the-day.
Really? The 3rd reply in the thread was someone attacking me as someone who wouldn't follow my doctor's medical advice because I dared to advance an opinion on climate change that was contrary to the prevalent dogma. It went downhill from there. Anyone who doesn't believe is almost immediately branded a dumb, bible thumping, rube who doesn't understand science and is informed by Fox news and Rush Limbaugh.
Frankly it is YOUR side that engages in ad hominem attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighteyes
The truly sad part is this: In the final analysis, all this brouhaha doesn't matter -- not one damn bit. Why? Because Mother Nature doesn't give a fig abut what any of us say or believe. The efforts of the "OPPOSITION" to discredit the messengers, or to weaken their message, won't stop -- or even slow -- the climatic changes that are occurring even as we read this.
That is your opinion. You have every right to it but that's all it is… an OPINION. Same as mine. Some of us have a different opinion based on the evidence presented. If you want to believe the end is nigh and we are all burying our heads in the sand, you go right ahead. Some of us believe that this has become a misguided movement that has been corrupted by politics, activism, dogma, greed and groupthink. Some of us believe it's become akin to a religion and the chances that strict, impartial, blind SCIENCE is being conducted have about the same odds as a snowball's chance in hell.
I almost forgot, there is another aspect of the global warming movement that makes it like a religion…
the utter moral superiority of the believers! We've certainly seen that here. They are SO absolutely certain that their path is the only correct path that they speak in terms of facts and absolutes. There is absolutely NO room for dissension or room for different beliefs. It's their way or the highway!
No, actually what happened was that I expressed an unpopular or threatening OPINION and was almost instantly attacked for it. I never claimed to be an expert and I never claimed to be "better qualified than the entire scientific community" as you put it.
I said that I thought climate change was treated as a religion, that I was a skeptic and I listed my reasons why. The responses that I've received have all but come short of calling me "infidel" for daring to take a position contrary to the present dogma. Hence reinforcing my contention that this is treated like a religion!
Interestingly, I found this timely quote: "One of the fathers of the green movement is James Lovelock, the scientist who originated the Gaia hypothesis of the earth as a single living organism. This past Sunday, the British newspaper, the Guardian, reported that, "Talking about the environmental movement, Lovelock says: 'It's become a religion, and religions don't worry too much about facts.'"
I almost forgot, there is another aspect of the global warming movement that makes it like a religion…
the utter moral superiority of the believers! We've certainly seen that here. They are SO absolutely certain that their path is the only correct path that they speak in terms of facts and absolutes. There is absolutely NO room for dissension or room for different beliefs. It's their way or the highway!
Again, it depends on who is doing the dissenting. A good portion of climate scientists or people who listen to Rush Limbaugh?
If I were to tell you that 99% of engineers believe water pressure has nothing to do with the weight of the water above, and that most normal people don't agree with this based on their common sense, will you believe most people or will you believe most engineers?
Again, it depends on who is doing the dissenting. A good portion of climate scientists or people who listen to Rush Limbaugh?
If I were to tell you that 99% of engineers believe water pressure has nothing to do with the weight of the water above, and that most normal people don't agree with this based on their common sense, will you believe most people or will you believe most engineers?
Who is doing the dissenting matters not. What matters is the quality of the alleged proof of what is being asserted.
If the predictions of the past were wrong and the same people are now saying that the reality is far worse than their previous predictions, why would anyone believe the predictors now?
If a prediction is wrong, it is wrong. If the predictions were an error on the other side (not as bad) would they admit to it or cover it up? Those making the predictions have quite a bit riding on their predictions; reputations, lots of money (follow the money) and influence.
I wonder, if those making the predictions were barred somehow from benefiting in any way from their predictions, would they be the same as they are now? Does that question the character and ethics of those making the predictions? Of course, but why not, they already admitted to being wrong and it isn't like there haven't been serious gaps in their ethics before.
I tend to think that the modern climate change debate has become like a religion of sorts. It's ironic because many of the proponents of man-caused climate change deride the "non-believers" as bible thumping, religious fundamentalists who favor the old testament over science.
Yet I'd argue that much of the current climate change movement and environmentalism in general smacks of blind religious fervor as well!
The world, to early humans was largely incomprehensible. They invented stories to comfort themselves, stories that eventually contained the notion of gods who where in charge of this large, incomprehensible world. People had a degree of control over their fate with prayer and with following the precepts of whatever religion they subscribed to.
Now, we are doing much the same. For modern man, being utterly and completely at the mercy of the random events of nature is terrifying! We have control over so many aspects of our lives but not over
nature.
So now we have the climate change movement. We are SINNERS who have polluted the earth, we need to repent and clean up out act or face a catastrophic fate like something from the old testament. "Non-believers" are shunned, ostracized and marginalized because they represent the uncomfortable truth that we really DON'T have any control over nature.
The movement hides behind science as infallible, unquestionable and absolute. Things that science NEVER should be! As events like Climategate showed, science can be corrupted by politics, activism and dogma. In addition, a cursory look back at the many failed predictions of the science should be enough to raise doubt in anyone's mind.
With that said, I don't deny the need to be good stewards of the environment, I don't think these things need to be mutually exclusive. We can deny the religious fervor of the current climate change movement AND still care about how we treat the environment.
I actually tend to think people would be more engaged and active in protecting the environment if they weren't assaulted with this constant drumbeat of scaremongering, dogma and religious-like fundamentalism that is hallmark of the current climate change movement.
Why do you deride the "scare tactics" of climate scienctists and then color climate change in red? Is that not some attempt at scaring on your part?
The great thing about science is that it exists whether you believe it or not. You may think that what climate scientists are saying are "scare tacticts", while climate scientists believe it is the evidence that they see. Should science only report good news? Of course not.
No climate scientist is saying that we are sinners, you are. That is religion, which you also seem to deride.
No good scientist is saying science is infallible. Why do you think they run numerous rigorous experiments before they reach a consensus? There is a consensus among scientists that man made climate change is happening, just not in the general public yet. Just because you say it isn't happening doesn't make it so.
Science is about getting to the truth of things. There have been numerous scientists that have come throughout history that have claimed things thst have gotten them either jailed or even killed. The famous example of this is Galileo who was imprisoned for claiming the crazy idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe but instead went around the sun. Of course it has long since been proven but that doesn't mean it didn't upset some people greatly. Heck, the catholic church only pardoned him 400 years later...better late than never.
You don't have to believe everything scientists say but that doesn't mean you should completely discount everything they say either. Because regardless of what you or anyone thinks science still exists.
If the predictions of the past were wrong and the same people are now saying that the reality is far worse than their previous predictions, why would anyone believe the predictors now?
If a prediction is wrong, it is wrong. If the predictions were an error on the other side (not as bad) would they admit to it or cover it up? Those making the predictions have quite a bit riding on their predictions; reputations, lots of money (follow the money) and influence.
I wonder, if those making the predictions were barred somehow from benefiting in any way from their predictions, would they be the same as they are now? Does that question the character and ethics of those making the predictions? Of course, but why not, they already admitted to being wrong and it isn't like there haven't been serious gaps in their ethics before.
Do you understand the scientific process at all? Predictions are made based upon the current amount of data. Of course at the beginning when the data is new and less reliable predictions will be...guess...less reliable. And then when data becomes more and more abundant and accurate predictions become...that's right...more accurate. So you are deriding the predictions of past scientists because they are gaining more information and refining their claims?! That IS science! Maybe you choose to believe something regardless of what new information is attained. That is why you are not a scientist.
Again, it depends on who is doing the dissenting. A good portion of climate scientists or people who listen to Rush Limbaugh?
If I were to tell you that 99% of engineers believe water pressure has nothing to do with the weight of the water above, and that most normal people don't agree with this based on their common sense, will you believe most people or will you believe most engineers?
First of all, I take exception the number 99% that you keep tossing around. Where the actual percentage of consensus lies has been an ongoing matter of debate. Even at that, it is not as black and white as the media spin-doctors would have you believe. Scientists might agree that man is part of the cause of climate change but they may drastically disagree on the level of alarmism or confidence in any predictions. It's disingenuous to keep tossing around a number like 99% when reality is much more nuanced.
With that said, you keep making an analogy between engineers and climate scientists as professional who are to be respected for their expertise. I don't know, if I made as many claims and predictions that turned out to be as laughably false as the climate scientists, I'd be out of a job
“Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000
But D'oh!! I thought heavy snow was PROOF of climate change ?! I need a scorecard to keep track.
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.
I thought heavy snow was PROOF of climate change ?! I need a scorecard to keep track.