How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[Gog]

This post exemplifies our pressing need to improve the quality of science education.

No, it says that we need to heat the planet by a whole lot more because noone should ever have to endure minus twenty!

There were a couple of things I remember from school science many moons ago and that is that if you blame cause and effect on something (for arguments sake CO2) and you produce significantly more of this substance in a period of time, (lets say 16 years) then surely the effect of doing that (heating as you insinuate) would accelerate rapidly.

Instead we haven't seen that from the data released. The weather changes. Get over it.

[Elegiac]

No, it says that we need to heat the planet by a whole lot more because noone should ever have to endure minus twenty!

There were a couple of things I remember from school science many moons ago and that is that if you blame cause and effect on something (for arguments sake CO2) and you produce significantly more of this substance in a period of time, (lets say 16 years) then surely the effect of doing that (heating as you insinuate) would accelerate rapidly.

Instead we haven't seen that from the data released. The weather changes. Get over it.

Which demonstrates ignorance of the corpus of data that does demonstrate a causative link between humans and climate change.

-Even- if it were not the case, the activities resulting in aggravated climate change also happen to damage the environment in more immediate ways.

[Deleted]

This post exemplifies our pressing need to improve the quality of science education.

Even if it was real, it's pretty minor. We've burned roughly half the oil now so if we burn the other half too, there's nothing more that will contribute to it. The world hasn't become unlivable now and conditions haven't gone worse so let's say we burn the rest and the average temperature goes up by a few degrees and maybe floods some or the areas by the oceans. It's not like it's going to be the end of the world.. people can just move further inland.

I'm much more worried about pollution, deforestation and otherwise killing off species than global warming.

[Elegiac]

Even if it was real, it's pretty minor. We've burned roughly half the oil now so if we burn the other half too, there's nothing more that will contribute to it. The world hasn't become unlivable now and conditions haven't gone worse so let's say we burn the rest and the average temperature goes up by a few degrees and maybe floods some or the areas by the oceans. It's not like it's going to be the end of the world.. people can just move further inland.

I'm much more worried about pollution, deforestation and otherwise killing off species than global warming.

You're forgetting coal, the methane produced by livestock, the byproducts of manufacturing, etc. It's not just petroleum and its derived products.

Again, even a few degree rise in the average temperature can have significant effects besides flooding. Disruptions of agriculture, for one thing, and even the extinction of species that are unable to adjust to the ecological shifts.

[Grizzly Willy]

Global warming is like aliens or forest trolls coming to get you at night. It's all superstition and there is no real evidence. It's -20c outside, where's the warming?

You're not seriously presenting local evidence for a global phenomenon, are you?

[semaphore]

Global warming is like aliens or forest trolls coming to get you at night. It's all superstition and there is no real evidence.

Except for all the mountains of real evidence that you just ignored. It's like refusing to believe dogs exist while petting a puppy.

---------- Post added 2012-12-21 at 11:36 PM ----------

Even if it was real, it's pretty minor. We've burned roughly half the oil now so if we burn the other half too, there's nothing more that will contribute to it.

In addition to what Didactic has pointed out about your blindness to non-coal emissions, we haven't even begun to experience the full consequences of burning "half".

[Deleted]

selective logic/memory

[Elegiac]

In addition to what Didactic has pointed out about your blindness to non-coil emissions, we haven't even begun to experience the full consequences of burning "half".

Mmm...Semaphore said my name. Sexy.

The reasons for not believing in anthropogenic climate change:

1) Doublethink
2) It's fashionable to be a conspiracy theorist
3) Some people have difficult comprehending anything past the next electoral cycle
4) Being paid off by energy companies

[semaphore]

Instead we haven't seen that from the data released. The weather changes. Get over it.

Yeah well if you are going to ignore the evidence.

[Kasierith]

You're not seriously presenting local evidence for a global phenomenon, are you?

I had a disagreement a few weeks ago with someone who insisted that anecdotal evidence is infinitely more reliable than scientific experiments since scientists can't comprehend how normal people think.

[semaphore]

Mmm...Semaphore said my name. Sexy.

The reasons for not believing in anthropogenic climate change:

1) Doublethink
2) It's fashionable to be a conspiracy theorist
3) Some people have difficult comprehending anything past the next electoral cycle
4) Being paid off by energy companies

That and the anti-science propagandists are very, very good at misleading people.

I had a disagreement a few weeks ago with someone who insisted that anecdotal evidence is infinitely more reliable than scientific experiments since scientists can't comprehend how normal people think.

Would have been a scathing indictment of the education system. But then its anecdotal! Oh dilemma :<

[Elegiac]

I had a disagreement a few weeks ago with someone who insisted that anecdotal evidence is infinitely more reliable than scientific experiments since scientists can't comprehend how normal people think.

Scientists aren't people. Neither are politicians, or anyone who disagrees with my agenda.

[Rommon64]

I had a disagreement a few weeks ago with someone who insisted that anecdotal evidence is infinitely more reliable than scientific experiments since scientists can't comprehend how normal people think.

Than you'll just love the guys over at Conservapedia (Made because they thought Wikipedia had a liberal bias) They think 'the best of the public' are better than experts. /eyeroll

[Rinoa]

I see a lot of people mentioning that they 'believe' in something, which does not seem right when the topic at hand is scientific. Would it not be better to say that you have looked at the evidence - of which there is a substantial amount - and come to a objective and evidence based conclusion?

[ringpriest]

Than you'll just love the guys over at Conservapedia (Made because they thought Wikipedia had a liberal bias) They think 'the best of the public' are better than experts. /eyeroll

Last I checked, Conservapedia's been taken over by people parodying conservative points of view. (I'm not sure it was ever actually serious.)

[Ragedaug]

Mmm...Semaphore said my name. Sexy.

The reasons for not believing in anthropogenic climate change:

1) Doublethink
2) It's fashionable to be a conspiracy theorist
3) Some people have difficult comprehending anything past the next electoral cycle
4) Being paid off by energy companies

5) The agenda of the people championing it.

(you left that one out)

The green movement was taken over by the communists/socialists a while back. When you look at the agenda/manifesto of the green movement it has more to do with politics & economics then anything to do with the environment.

When you see that the green movement suggests the US sign a treaty that would cripple it's industry, while not requiring countries like China to do a thing, it makes people suspicious. On top of that you have the fact that Global Warming & Global Cooling & Global Climate Change have predated man and warming & cooling cycles have swung more rapidly then we are seeing now, people have a right to doubt the conclusions drawn at the provided data.

[Ragedaug]

And the cycle continues. Semaphore was right, this post/thought process gets recycled about every 10 pages.

You didn't know that? These threads continue to cycle as does the information in them. How much information do you think there is on the subject that hasn't been covered ad nauseam yet?

Observation from page 1:

this thread again...

[Kardezar]

Hey man, I believe in Global Warming too. However, I live in Canada and wanted to point out, in the olden days, most municipalities would collect the snow from the road and dump it in people's front yard. Nowadays, it is hauled out to designated sites. Has something to do with preventing overflow into the sewer system when summer hits, I am not 100% on the exact reason why but wanted to point out that, likely, that is the reason why you do not have large mounds of snow in your front yard any-more.

Here in Maine i also used to have large mounds of snow in my yard. That was because i live at the end of a terrace and all the snow gets plowed there. I'm not saying global warming does or doesn't exist, but it's worth noting that its December and the snowfall usually picks up steadily by February.

[Arkenaw]

Global warming is fine with me. I hate cold weather.

[Deleted]

I hope this isn't too much of a necro, but I saw this recently and it ties in with this thread:

Basically the Met office in the UK has re-forecast it's temperature predictions in the UK as the two graphs below show:



It goes to the point I was making before (somewhere in the depths of this thread) it's happening BUT we need more information and better models before you can sell everyone on it because the reality isn't living up to the horror stories we've been sold.

I'm sure it's part media hype, people looking for headlines and misreading reports but if there's a job to educate people, it's not happening.