Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Convincing people that global warming is a real thing

123457»

Posts

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    nice, thanks dudes

    for the earth, it really is a blip anyway :P

    Yep, but for the earth, a mass extinction event is also a blip.

    troof

  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Spoiler:
    nice, thanks dudes

    for the earth, it really is a blip anyway :P

    Just to point it out again, as I assume you missed it since you hadn't seen the graph...

    It stops at 1950... something I didn't realize when I posted it... so the last sixty years of gradual temperature increase are not included.

  • BladeXBladeX Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Although the temperatures for the past 60 years not being included isn't nearly as big of a deal compared to the CO2 concentration not being included.

  • BladeXBladeX Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    To clarify to anyone who misunderstands me: I don't mean that the temperature change we are experiencing isn't a big deal, just on a graph like that a 0.4C change is going to be a tiny blip, unlike the CO2 concentration which is a fucking straight line up that goes off the graph.

  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    nice, thanks dudes

    for the earth, it really is a blip anyway :P

    Yep, but for the earth, a mass extinction event is also a blip.

    troof

    Hey, now. Mass extinction events aren't just a blip, there's been less than a dozen of them. Smaller scale extinction events are blips.
    BladeX wrote: »
    To clarify to anyone who misunderstands me: I don't mean that the temperature change we are experiencing isn't a big deal, just on a graph like that a 0.4C change is going to be a tiny blip, unlike the CO2 concentration which is a fucking straight line up that goes off the graph.

    It's expected that the minor change will result in more changes. For instance, as things toward the poles warm up and thaw a tiny bit, massive amounts of GHG are released from what is essentially huge piles of frozen, rotting vegetable matter. That's expected to accelerate things.

    Brave Frontier for Android and iOS. Final Fantasy-ish graphics/basic gameplay with a Puzzles & Dragons/Rage of Bahamut collection model.
    My referral code is: 81123930, which gets you a thing to level your guys.
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some countries like Russia might benefit, and the western countries should be able to deal with it. The developing countries are going to be really, really fucked.

    Russia might have short-run benefits but the long run stuff is just as bad for them as anyone else. (And the Russians, god bless them, are really not prepared to take advantage of any benefits they might reap, on account of being Russia)

    I seriously think people (specifically Americans like myself) overestimate how useful global warming is to Russia, even in the short run. We're talking, figuratively, one year of benefits and an eternity of consequences.

    As fun as it is to think that it's all part of some nefarious Asiatic communist conspiracy--that line of thinking served us in the free world well for 75 years, if not longer--in reality a lot of Russian scientists (you know, those guys who put people into space and pioneered laser eye surgery and other useless crap) are pretty terrified of the potential effects of huge reserves of methane being released from warming tundra, of which Russia (and to a lesser extent Canada) has vast tracts of.

    Of course, the Russian government enjoys its own paranoia about us, doesn't see eye-to-eye with scientists on the matter (they have skeptics too, duh), so it's likely only to get worse. And our deep-ingrained love of blaming everything, including sunspots and cavities, on Russia and its allies isn't going to work the same magic in environmental matters as it does military. Right now, we're basically two dicks trying to pretend neither one of us in dicks when it comes to littering--huge industrial infrastructure and millions of tank-size cars, for example.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some countries like Russia might benefit, and the western countries should be able to deal with it. The developing countries are going to be really, really fucked.

    You see of course why Al Gore has to tell the west we're doomed. People at large won't give a shit if you tell them ten million africans will die.

    I'd like to think I'm being cynical, but it's likely true.

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    By couching the conversation in green tech and business we're still making the environmental problem subject to business and human posited heirarchies of concern. Talking about green business and creating jobs puts perpetuating this economic system first and solving global environmental concerns second.
    In the case of greenwashing I'm right with you, but there's a lot to be said for having an economy that doesn't conflict so badly with natural processes the way ours does currently.

    I used to think the way you do, but Deep Green attitudes freak people right the hell out. They're useful for shifting debate frames at present, but you have to have a strong element of utilitarianism in current discourse if you want a hope in hell of enacting measurable improvements in how we live.

    Example: A mountain town in Aus* recently banned the sale of bottled water, the first place to ever do so. It wasn't out of some dedication to the environment - although the wastefulness of the industry was a factor in the decision - they just didn't want to be ripped off by paying a 300% markup on a product that would have been produced near them. The impetus for the decision was a water-bottling company trying to set up a factory in town, which made the local people realise just how idiotically wasteful the entire industry is. Even the local shopkeepers support it, despite acknowledging that they will lose money over the ban.

    Their actions have had a knockon effect too, now the NSW state government is acting to stop selling the stuff within public service workplaces. There's plenty of deep green attitudes buried in the decision, but its mostly people putting their foot down over a flagrant scam. Bottled water hasn't really been regarded as a ripoff by any but nettle-munching hippies until recently. Its only now that people are thinking more about supply chains and resource management that the waste is becoming obvious.

    Deep Green gets people thinking, but Losing Money gets them moving.

    *well as far as we get mountains, they're really just big hills :P

    tmsig.jpg
  • elkataselkatas Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    TexiKen wrote: »
    If you talk down to people and jump to end of the world conclusions about global warming, people will ignore it simply because individuals don't like to be talked to that way. Whenever someone says I have to act now or we're all doomed, they're no better than a used car salesman.

    Indeed. I would dare to say most aggressive / naive / boneheaded green activists have actually hurt process instead of helping it. Decades of hyberbole, sensationalism, narrow view of politics, and holier than thou attitude have alienated common man, and even some of those who are more educated. For example, Greenpeace has lost many of its most brilliant minds thanks to its own members idiotic actions. But how to things back on their track? I don't really know. You can inform people in non-sensationalist way, but it only works only to some extent. Furthermore, it will take years for even the best campaigns to truly take root.

    Hypnotically inclined.
  • Buddy LeeBuddy Lee Registered User
    edited July 2009
    I think a lot of people simply disagree with the term "global warming." The argument that I hear a lot is that Earth has naturally gone through warming and cooling cycles, so trying to prove that we are causing the recent heating of our planet is impossible.

    So what I do is say something like, "Okay, well, do you agree that too many CO2 emissions are harmful to the planet? I mean, that has pretty much been scientifically proven, right?" And usually they agree with that.

    So I say something like: "Alright, well, shouldn't we try to reduce the amount of CO2 that we emit so that we stop damaging our planet? I see that there is no way to prove that our CO2 emissions are causing the heating of the earth or if it's just a natural cycle that the earth is going through, but these excessive CO2 emissions are definitely not a good thing, so why don't we try to reduce them?"

    Join Penny-Arcaders in EPL Fantasy Futbol! Click to see details.
    Spoiler:
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    What really sealed the deal for me is when I took a Historical Geology class. I had never thought about how all the CO2 that has been released into the atmosphere had been locked underground for millions of years until very recently.

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Believing that global warming is occurring and that humans are playing a role is not the same as believing global catastrophe for the human race as a result.

    A lot of scientific evidence points to it occurring. The fiction starts to creep in when discussing the consequences.

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Believing that global warming is occurring and that humans are playing a role is not the same as believing global catastrophe for the human race as a result.

    A lot of scientific evidence points to it occurring. The fiction starts to creep in when discussing the consequences.

    Yes, I agree with KevinNash.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Believing that global warming is occurring and that humans are playing a role is not the same as believing global catastrophe for the human race as a result.

    A lot of scientific evidence points to it occurring. The fiction starts to creep in when discussing the consequences.

    Yes, I agree with KevinNash.

    I know I've got no idea what to expect.

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Believing that global warming is occurring and that humans are playing a role is not the same as believing global catastrophe for the human race as a result.

    This is kinda key for me.

    It's pretty obvious that there is a negative, man-made impact on our environment and ecosystems. The extent of that may be debatable, but the fundamental truth behind it is pretty clear. It makes absolutely no sense (to me) to continue treating our planet the way we have, but it seems like too many of the solutions are either:

    A) Completely knee-jerk
    B) Motivated by profit, rather than results
    and/or C) Propagandist

    The fact that so many new ideas are relatively quickly derided by others within the pro-action community also complicates things. A common argument from the opposition is that "nothing is good enough" -- a glaring example is the stupid corn-based ethanol bandwagon that was rushed upon and then burned to the ground in a matter of a few years.

    I think it would be much more productive to come up with concrete solutions before implementing them rather than the currently apparent M.O. of flinging shite at a wall. It's far too sensationalist right now, and you end up with people flocking to an idea that "must be done NOWZOMG!" before realizing that the effects may be just as harmful as inaction (like the idea of trashing old cars for newer, more fuel-efficient ones).

    Getting people to realize and enact simple solutions in their own lives is important, as well... but they need to be reasonable. Convincing people they can actually do something goes a long way toward changing their minds. Making it feel like an oppressive government action (in the eyes of those already opposed and not needing fuel for their fire) makes it seem more politically motivated than anything.

    ---

    Hmm... I'm going to stop there, as I may just be ranting. I've been reading Joyce lately... I think the stream-of-consciousness style is rubbing off on me. ><

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    A lot of that comes from people wanting all the answers NOW, rather than when they become available, and the fact that there are a lot of massively ignorant eco-zealots, many of whom are being manipulated by people with hidden motives, like the racist faction in the Sierra Club.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    First off, the corn-ethanol movement was driven much more by politicians than it was by the 'green movement.' The knowledge that it was an energy loser has been around for a loooong time.
    Getting people to realize and enact simple solutions in their own lives is important, as well... but they need to be reasonable. Convincing people they can actually do something goes a long way toward changing their minds. Making it feel like an oppressive government action (in the eyes of those already opposed and not needing fuel for their fire) makes it seem more politically motivated than anything.

    There's an Obama quote somewhere that illustrates this perfectly, in which he says look, global warming won't be fixed because I changed my fucking lightbulbs. It has to be a broad solution.

    It's hard to perfectly design a solution though, because while we generally agree that something is happening and it will probably have negative effects, we aren't sure what they are (and probably won't be until they are happening.) So the 'green' side argues for solutions that might well be over-reaching, and the other side uses it as an excuse to effectively do nothing.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    'we got hella people, they got helicopters'
123457»
Sign In or Register to comment.