Why is Climate Change So Controversial? (revolution, biased, radio, taxes)
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 think that it does have a lot to do with why climate change is so controversial, though. Conservative religious people tend towards the view that weather and climate are controlled by God. Plus climatology is an inherently inexact science... since weather and climate patterns vary greatly across the globe and across time, it's very easy for people to play "amateur scientist" and come up with all pages and pages worth of "evidence" to support whatever conclusion their philosophy requires. Kind of like economics in a way. BUUT scientists who have actually spent years and/or decades studying the issue generally agree that humans are warming the planet. They don't ALL agree, but the vast majority of them do. Since I don't have the level of expertise that either side in that debate has, I save time by assuming that the larger group of smart people is the most likely group to be right. (Which is what everyone does regarding scientific issues that they aren't deeply passionate about.) And maybe they're not right... maybe the minority is. But latching on to, memorizing, and evangelizing their way-over-your-head technical arguments, not because you actually want to put the necessary time and training in to become a climate scientist, but simply because taking their position makes you feel like a cool rebel, seems kind of like a ridiculous waste of time to me.
Last edited by postingMan; 09-30-2011 at 09:50 PM..
I think that it does have a lot to do with why climate change is so controversial, though. Conservative religious people tend towards the view that weather and climate are controlled by God. Plus climatology is an inherently inexact science... since weather and climate patterns vary greatly across the globe and across time, it's very easy for people to play "amateur scientist" and come up with all pages and pages worth of "evidence" to support whatever conclusion their philosophy requires. Kind of like economics in a way. BUUT scientists who have actually spent years and/or decades studying the issue generally agree that humans are warming the planet. They don't ALL agree, but the vast majority of them do. Since I don't have the level of expertise that either side in that debate has, I save time by assuming that the larger group of smart people is the most likely group to be right. (Which is what everyone does regarding scientific issues that they aren't deeply passionate about.) And maybe they're not right... maybe the minority is. But latching on to, memorizing, and evangelizing their way-over-your-head technical arguments, not because you actually want to put the necessary time and training in to become a climate scientist, but simply because taking their position makes you feel like a cool rebel, seems kind of like a ridiculous waste of time to me.
My thoughts exactly. Btw, the US is probably the only country where the climate change-discussion turned into the typical Left vs Right debate (like every other issue). I am pretty sure that 99% of people who have an opinion on the topic didn't even study it for years. They pick a side depending on the other issues they support and then go with it.
My thoughts exactly. Btw, the US is probably the only country where the climate change-discussion turned into the typical Left vs Right debate (like every other issue). I am pretty sure that 99% of people who have an opinion on the topic didn't even study it for years. They pick a side depending on the other issues they support and then go with it.
I think it has turned into a left vs right debate in Australia and Britain but the "right" is much smaller than here.
It's such a shame that we would be forced to use are resources more wisely from this whole climate change "fiasco".
That's not the reason the whole fiasco was being pushed. And wiser use of resources certainly would not be the result, if they managed to get the malleable masses behind it.
The human race is doomed unless we stop breeding like flies and creating perverse "economies," where the vast majority are enslaved for the ultimate wealth and power of incredibly few. There is nothing sustainable, or even minimally functional about the current stagnation that we've been in for over 10 years. We will remain locked in, until every scam is pushed to the ultimate limit, and the whole house of cards collapses. Not sure which is worse: continued stagnation as the working class loses more and more, or the collapse where at least something functional MUST rise out of the ashes of the "scam-economy" that the current power-brokers are pushing to the limit.
Like everything else in our current nation, Big Government wanted it to further control every movement any citizen might make, and Big Business wanted it because they make money by forcing change and then making money on all sides of the deal.
I know what I think of it, because it is the only graph I have seen that shows a decline in global temperatures, it must have been hard for these people to find...Icecap is a blog that is skeptical of global warming founded and run by Joseph D'Aleo.
The other temperature graphs I've seen all look pretty much like the one below.
I know what I think of it, because it is the only graph I have seen that shows a decline in global temperatures, it must have been hard for these people to find...Icecap is a blog that is skeptical of global warming founded and run by Joseph D'Aleo.
The other temperature graphs I've seen all look pretty much like the one below.
With the exception of the last five or so years, which your chart doesn't portray, the chart linked by nei is accurate from what I can see--except it only charts back about 30 years, not 130. The scales are wildly different, but both show ~0.3C change in temperature over that time period.
With the exception of the last five or so years, which your chart doesn't portray, the chart linked by nei is accurate from what I can see--except it only charts back about 30 years, not 130. The scales are wildly different, but both show ~0.3C change in temperature over that time period.
Ok, here is one that records into early 2011. The 5 year running mean in 1976 was at 0.0 ...By late 2010 it had increased to 0.7. More seriously temperature in the northern latitudes is increasing at a more rapid rate. It has risen a full degree since 1976.
^^^ good example of what I was talking about up at the top of the page
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.
