Thread: Dear climate change nonbelievers

Originally Posted by NAKED N00B

Imagine for a second that there was some piece of evidence brought forth which proved that the planet was warming and pollution was its root cause. Imagine that this piece of evidence also proved that the repercussions of ignoring the problem would be just as bad as Al Gore says.

What policies would you propose to fix it?

Even for those who believe in it - and see evidence, see the issues - and can differentiate between *evidence of a problem* and *bs* = they don't have solutions.

We cause elements of natural disruptions here - there - over there - and so on . . .a lot of things have taken their toll. But how to reverse it? End it?

That's much harder than being able to just recognize it.

Originally Posted by jambalaya

For starters there is no such thing as a climate changer non-believer. Yesterday it rained here today it is sunny. We cannot dispute climate change which is exactly why the term was crafted in the first place. So if you want to discuss global warming how about saying it instead of using the lame ass climate change term. Sorry, but I am sick of it. That being said, there is literally very little we can do about but go about reducing pollution without at the same time paralyzing economic growth. The greatest threat that we have are the developing nations. If we want to effectively reduce pollution we somehow have to help them raise their standards. I believe in going after the low hanging fruit first. The U.S. already has great standards. If everyone were able to do the same we would greatly reduce pollution.

Lung cancer has existed as long as lungs have existed. Therefore, cigarettes cannot possibly cause lung cancer. Right?

You can't argue a scientific topic with a three sentence bit of faulty logic.

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Science is testable hypotheses. If you can't test the hypothesis, it ain't science. So far, the argument is not that nature must be the cause of global climate change; the argument is that nature is the most likely cause. The burden of proof is on the folks who claim that somehow humans are responsible for the current change, and so far they haven't made the case. I'm with Lizzie on this one.

They've made a very compelling case, and I'm not sure what you're talking about with the testable hypothesis. You're not really suggesting that evidence has not been collected, are you?

Originally Posted by Matt Foley

Actually "What If" and "imagination land" is very "scientific".

Its a great place to start research...its NOT a great place to obligate hundreds of billions of dollars that you dont have and dump the debt onto future generations.

Originally Posted by VanceMack

Its a great place to start research...its NOT a great place to obligate hundreds of billions of dollars that you dont have and dump the debt onto future generations.

Nobody is suggesting we obligate hundreds of billions of dollars on a completely untested hypothesis. He's just asking what methods people would support if we assume for the sake of argument that AGW theory is correct.

Side note: I will agree with the sentiment that "non believer" is not an accurate term for AGW skeptics, any more than "believer" is an accurate term for AGW proponents.

Speaking of Gore, did he ever do any time for beating up those hookers in a cheap hotel or did he just pay them off? LOL

Originally Posted by VanceMack

Its a great place to start research...its NOT a great place to obligate hundreds of billions of dollars that you dont have and dump the debt onto future generations.

Well this is a what if topic, and I like science fiction.

Even for those who believe in it - and see evidence, see the issues - and can differentiate between *evidence of a problem* and *bs* = they don't have solutions.

Why can't anyone stick to the topic?

I could tell from the first post where this thread was going.

A better question might have been, "What evidence would convince you of AGW?"

That aint the topic, the topic is what if it were real.

You know why nobody ever thinks this far ahead? Cause Global Warming isn't about solving problems and science, it's about politics. That's why it's impossible for anyone to stick to the topic.

Originally Posted by lizzie

With the history of warming and cooling period through the history of the earth, there's probably not much that would convince me. Climate change happens, regardless of humanity. Always has- always will.

I see all the money BIG OIL has spent on propaganda and teaching people fake science has been well spent...

People will actually ignore the majority of the worlds' scientists and listen instead to DOPES on TV.

I still can't believe that people think science is some form of capitalism...

Originally Posted by NAKED N00B

Imagine for a second that there was some piece of evidence brought forth which proved that the planet was warming and pollution was its root cause. Imagine that this piece of evidence also proved that the repercussions of ignoring the problem would be just as bad as Al Gore says.

What policies would you propose to fix it?

There was a famous study a few years ago that showed that conservative leaning people tent to stick even stronger to their beliefs even if they witness concrete and incontrovertible proof against what they believe in.

That's because beliefs are based on emotions and not reason. Asking nonbelievers, as you called them, which is what they are, to imagine a scenario where they are completely wrong about what they chose to believe in, is a waste of time.

The human-caused destruction of the environment, global warming and it's dire consequences were being brought to society's attention by scientists and academics since the early '70's or even earlier. It is unfortunate that conservative politics, and more specifically Republican financial interests, have been the major factor behind the exponential increase of environmental destruction in the past 40 years. It is even more unfortunate that so many people choose to dismiss reality and believe the conservative principle of destruction for profit, and dismissal of any long term consequences of human actions.

Originally Posted by Paralogic

There was a famous study a few years ago that showed that conservative leaning people tent to stick even stronger to their beliefs even if they witness concrete and incontrovertible proof against what they believe in.

That's because beliefs are based on emotions and not reason. Asking nonbelievers, as you called them, which is what they are, to imagine a scenario where they are completely wrong about what they chose to believe in, is a waste of time.

The human-caused destruction of the environment, global warming and it's dire consequences were being brought to society's attention by scientists and academics since the early '70's or even earlier. It is unfortunate that conservative politics, and more specifically Republican financial interests, have been the major factor behind the exponential increase of environmental destruction in the past 40 years. It is even more unfortunate that so many people choose to dismiss reality and believe the conservative principle of destruction for profit, and dismissal of any long term consequences of human actions.

Well - I think part of this issue centers around the facts *of* 'cause and effect'

(I'm not supporting any one theory or another) But everything can effect the earth - like the butterfly effect (butterfly flaps it's wings - etc) . . . things are strung together. Our activities as a whole group of people in large number (like a city population) produces a notable effect on it's surrounding area. For example: Smog - yes, we see smog - we know it's there - we see it's effect over the years on wildlife and people's health = it's an obvious truth. Very simple, very blunt.

In geology class we learned how A leads to Z - and it's all common sense, basic, simple stuff just like 'smog is bad for your health' - and it goes together, it makes sense and the evidence of G and Q are undeniable.

So the issue that I see is that people are only getting X Y Z - the end of the story. They're not getting anything that leads up to it - and I don't blame people for dismissing a plunket of 'endfacts' before they learn about everything else first. . . knowledge doesn't happen that way. To have acceptance you have to have full understanding of the processes in question.

To have full understanding someone needs to take *a lot of time* to truly understand A - Z of the events in question. . . along the way to learning about P and R someone might find out conflicting facts that lead them in another direction - or prove their initial beliefs and disproved other beliefs. But people have to *want* to take that time.