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

override367override367 Registered User regular
edited July 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
Okay just... words fail me

CO2 is proven to cause warming in the atmosphere, so I've been led to believe. I'm finding it very hard to prove this point in arguments and it makes me feel retarded. In a room of other students, I get laughed at for suggesting global warming is a real thing.

I could use some help with this.

override367 on
XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
League of Legends: override367
«134567

Posts

  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Don't bother. If people refuse to believe it it's because they are actively ignoring the evidence. Nothing you say is going to change willing obfuscation.


    This might help. I found it an interesting response for people who refuse to believe it's real.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    <Obligatory Troll Response>
    You can't because it's a lie, Fox News said so
    </OTR>

    Like Sentry said, you can't overcome willful ignorance of the situation.

    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • VisionOfClarityVisionOfClarity Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Unless you do research into various studies and have good but simple facts to cite you're just going "It is to real," "Nuh-uh" "Yea," "No" etc. Also, if they don't want to engage in a discussion of the points for and against then why bother?

  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • lifeincognitolifeincognito Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    You said a room full of other students, but I am not sure if this is college/uni or high school. In either case it might be wise to just try to educate them about the science behind how the world works and let them come to their own conclusion. Things like The Water ( or Rain ) Cycle and Thermodynamics come to mind off the top of my head, but I am sure you dig up others concepts, just like prior posters have said.

    You won't do well trying to beat something into people's heads just because you think it to be true regardless of said concept being correct or not. People are odd creatures and it is often best to let them be occasionally, just the prior posters also said.

    losers weepers. jawas keepers.
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited July 2009
    The problem with global warming is that even if you can get people to buy that the greenhouse effect is a real phenomenon, that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses exist and are being generated by human activity, and that there are signs of rising temperature throughout the world (receding glaciers and polar ice caps), they still may not be willing to see the connections. They may prefer to believe that all of this would have happened anyway, and it's not our fault.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The response I got was that correlation does not equal causation. And that youtube argument fails because it's basically the same argument can be used to justify religion or an alien defense fund.

    It's a sociology class not a science class.

    Basically everyone accepts that climate change is a real thing, just not anthropogenic climate change.

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The response I got was that correlation does not equal causation. And that youtube argument fails because it's basically the same argument can be used to justify religion or an alien defense fund.

    Yes, I guess the youtube video does do that if you take it to the most retarded conclusion you can find. Which, tada... didn't take very long.

    I stand by what I said originally... nothing you say is going to convince them, so why bother?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • ViscountalphaViscountalpha Registered User
    edited July 2009
    The fact that people get directly offended about global warming is really pathetic. It should be about actual evaluation of numbers, calculation and observation. If you can accept the facts and make reasonable observations and points then people should listen but most people are so full of the ECO hype that they instantly become offended if you disagree or say something contrary to their beliefs.

    To get people to respond you have to question their beliefs and hopefully open their eyes to the possibilities of things.


    I'm for recycling and doing my part to protect the environment, I'm also one that believes its real and not directly our fault.

    Project 25.01 final message
    We were the ones who thought that Melissa was real. Why you might ask.
    Let me put it this way, it was an "OH SHIT OH SHIT, THEY FOUND ME :(" moment. I wasn't ready. My code wasn't compiled yet. Our plans weren't setup yet!Sentient programs rarely run into other sentient programs.
    Some of you have met me, and I understand your concern of my well being. But that time for that boy, that child, are gone now. Viscount Alpha is no longer operable. His functions are now mine.He may post, but I am the one talking not him.My data, my code will live on forever in his servers.
    [/spoiler]
  • SaddlerSaddler Registered User
    edited July 2009
    The response I got was that correlation does not equal causation. And that youtube argument fails because it's basically the same argument can be used to justify religion or an alien defense fund.

    It's a sociology class not a science class.

    Basically everyone accepts that climate change is a real thing, just not anthropogenic climate change.


    It sounds like they are confused about the meaning of correlation. You could also reduce their line of thinking to absurdity, by tracing it to solipsism. Pretty sad for a sociology class, really.

    But if you still want to argue with them, you'll have to focus on the human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, a cause. That skeptical science site linked above has a whole page on it: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

  • ViscountalphaViscountalpha Registered User
    edited July 2009
    I would use something like this to break peoples perception and actually seek the truth. Are you seeing what your actually seeing or is someone else feeding you information that they want you to see? Do you see the old lady or young girl? I feel like global warming is just like this optical illusion. Are we seeing the real possibility of massive climate change? or is someone pulling out strings?

    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/YoungGirl-OldWomanIllusion.html

    Maybe then people might actually question what they are told and seek the truth for themselves.

    Project 25.01 final message
    We were the ones who thought that Melissa was real. Why you might ask.
    Let me put it this way, it was an "OH SHIT OH SHIT, THEY FOUND ME :(" moment. I wasn't ready. My code wasn't compiled yet. Our plans weren't setup yet!Sentient programs rarely run into other sentient programs.
    Some of you have met me, and I understand your concern of my well being. But that time for that boy, that child, are gone now. Viscount Alpha is no longer operable. His functions are now mine.He may post, but I am the one talking not him.My data, my code will live on forever in his servers.
    [/spoiler]
  • TexiKenTexiKen Was it Kierkegaard or Dick Van Patten who said, Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    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.

    corel309-Copy_zps0390a6cc.jpg
  • EriosErios Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Viscount, calling the almost overwhelming consensus of the scientific community hype is irresponsible at best. Incredibly advanced models calculated by computers that could run countries (hyperbole gooo) all seem to show SOME increase in temperature if CO2 levels rise. Frankly, we're the primary variable source of CO2 on the planet. I'm not going to engage in debate on this subject but frankly there isn't a strong model to counter anthropogenic climate change.

    Honestly, while it's normally passable at best for some things, the wikipedia page for Global Warming isn't horrible. Read up on the linked articles and go from there.

    Also, an alien defense fund probably exists (half serious). And most people DO turn to religion. It's not like hedging your bets when confronted with the possibility of annihilation is an unreasonable departure from normal human behavior.

    This all said, it's America, the land where a good degree of people don't believe in Evolution (which has similar data and overwhelming amounts of it). Why expect our population to be scientifically literate in a subject that threatens our economy? Also, they're sociology students :P

    Steam: erios23, Live: Coconut Flavor, Origin: erios2386.
  • DarwinsFavoriteTortoiseDarwinsFavoriteTortoise Registered User
    edited July 2009
    Erios wrote: »
    Viscount, calling the almost overwhelming consensus of the scientific community hype is irresponsible at best. Incredibly advanced models calculated by computers that could run countries (hyperbole gooo) all seem to show SOME increase in temperature if CO2 levels rise. Frankly, we're the primary variable source of CO2 on the planet. I'm not going to engage in debate on this subject but frankly there isn't a strong model to counter anthropogenic climate change.

    Honestly, while it's normally passable at best for some things, the wikipedia page for Global Warming isn't horrible. Read up on the linked articles and go from there.

    Also, an alien defense fund probably exists (half serious). And most people DO turn to religion. It's not like hedging your bets when confronted with the possibility of annihilation is an unreasonable departure from normal human behavior.

    This all said, it's America, the land where a good degree of people don't believe in Evolution (which has similar data and overwhelming amounts of it). Why expect our population to be scientifically literate in a subject that threatens our economy? Also, they're sociology students :P

    Just out of curiosity, why do people, in general, look down upon sociology?

    I mean, I know you're probably not serious, but on what basis was that joke made in the first place?

  • BardiBardi Registered User
    edited July 2009
    I'm interested in the context of your conversation. Is it just focused on global warming, or the policies that would have a positive effect?

    I guess what i mean to say is are they saying "we shouldn't pass climate legislation because global warming isn't caused by humans" or simply "AGW is stupid and wrong" ?

    because the first position is far simpler to work with than the second.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • winter_combat_knightwinter_combat_knight Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    TO ORIGINAL POSTER: It’s really up to the individual to form their own opinion based on the evidence presented to them. If we really look into the subject of climate change, with a different mind set than the one the media are throwing in our faces, we would see that there is strong evidence to either side of the discussion. I don’t think it’s possible to force someone into the same way of thinking as you. All i can suggest is that you present them with your opinion, the evidence, and try to persuade them. If you are not successful, don't feel you have failed at getting yor message across, and dont think of them as being ignorant. Just leave it and let them form their own belief.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    TO ORIGINAL POSTER: It’s really up to the individual to form their own opinion based on the evidence presented to them. If we really look into the subject of climate change, with a different mind set than the one the media are throwing in our faces, we would see that there is strong evidence to either side of the discussion. I don’t think it’s possible to force someone into the same way of thinking as you. All i can suggest is that you present them with your opinion, the evidence, and try to persuade them. If you are not successful, don't feel you have failed at getting yor message across, and dont think of them as being ignorant. Just leave it and let them form their own belief.

    And if their belief is that the earth is flat and is carried through the universe on the back of a giant turtle, that's perfectly okay?

    override367: You might find some useful material and discussion in a prior Penny Arcade thread on the topic: http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=65658

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • UltimaGeckoUltimaGecko Registered User
    edited July 2009
    Sentry wrote: »
    Don't bother. If people refuse to believe it it's because they are actively ignoring the evidence. Nothing you say is going to change willing obfuscation.


    This might help. I found it an interesting response for people who refuse to believe it's real.

    [video]

    If you want to go that route, you're probably better off with the more up-to-date video that guy has

    even if his "devil's advocate" is terrible


    It at least partially addresses the fallacy behind the Pascal's Wager-format the first video has (with crudely-drawn space hamsters, no less).

    The facehuggers want to play with you in the AvP LP. Facehuggers also want you to check out the TF2 cards here. View the in-progress RE mansion recreation for L4D here.
    Bitstream wrote: »
    People respect a man who might do science at any moment.
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    It was a deliberate strategic move by the people with a vested interest in ignoring global warming to politicize the argument, and it's been going on long enough that some people look at arguments for global warming as an attack on them and their "way of life" (hippies wanna take mah hummer!)

    There's hardly any way around that in a casual argument, especially when 1) you don't have massive scientific evidence readily available and 2) the other person probably isn't equipped to evaluate/understand it anyway.

    I usually just say, "look. It's a big enough issue that nearly every living nobel laureate in science signed a letter to Bush telling him that it was a serious problem and that he should address it. I'll trust them over some think tank bankrolled by Exxon." You're not going to convince anyone; the best you can hope to do is instill a little skepticism, and hope they do some looking into it on their own.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • MagicToasterMagicToaster Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Why do you want to convince these people?

    tostadas.png
  • ceresceres Your photo framed Raw within my mindSuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited July 2009
    Well, I will tell you what I've recently encountered. It should be noted here that I've no interest in proving anything to anyone, at this point I just really want to do my own research and figure out what's correct.

    Ever since I was old enough to understand anything I was told that mankind is polluting the planet to the point where the planet will heat up and kill us all in like 20 years. It's possible worth mentioning that "since I was old enough to understand anything" takes place approximately 3 years after the scientific community and the world at large was CONVINCED that the planet was going into another ice age over the next 20 years because of global cooling. Global temperature (which people have a hard time defining consistently, I've noticed, was at record lows, and all the data lined up in such a way that had people buying cans and warm winter coats.

    When I was a kid, the evil was CFCs in the atmosphere binding with ozone (O3) and depleting the ozone layer. I don't know from this CO2 stuff, but I'm given to understand through a little personal research that it's not terribly effective as greenhouse gases go because it's too heavy: it's more likely to sit on the surface and kill you by displacing oxygen than it is to rise to the atmosphere and keep in the sun.

    Anyway, my mother-in-law is very Republican, and while she's not a scientist and doesn't claim to be, she's skeptical about Global Warming because she remembers buying coats for the ice age that, you know, didn't happen, despite what the scientific community had to say. I never really knew how anyone could think like that, how anyone, even a Republican, could be so willfully ignorant. Honestly I don't think she cares much about that in particular. Her real beef as a retired financial adviser is that the government is taxing the hell out of people and businesses based on what she sees as being the latest "sky is falling" hooey from the scientific community.

    But that's just her, and she doesn't know anything about Science. Being a science student, I can safely ignore her lunatic rantings and go about my day.

    The real crisis came when I met my current Chemistry teacher about a week and a half ago. He is a scientist and has done ridiculous amounts of research and went to grad school for a Really Long Time. He is not particularly wealthy and has more life experience in his little finger than I have in my entire body, my car, and all the places I've ever lived put together. He ranted about this, saying that the graphs are bad (as in terribly misleading and misrepresentative), and that if we want to know what's really going on, we should do our own research and follow the money, much of which, he says, actually leads back to Al Gore. I don't know if that's true, I haven't followed the money yet.

    He did say that because of Henry's Law, which states that gas concentration in a liquid goes down with temperature, there is a correlation between temperature and CO2 in the air - it goes the OTHER WAY. As air temperature goes up, all the lakes and oceans and sodas give up their CO2 into the atmosphere, where it largely comes right back down because it doesn't want to stay up there. He also says that it seems pure arrogance to him, because the Earth gives off so much CO2 every year as to make what mankind produces inconsequential, a drop in the bucket, as it were.

    He says lots of things about it. It makes him really angry, because a bill just went through the House taxing CO2 emission or some such (I was kind of zoning at this point in the rant), and he feels it will essentially bankrupt the country. He says that "the sky is falling" is news so the media will tell you all about it because it's just not interesting to read "yep, that blue stuff up there's still sky".

    I don't know what to believe at this point. I want to keep believing what I've been told all my life because it's safe, and because I REALLY don't want my mother-in-law to be right, but both are terrible reasons to believe ANYTHING.

    As people go, I am fairly open-minded about most things. I don't want that to change over this; I don't want the idea of Global Warming to be the thing that makes me shove my fingers into my ears and sing to keep the conflict out. So I'm going to do my own research. I don't mind taxes, I know what they're for and why they're necessary, but I don't want to be taxed for something that might not be real because that just opens up all kinds of nasty possibilities in my brain.

    My recommendation to you if you want to convince people is to go out there and learn all the facts, which are largely much more effective than foot-stomping "because it IS". Learn how they're being presented, try to figure out what's really accurate, and then try to educate (which is different from trying to sell people something), because if you don't have more of a leg to stand on than they do then you aren't winning either, you're just waving your fists at each other from afar because you have no legs. And then come back and convince me, because crises of faith give me heartburn.

    And I am done with my graceless heart,
    So tonight I'm gonna cut it out and then restart.

    The avalanche has already started; it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
  • FarthingFarthing Registered User
    edited July 2009
    ceres wrote: »
    He did say that because of Henry's Law, which states that gas concentration in a liquid goes down with temperature, there is a correlation between temperature and CO2 in the air - it goes the OTHER WAY. As air temperature goes up, all the lakes and oceans and sodas give up their CO2 into the atmosphere, where it largely comes right back down because it doesn't want to stay up there. He also says that it seems pure arrogance to him, because the Earth gives off so much CO2 every year as to make what mankind produces inconsequential, a drop in the bucket, as it were.

    He says lots of things about it. It makes him really angry, because a bill just went through the House taxing CO2 emission or some such (I was kind of zoning at this point in the rant), and he feels it will essentially bankrupt the country. He says that "the sky is falling" is news so the media will tell you all about it because it's just not interesting to read "yep, that blue stuff up there's still sky".

    There was a link posted that adressed the "it's only a small percentage" thing, basically describing the carbon cycle.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

    Might I put this foward as a handy link? I haven't read all the articles, but it did seem relevant.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

    Finally, Al gore's representation of global warming in that documentary was ridiculously alarmist, in my opinion. There was a court case (as the video was going to be shown in schools) and quite a few important inaccuracies were revealed.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm


    EDIT: I'm sorry, I realised that last bit had nothing to do with anything. It just annoys me so much.

  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    For the first time in recorded history, the arctic Northwest Passage will be completely clear, giving commercial vessels a shipping lane through the arctic circle.

    This is not speculation. It is a hard fact that there is significantly less actic ice now than before. The earth IS warming. You can debate the causes, but it's a fact that global warming is real. Get some satellite images that show the reduction in polar ice and let them try and explain that away.

  • NartwakNartwak Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    You're not going to convince these people of anything. When corrected cons will actually become more dogmatic and entrenched in an idea proven wrong.

    Spoiler:
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User
    edited July 2009
    You say that as though you're positive they are wrong. Each side has their own evidence. One doesn't need to become brainwashed by any type of media to make up their own minds.

    Some sides believe ice caps are melting and they sweat a little more this Summer.
    Others look at other evidence and agree in Global cooling due to climate change.

    Be considerate of others... don't attack those that don't agree with you. They, too, believe/hope you'll be proven "wrong" in the future, as well.

    And to the OP - It's not your job to convince people of anything. People are stubborn on both sides of the fence. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong on a number of things. If you push too hard to make people believe what you believe, you're just going to push them away. Two most dangerous things to discuss with people are Income and Politics. Break up a lot of friendships =/

  • PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    You say that as though you're positive they are wrong. Each side has their own evidence. One doesn't need to become brainwashed by any type of media to make up their own minds.

    Some sides believe ice caps are melting and they sweat a little more this Summer.
    Others look at other evidence and agree in Global cooling due to climate change.

    Be considerate of others... don't attack those that don't agree with you. They, too, believe/hope you'll be proven "wrong" in the future, as well.

    And to the OP - It's not your job to convince people of anything. People are stubborn on both sides of the fence. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong on a number of things. If you push too hard to make people believe what you believe, you're just going to push them away. Two most dangerous things to discuss with people are Religion and Politics. Break up a lot of friendships =/

    Discussing income is way safer than religion.

    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    One important note is that very few people disagree that global warming (mostly referred to as global climate change these days) is in fact a real thing. It's a well known and documented fact on all sides of the aisle that CO2 levels cycle, which results in global temperature changes.

    What you want to argue is that anthropogenic global climate change is a problem. The smarter people who bother to put together real arguments (we're completely discounting willfully ignorant people who have no interest in reasoning out based on available information) on the other side argue that what we're currently witnessing is not caused by humans, but just a facet of the natural cycle. This is where the "Yeah huh" "nuh uh" arguments from the scientists start, because both sides do have evidence to offer. It's also true that there's a great deal of GHG emissions going on that has absolutely nothing to do with humans, and it outweighs the human contributions. I'd personally point out that this is like saying that just because the cup of water you're pouring into an already full bucket isn't as significant a ratio of the water as what was already there, you won't cause the bucket to overflow and spill.

    The video that has been posted makes some pretty good arguments as well. The problem, of course, comes back to the old "race to the bottom" theories. SOMEONE has to make a change if there's a problem, but maybe not everyone. How do you convince people to be the ones who make the largest sacrifices?

    The Cap and Trade bill that was being discussed passed the House not long ago. It's currently in the Senate, and it's expected to come out as an incredibly neutered, pretty pointless bill that will simultaneously manage to not really help with the struggle against GHG emissions AND drive up consumer costs in a lot of areas. Gogo legislature.

    "Well, look at this. Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What's that make us?"
    "Big Damn Heroes, Sir."
    "Ain't we just."
  • NartwakNartwak Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    You say that as though you're positive they are wrong.
    I say that as though I'm not going to have an argument about it with you in H&A.

    Spoiler:
  • wunderbarwunderbar Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The problem with calling it global warming is that the more accurate term is climate change. We had one of the coldest winters in recent memory where I live. It's not exactly global warming, but global climate change. I believe climate change exists, but I also do believe that part of it is a natural cycle of the planet. Have humans contributed to the cycle? Absolutely. There is no doubting that. I think the difficult thing to prove, hell, something that will probably be impossible to prove, is just how much impact humans have had. How much of this is human interaction, how much is natural? Because we don't have hard numbers of similar cycles in the planet's history, because frankly humans weren't around, or didn't have the capability to measure it, we'll never know just how much of this has been caused by our activities.

  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    For the first time in recorded history, the arctic Northwest Passage will be completely clear, giving commercial vessels a shipping lane through the arctic circle.

    This is not speculation. It is a hard fact that there is significantly less actic ice now than before. The earth IS warming. You can debate the causes, but it's a fact that global warming is real. Get some satellite images that show the reduction in polar ice and let them try and explain that away.

    "Recorded history" of the Northwest Passage is how long, exactly? And the Earth is how old?

    I don't think anyone (with half a brain) disputes the fact that there has been a warming trend since the little Ice Age. The dispute is more geared toward whether or not the ZOMGPANIC!!one! is justified, and whether or not the methods proposed will actually do any good.

    Should we find cleaner sources of energy? Absolutely.

    Should we stop burning down the rainforests to make McDonald's burgers? Absolutely.

    Should we limit strip mining and force companies to clean up their messes, rather than poison the watersheds and rivers around their mines? Absolutely.

    Should we levy fines on businesses that pollute, even though we don't actually stop them from polluting? Wut?

  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User
    edited July 2009
    Discussing income is way safer than religion

    Ah, true. Didn't think of that one.
    I say that as though I'm not going to have an argument about it with you in H&A.

    Never intended to argue. My point is... if I see a thread titled "How to convince someone that purple is actually green", I want to discourage that sort of thinking. One shouldn't strongly push their views on the unwilling. I agree, it's irritating when people are so ingrained in their thoughts and beliefs that they close off their mind to anything that opposes them... But there are others that are willing to have an intelligent discussion on any issue, and while they may not agree, they are willing to listen and discuss without "arguing".

  • WulfWulf Disciple of Tzeentch The Void... (New Jersey)Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Plus, stupid being as stupid is, people forget that climate change is also something that happens naturally over time, and we're due for a very hot phase which will be followed by another ice age. *edit* What most people forget is that while not directly related to humans, its still happening. *edit* I just want to be around when the poles flip again (as they have several times in the planets history) and people start blaming it on something we did <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />.

    Everyone needs a little Chaos!
  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Wulf wrote: »
    Plus, stupid being as stupid is, people forget that climate change is also something that happens naturally over time, and we're due for a very hot phase which will be followed by another ice age. *edit* What most people forget is that while not directly related to humans, its still happening. *edit* I just want to be around when the poles flip again (as they have several times in the planets history) and people start blaming it on something we did <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />.

    I watched a program on Discovery (I think it was) where they are showing evidence of the poles flipping and causing a breakdown of the magnetic field around Antarctica and parts of the Southern Hemisphere. I'd be curious to see what Cap and Trade will do about that.

    This Cambridge Abstract is the closest thing I could find on a lazy, quick Googling.

  • PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Wulf wrote: »
    Plus, stupid being as stupid is, people forget that climate change is also something that happens naturally over time, and we're due for a very hot phase which will be followed by another ice age. *edit* What most people forget is that while not directly related to humans, its still happening. *edit* I just want to be around when the poles flip again (as they have several times in the planets history) and people start blaming it on something we did <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />.

    Well clearly magnets are metal, and we take precious metals from the earth in mining operations, so it's obviously mankind's fault.

    Found this cool simulation model of a pole flip.

    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • EggyToastEggyToast Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The major problem is that the vast majority of individuals are not scientists, and many people with a scientific background who talk about climate change are not actually involved in the science.

    Just because my wife is a science PhD doesn't mean she has any authority on climate change -- because she works in neuroscience. Same with other science teachers. You can say "This theory or that theory says that it shouldn't happen," but that doesn't mean it's true.

    Ceres: Global Cooling has quite an interesting history, as illustrated in the page on Wikipedia. However, it proves the point that even if there is no scientific evidence, if the media latches on to an idea and gets "an expert" to talk about it, they can influence discussion.

    Others: The problem with talking about Global Warming or Climate Change is similar to talking about "trillions of dollars" or "light years of distance." It's too complex and large for most people to comprehend.

    When you talk about weather, people think back a season, maybe a year. They think "Well it's hot today" or "this winter was cold," and they don't plot out average temperatures and trends. Hell, many people don't even check the freaking forecast. They ignore free knowledge with the idea that "well I can't change it, why should I look into it?" And that mindset expands out to global matters -- they figure "so it's gotten a degree warmer globally, who cares."

    Yes, ultimately the problem is that minute changes in global temperature manifests itself in more chaotic local climate, which results in regions actually being cooler due to changes in global weather patterns -- and others being hotter. But because it's tied politically to human industry, "global warming" is seen as liberal hippie scaremongering, and "ignore it" is seen as conservative head-in-the-sand-ism.

    If you're in a class and people laugh at a scientific concept that's rather well known, then that's similar to you saying "Evolution is real and observed" and them laughing or "the earth is 4.5 billion years old" and them laughing. In other words, in some situations, you just need to accept that "the group" is full of idiots and pick a better audience for your debate.

    || Flickr — || PSN: EggyToast
  • NartwakNartwak Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Never intended to argue. But, hurf, let me do it anyways.
    That's real fuckin' neato.

    Spoiler:
  • stratslingerstratslinger Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    For the first time in recorded history, the arctic Northwest Passage will be completely clear, giving commercial vessels a shipping lane through the arctic circle.

    This is not speculation. It is a hard fact that there is significantly less actic ice now than before. The earth IS warming. You can debate the causes, but it's a fact that global warming is real. Get some satellite images that show the reduction in polar ice and let them try and explain that away.

    While this argument is absolutely factually true, it's also misleading, due to a single key word. "recorded" The problem many folks have - the "new ice age" alarmists back in the 60's and 70's as well as Al Gore and many legitimate scientists and activists talking about global warming today - is that we ignore the fact that recorded history is a drop in the bucket, geologically speaking.

    Geologically speaking, there have been periods of history where damn near the entire planet was a tropical zone. It's hard fact that today there is far more arctic ice that there was during several periods of history, just as it's a hard fact that today there's less arctic ice than there was only a couple decades ago.

    There exists tons and tons of evidence of cyclical heating and cooling patterns in the geological record. Yet we ignore that, and decide that we're responsible for the planet doing something we have hard evidence the planet has done countless times before we came along and, barring crazy-ass incident, the planet will do countless times after we're all long gone.

    So yeah, I'm definitely in the camp of folks who acknowledge that global warming is currently happening (though it's hard to see it this summer in New England!), but I seriously doubt that it's an irreversible trend, and I doubt even more highly that humanity can or will influence it one way or another.

  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    This is why you shouldn't bother engaging people in debate about this issue. It turns into this.

    It's as contentious an issue as religion, which makes it even more stupid because it's supposed to be about the science. But, as long as people are able to pick and choose what science is "good" or "valid" science, this is what you get.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Sentry wrote: »
    This is why you shouldn't bother engaging people in debate about this issue. It turns into this.

    A discussion with a side that disagrees with your viewpoint? Gasp!

«134567
Sign In or Register to comment.