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.
Nah! I don't worry about such things. But who knows? Maybe I will when I get to that bridge to cross.
I don't worry about it either...as there is nothing that's going to wake humans up. Sadly we are already witnessing the negative effects of human caused climate change on Earth and among the plant and animal kingdoms.
I don't worry about it either...as there is nothing that's going to wake humans up. Sadly we are already witnessing the negative effects of human caused climate change on Earth and among the plant and animal kingdoms.
I greatly appreciate your contributions...but I think far from there being nothing done to wake humans up, it's just a matter of not getting the information across. I've watched many hours of videos about global warming, but still considered the global warming skeptics as possibly correct. I intend to research this more and go over your posts in more detail than I've done. I've only glanced at them. I've heard possible explanations like climate change could be due to changes in the sun (not the sun turning into a red-giant, but the sun just, sort of, changing). I believe you might have talked about that earlier. You don't need to repeat your statements.
I think there are a lot of people out there like RayinAK, who focus on working 60 hours per week and don't think about much else outside their families...and those are the people with internet access. The people without internet access will oftentimes just trust these matters to the opinions of the authorities, and we have two different groups they perceive as authorities: the skeptics of man-made climate change, and the believers, so they're probably going to believe there's major disagreement about whether it's being caused by humans.
I've listened to several hours of videos and researched this a bit, and I've never found anything that was convincing enough to me to convince me that global warming is almost surely caused by humans. Often I was open to the arguments of the other side but didn't understand them enough to refute them.
I think this is a matter of lack of education, mostly.
I've heard possible explanations like climate change could be due to changes in the sun (not the sun turning into a red-giant, but the sun just, sort of, changing).
the skeptics of man-made climate change, and the believers.
I don't think you understand that science is skeptical, not deniers. Deniers of global warming have never been able to back up their denial with valid verifiable evidence. They just hop on the denial bandwagon for mostly political sided reasons. They truly don't understand even basic science, as global warming can be understood with a high school level of science education.
How difficult do you think it is for us to know the difference between the human caused CO2 and natural CO2?
I've listened to several hours of videos and researched this a bit, and I've never found anything that was convincing enough to me to convince me that global warming is almost surely caused by humans.
LOL! You most likely are watching videos manufactured by the coal industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
Often I was open to the arguments of the other side but didn't understand them enough to refute them.
What exactly are you having difficulty understanding?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
I think this is a matter of lack of education, mostly.
A high school level of science literacy is enough to understand global warming.
I'm speaking as someone who assumes there is almost no debate that a dangerous amount of climate change is caused by humans...but all that is, is an assumption. I intend to read every link in this thread. I'll comment on any criticisms I have of each after I'm done reading them. First up is the opening link of this thread:
Part one contains 6 smaller sections. Most of these sections will probably sound like liberal propaganda to anyone who is a conservative or libertarian and hears their entire political party insist that "the science is unsettled." The major flaw of these sections is that they don't contain very useful links. They just assert things. Section 3 does contain an interesting link to ideas from a man in 1896, but because that's difficult reading and not modern research anyway, I just skimmed it and assumed the emphasis of it just said something like "CO2 traps heat." I might have spent half an hour reading that otherwise. Section 3 of part one does contain 2 links one of those links leads to an Amazon.com book selling page, which just screams liberal propaganda. The other link leads here: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/w...te-change.html. That's not bad...but that article linked to doesn't do anything to explain away the possibility that China exaggerated climate change to hinder the United States' economy.
So, pretty much all of section 1 is probably destructive and makes part of my mind wonder if there generally is a liberal conspiracy exaggerating the effects of global warming. I wouldn't be surprised if THAT was designed by the oil companies. I think the biggest flaw was that the introductory sections lacked sufficiently informative links, in the same paragraphs that assertions were made.
#
Now, let's look at part 2 of the opening link. Part 2 consists of four sections.
Sections 1-3 are useless to me, because they either contain information I already know, or don't have links to information I don't know, so to me they look like oil company propaganda, designed to create the impression that there really IS a liberal conspiracy exaggerating the effects of climate change. Section 4 of part 2 is better...but then I find myself asking: "It seems like it would be pretty difficult to really tell that severe weather is the result of climate change. Weather is quite an unpredictable thing...."
So, part 1 and part 2 are mostly useless and probably benefit the oil companies, largely because all the propaganda-sounding assertions are put early, where the reader instantly sees them, and the useful information with the interesting links has been put near the ends of the sections.
#
Now let's look at part 3 of the opening link. Part 3 focuses on what should be done about it, but if all I have to go on is parts 1 and 2, there's no way I'm convinced anything should be done about it. In fact, I'm probably left with a strong impression that Bernie Sanders invented this whole thing as a way to scare people into voting democrat so he can turn the government into a communism and take all our guns, and have an excuse for the government to get more power. (not that I don't think Bernie would do that. I like Bernie. I'm just being sarcastic), and unfortunately, articles like that seem fairly common, so far as I've seen.
I have posted numerous credible links...perhaps you can start there.
Also search this thread for Matadora...you will find a closed thread titled Global Warming, Where are we at now? In that thread you will find several posts from me with credible verifiable evidence of human caused global warming.
I have posted numerous credible links...perhaps you can start there.
Also search this thread for Matadora...you will find a closed thread titled Global Warming, Where are we at now? In that thread you will find several posts from me with credible verifiable evidence of human caused global warming.
If I've looked at stuff by oil companies, they hid it decently (which makes sense that they'd do that). I have looked at a lot of things made by one or more Libertarian groups through. I think the arguments from those sorts of websites, particularly from the Heartland Institute, deserve to be looked into and refuted because half the country will be conservative and will feel inclined to trust them, so that's largely why I've been watching their videos. It might take a high school education to understand global warming, but I think it takes more than that to refute all the arguments brought up by the aforementioned sorts of groups. The Heartland Institute has probably been the source of at least of at least a couple hours of videos I've watched. They're a Libertarian think tank. They have received donations from oil companies, at least according to Wikipedia, but the fact that they're Libertarian rather than working for the oil companies means that I think they'll be respected and trusted.
I'm not hugely educated in this area, but I'm no fool either. I took an environmental science course in college. In college I took a very interesting course about the history of environmentalism over the centuries. I also like to reads lots of scientific articles here and there, and probably am more educated than the average person regarding the sciences, so the way I see it, If I'm not yet completely convinced that climate change is destructive and its destructive aspects are mostly caused by people, and that is the case, America has a problem, and one it could solve through better education, it seems.
One example that comes to mind immediately about how I think we could be better educated is that, I've read in several sources that the methane produced by cattle is a big problem for climate change. The first thought that comes to mind is what's different about cattle than other organisms? I know land is cleared for them to graze, and that'll affect the climate. I'm aware that forests are carbon sinks...but I really didn't understand how much of an affect they might have until I watched one hour or so long video that mentioned that humans and their livestock and pets may compose as much as 98% or 99% of the biomass of vertebrates on Earth's land masses, and that was only one in many videos. To be fair, I just did a fifteen second search and found this: Are cows the cause of global warming? | Time for change, but that was recent. I wish I'd seen more stuff with that sort of information in past articles. I would have liked more information about why cattle could be so harmful in the same links as articles mentioning that cattle-raising is a hazard.
But thanks for the link. I'll look into that now...and I'll also read the other links on this thread. I haven't even gotten to that yet, except to skim a couple of them.
I greatly appreciate your contributions...but I think far from there being nothing done to wake humans up, it's just a matter of not getting the information across. I've watched many hours of videos about global warming, but still considered the global warming skeptics as possibly correct. I intend to research this more and go over your posts in more detail than I've done. I've only glanced at them. I've heard possible explanations like climate change could be due to changes in the sun (not the sun turning into a red-giant, but the sun just, sort of, changing). I believe you might have talked about that earlier. You don't need to repeat your statements.
I think there are a lot of people out there like RayinAK, who focus on working 60 hours per week and don't think about much else outside their families...and those are the people with internet access. The people without internet access will oftentimes just trust these matters to the opinions of the authorities, and we have two different groups they perceive as authorities: the skeptics of man-made climate change, and the believers, so they're probably going to believe there's major disagreement about whether it's being caused by humans.
I've listened to several hours of videos and researched this a bit, and I've never found anything that was convincing enough to me to convince me that global warming is almost surely caused by humans. Often I was open to the arguments of the other side but didn't understand them enough to refute them.
I think this is a matter of lack of education, mostly.
Not necessarily true. Every person has his of her individual priorities in life, for we aren't programmable machines that follow a collective pattern. If I worry about things I can't control-such as nature, that is just wasted time from my priorities in life. There is only so much I can do to lead this short life of mine. One of the best things for your health, and something that probably must of us don't have the luxury to do, is to enjoy each day to its fullest along family and friends. To me, worrying about things I can't control takes time from real life, and as I get old I realize that life is short.
The type of argument Tyson is making in the video above is what is known as the coherentist theory of truth. He's using it to smokescreen the fact that his broader position is little more than a very simple consensus fallacy.
Unfortunately for him, Coherentism is no longer tenable as a theory of knowledge. Any reading of the history of science disproves his argument, given that consensus frameworks are built upon a priori assumptions that even single studies can refute.
Neil de Grasse Tyson is knowledgeable in his field, but when he talks about the theories of justification, he's out of his depth.
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.
