Climate Change Denial: Why?

a reply to: pthena

That's not so funny after all, I feel you. Which is precisely why I had to mock the fact, that highly specialised, but in this context sadly irrelevant, credentials are even mentioned.

Emotionalizing (or personalizing) topics is actually doing more harm than good, with regards to the quality of the debate. Stating this fact might help to bring the discussion back to an objective level, which is precisely why I brought it up.

Anyway. You've probably got that drift as much as I see the problem with all this propaganda involved, which isn't so funny at all. At least not in a non-retarded and happily funny way.

a reply to: pthena

Perhaps...but then I always tend to point out the argument that the earth doesn't exist with only human life in mind. It's the collective human narcissism that makes us think that conditions must remain exactly one way for all of eternity or else the world is ending.

Our species may not exist in 10,000 years, or we may still be flourishing, or we may have moved on to another planet or start system by then. Neither you nor I can predict that at all, and what may be unlikely doesn't mean that it won't happen. But I'm very confident that when I'm dead and gone and my grandchildren are adults, they will look back on the AGW alarmists with nothing but disappointment that humanity can so collectively lose its mind over something that I'm highly convinced is nothing but a part of the earth's natural cycle (except maybe slightly affected by humans over the last few thousands of years).

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You have it backwards, the future will look back at those who ignore the warning signs that we are f- ing up this planet as a major disappointment to humanity.

We are responsible for close to a 50% rise of CO2 levels, to pretend like this is not is freaking retarded.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Oh, I am familiar with "Garbage In = Garbage Out" extremely well, both as an engineer and as an ATS member!

Those are the same questions I have been asking literally for years. I keep getting answers that link to conclusions. At some point, I finally figured out most people don't understand the difference. They also apparently don't understand some other things:

• An engineer is an engineer is an engineer, A mechanical engineer is better at mechanics, but he still understands the basics of aerodynamics or electrical.
  
• The difference between a scientist and an engineer is the difference between theory and application. Most scientists know a good bit about engineering and most engineers understand a good bit of science.
  
• We are human too. No scientist or engineer is right 100% of the time; we just normally try to make sure the final experiment or device works. We interpret data in light of what we know, and (hopefully) are ready to reinterpret if shown problems.

None of us are gods, or perfect. We just have a deeper insight into how things work. And we want actual DATA!

TheRedneck

a reply to: jrod

We are responsible for close to a 50% rise of CO2 levels, to pretend like this is not is freaking retarded.

Sorry, but 50%? Where is that number coming from?

TheRedneck

I just want that our descendants will be able to say, "Well, they did at least what they thought might help."

a reply to: TheRedneck

Starting point of CO2 was 280ppm, now we are over 400ppm and rising.

Source: NOAA

I'm not going to link the site, you can look it up your self.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Those who advocate and those who deny climate change are equally fools because whether you believe or don't believe something does not create or negate its existence. If the climate changes, it changes. If it doesn't, it doesn't. What it comes down to is if the neurotic minds of people of the world can just accept reality for what it is and stop making so much noise over things they can't start or stop.

So just relax. If you'd stop allowing your mind to run rampant with all these conceptions of right and wrong you just might come to realize that no matter what happens in life everything ultimately ends in peace.

a reply to: EviLCHiMP

I get that - all the "everything is exactly like it is supposed to be at all times."

I agree with it.
I just wanted to have a conversation - and there is no harm in recruiting others to think things over. Just ignoring it instead of doing whatever we/you can to minimize it isn't my gig.

At all.

It reminds me of religious people who say, "Well, it's all predetermined. No matter what I [we] do, there's nothing that's going to stop this horrendous sequence of events ---- and then ......

JESUS WILL COME BACK! So, I don't give a toss."

Yeah - carry on with that way of thinking....
I prefer to not do that.

If that's okay with you.

a reply to: jrod

Source: NOAA

I'm not going to link the site, you can look it up your self.

There's a big difference between standing around asking "Where's the beef?" and walking over to the fridge and taking a look.

We're trying to get a young'un to break her habit of lying on the couch with the tv remote three feet from her hand and saying, "Would somebody get me the remote?"

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

They are really coming out of the wood works to 'debate' you on the topic.

It really is an interesting case study of those who can't accept what science is telling us. The sad part is it seems like more Americans are rejecting science because of clever disinformation tactics being used by those who profit greatly from selling fossil fuels to the masses. To curb the rising CO2 problem we need to use alternative energies, this will hurt their profits.

a reply to: jrod

Exactly my thinking. Thanks for stopping by.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Ever tried to explain something new to a person with a strong and opposite opinion, while he holds a high self-esteem and confuses geology with algebra, engineering or electromechanics?

Quite frequently. That's the frustrating part.

I'm pretty bright myself according to some other people, but I wouldn't expect anyone else to accept my irrelevant credentials in science, arts or school for a debate regarding climate change.

Never underestimate your credentials. Anyone can learn anything if they want... all they need to do is listen, consider, and read. I have learned quite a bit from other members on here concerning Global Warming. I listen, do some reading on the subject, then consider. Sometimes it makes sense and I accept it, sometimes it is questionable and I try to find out if it is reasonable, and sometimes it makes no logical sense and I reject it. But I always consider it.

The consider part seems to be the major problem.

What's the point, why can't you folks with high self-esteem just stick to the facts and go for the ball instead? Or do you just try hard to reclaim lost ground in this discussion with big emotions, while appealing to hierarchy?

I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about here. Are you referring to me or someone else?

Frustrating? I think it's rather funny to see you folks getting frustrated about something like this thread. One has to wonder why you do what you do, while emotionalising politics (once again).

Now I am confused. Many people have expressed the reasons behind their frustration on this topic, and you consider it humorous?

While politics is inextricably aligned with and a major component of the Global Warming debate, I don't remember mentioning it explicitly in this thread. Can you show me where I have?

TheRedneck

a reply to: jrod

you don't actually read any other posts do you?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: EviLCHiMP

I get that - all the "everything is exactly like it is supposed to be at all times."

I agree with it.
I just wanted to have a conversation - and there is no harm in recruiting others to think things over. Just ignoring it instead of doing whatever we/you can to minimize it isn't my gig.

At all.

It reminds me of religious people who say, "Well, it's all predetermined. No matter what I [we] do, there's nothing that's going to stop this horrendous sequence of events ---- and then ......

JESUS WILL COME BACK! So, I don't give a toss."

Yeah - carry on with that way of thinking....
I prefer to not do that.

If that's okay with you.

It's not about caring or not caring, neither is it about doing nothing or doing something about it. It essentially comes down to one thing - is your rambling on about whether it exists or not exists going to make any difference in it existing or not existing?

What you're doing is propagating arguments, not solutions. If you wish to have a conversation with a public audience I'd suggest not taking such offense to other peoples opinions when they don't agree with yours. Passive aggressive insults are not the best way to stimulate positive conversation.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

AGW is a manufactured problem much like ISIS and "weapons of mass destruction". They were all propagated to further an agenda. Too complex to discuss here. Get educated and stop spending too much time on ATS, or watching mass media. The truth is out there...

Here is a simple construct for AGW: A red ant in a rubber; follow the money

a reply to: bladerunner44

wow. rude. Try reading. We're on....page 16.

a reply to: jrod

A quick check ('co2 280 ppmv') turned up the fact that pre-instrumentation estimates of carbon dioxide levels are 280 ppmv. This is based on air bubbles samples from the Antarctic.

If you believe that, then yes, it is close to a 50% increase. I'm not completely convinced of the accuracy of that estimate, but it is an estimate. I simply could not remember when it was measured at less than 380 ppmv.

Thank you for the information.

TheRedneck

a reply to: network dude

Wow...cute one liner.

I read a lot..much more than the average person, and I don't watch tv.

What is your purpose of posting many times on this thread?

Are you in denial that we are observing as increase of CO2 levels? Are you trying to deny that burning fossil fuels for energy is the major contributor to the CO2 spike? Are you trying to deny the concept of radiative forcing?

a reply to: TheRedneck

It was about 315ppm in the late 1950's.

Not sure where you pulled the 380ppm guestimation from.....regardless of the estimated pre industrial levels, no reasonable person can deny we are NOT observing a sharp increase of CO2 levels.