My theory why people dismiss all scientific evidence on climate change.

[Kanaric]

In the 80s Al and Tipper Gore went on a crusade against music they themselves (well... horrible parents who had no business raising kids as well) deemed "offensive". Typical weak willed types who think their children are going to be brainwashed by media and need to be protected like precious snowflakes as we've seen more recently with video games. I shouldn't say weak willed as they are VERY strong willed in the loud ignorance they spout but I have no other word. Nannies perhaps? Whining disgusting slime golems of a bygone era?

There is a reason why a large number of people, at least in the United States, dismiss climate change. Smoking was gradually accepted to be bad. The Ozone issue with CFCs was accepted. DDT affecting birds was accepted. This is not so much.....

My theory is people associating this lying piece of scum with Climate Change. This human slime who gets elected through applause lines to knee jerk THINK OF THE CHILDREN idiots supporting it is all the evidence that many people need to dismiss the claims. Its what happens why you have someone that is loud and obnoxious selling a product. No matter how good your product is (90%+ of all scientsts agreeing and only engineers and people in unrelated fields or those directly working for affected corporations dismiss it.) people will not believe it. If someone hired OJ Simpsons for an ad campaign for the greatest product of all time it simply would not sell. That is PR suicide. That is Climate Change. That the people who speak for it have literally no credibility at all and they are in fact harming acceptance of this reality. The fact that the worst people (Al Gore) are the loudest doesn't help either. Neutral and liked mouthpieces need to speak for it and make movies/shows not crusading politicians and music/hollywood types, try scientists perhaps? People who work at Fermilab, NASA, Argonne? There will always be some idiots who will dismiss it but it does not help at all when a person that is a mouthpiece for idiots and idiocy speaks on the behalf of any logical conclusion. Al Gore has certainly set back political action on this issue at least 30 years at least on the federal level. Of course it doesn't help that Obama is in addition weak willed on every issue he supports aside from killing people with RPVs. Someone shouts in his direction and he collapses like some anemic meek little fool.

[Larkin]

A lot of people don't want to accept climate change as a reality for the same reason they refuse to stop believing in God despite scientific evidence. It's comforting for them to keep their own beliefs and hold them as true, and uncomfortable to have to give up your lifelong understanding of the world because of something you don't really understand given by someone you don't know. Someone could discover a meteor that will hit Earth within the next 25-250 years, and people would probably ignore it. "It won't happen during my lifetime" is a common sentiment for people who don't want to accept the truth.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Or they think climate change is because their congressmen from GOP South Carolina want the state to only consider climate science from the last 100 years and according to the science the beach and the ocean has always been there so it will continue to exist in the future. Makes perfect sense. And if the science says the sea is likely to rise by 39 inches - write a law that makes the rise a more manageable 8 inches. Brilliant.

[Flypurplehamster]

There’s no remotely economical way to stop it: any corporation isn’t going to spend more money on not using fossil fuels, because that would drive prices down, for all practical purposes taking money out of their own pockets and putting it in the pockets of competition.

So you can protest all you like, but until it’s in people’s best interest to stop using fossil fuels (which are a huge reason why we have that plethora of food we enjoy so much) they’ll keep doing it. Why shouldn’t they? The climate is a commons.

[CrayonVonCaesar]

Here you go:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Watermelons-.../dp/1849542171

The shocking story of how an unholy mix of junk science, green hype, corporate greed and political opportunism led to the biggest and most expensive outbreak of mass hysteria in history. Watermelons explains the Climategate scandal, the cast of characters involved, their motives and methods. He delves into the background of the organisations and individuals who have sought to push global warming to the top of the political agenda, showing that beneath their cloak of green lurks a heart of red. Watermelons shows how the scientific method has been sacrificed on the altar of climate alarmism. Delingpole mocks the green movement s record of apocalyptic predictions, reveals the fundamental misanthropy of green ideology, and gives a refreshing voice to widespread public skepticism over global warming, emphasising that the crisis has been engineered by people seeking to control our lives by imposing new taxes and regulations. Your taxes will be raised, your liberties curtailed and your money squandered to deal with this crisis, he writes. Delingpole argues that climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one. Green on the outside, red on the inside, the libertyloathing, humanity-hating watermelons of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it.

[nce_wht_guy]

uh-huh

[the_mango55]

It's very simple, My own home state (already mentioned) of North Carolina wants to deny sea level rise because news of rising seas will make it hard to sell condos and houses on the outer banks.

[motiv-8]

It's very simple, My own home state (already mentioned) of North Carolina wants to deny sea level rise because news of rising seas will make it hard to sell condos and houses on the outer banks.

Heh, remember when they had to relocate the Cape Hatteras lighthouse?

Anyway, my theory? Two-fold: One, that people as a general rule don't truly give a about something until it directly affects them or someone they love, so for example you're more likely to see belief in climate change among Bangladeshis who are witnessing their coastline and coastal islands slipping under the Indian Ocean than you will Middle Americans who will look at the snow outside in January and guffaw about all that climate hocus pocus. Two, with the pre-condition that most of the course of human history is incumbent upon economics, today it's still easier to sell the American Dream than it is green technology.

[Col. Tartleton]

New York City and used to be under kilometers thick glaciers a few thousand years ago.



From a climate perpsective:
The Sahara desert was a Savannah a few thousand years ago.
The Toba eruption for example damn near ed up the whole planet.
Yellowstone looks smaller but it's still going to be a day of reckoning.
From a list of things I should be more worried about:
An atomic war could break out any time.
A biological weapon could be deployed.
An asteroid could strike us effectively out of a clear blue sky.
And if I want to get personal I might get killed in a car accident or something.

I just think there's too many factors involved to assume it's human causation of warming, I don't see a clear enough understanding of the climate itself or how we're supposed to reverse or cope with this "warming trend" which isn't even universal. I don't see evidence that we are going to be able to further our human civilization if we are sabotaging our economies through totalitarian means.

I'm glad we banned CFCs, because CFCs clearly interfere with the Ozone layer and increase the amount of radiation we're exposed to globally. That's backed up by skin cancer rates and the like although given we've fixed the problem I think we're probably a little alarmist on that front.

However with the whole "Global Warming" thing we're talking about "pollution" like Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapor. I breathe out carbon dioxide and water vapor... So according to climatologist I'm harming the environment by being alive? No, that can't be what they're saying.



Oh, that is what they're saying...

See, Petroleum is a hydrocarbon... Hydrogen and Carbon. Add some oxygen and it turns into CO2 and H2O. That's why cars take air into the cylinders.
Sort of like how Sugar is a Carbohydrate. Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon. Add a little more Oxygen and you get CO2 and H2O. Which is why we breath...

No wonder everyone's about my sugar intake. Sugar is like oil. It's evil. Really what is our digestive system but an internal combustion engine? So what am I but a self moving vehicle. You could call me an automobile... What's next? Cash for Clunkers? Cash for Geezers? 500 bucks a euthanasia to cut down on the elderly?






Admittedly there's an Alex Jones bit in this video, but he's probably right.

Environmentalism is the death of Humanism.

[gaunty14]

New York City and used to be under kilometers thick glaciers a few thousand years ago.
From a climate perpsective:
The Sahara desert was a Savannah a few thousand years ago.
The Toba eruption for example damn near ed up the whole planet.

From a longer viewpoint, Antarctica used to be a giant forest (80 million years ago). The Sahara Desert used to be the seadbed of the Tethis Ocean (30 million years ago)

People who deny climate change regardless of whether its casued by humanity are morons

(Im not saying you are by the way, I'm just using your post to make a point )

[Sphere]

Pretty sure this is all Canada's fault.

[frozenprince]

Pretty sure this is all Canada's fault.

Man, we all know everything is Canada's fault. Why can't they just stick to being what their good at?

[MathiasOfAthens]

New York City and used to be under kilometers thick glaciers a few thousand years ago.

From a climate perpsective:
The Sahara desert was a Savannah a few thousand years ago.
The Toba eruption for example damn near ed up the whole planet.
Yellowstone looks smaller but it's still going to be a day of reckoning.
From a list of things I should be more worried about:
An atomic war could break out any time.
A biological weapon could be deployed.
An asteroid could strike us effectively out of a clear blue sky.
And if I want to get personal I might get killed in a car accident or something.

So because there are other more scary what-ifs we shouldnt worry about a possibility most of the planet could become uninhabitable?

Man, we all know everything is Canada's fault. Why can't they just stick to being what their good at?

You didnt get the point did you? When people say "Blame Canada" it means people place blame on anything or anyone but themselves.



The original song was about how American Parents dont blame themselves for how their children turn out.

[frozenprince]

You didnt get the point did you? When people say "Blame Canada" it means people place blame on anything or anyone but themselves.



The original song was about how American Parents dont blame themselves for how their children turn out.

Really?

Cause its not like I have been on the interwebs for a while, and noted his sarcastic attempt to show that people shift the blame towards other people, then decided to have a bit of fun for myself and counter that with one of my favorite sayings.

Also I own the south park movie so, you don't have to explain the song to me.

To the OP: An actual answer is that most of the research has been skewed or politisised so much that its impossible to have an actual discussion about the issue anymore. Which is a shame, but thats how our current media and culture goes.

[Sphere]

Really?

Cause its not like I have been on the interwebs for a while, and noted his sarcastic attempt to show that people shift the blame towards other people, then decided to have a bit of fun for myself and counter that with one of my favorite sayings.

Also I own the south park movie so, you don't have to explain the song to me.

To the OP: An actual answer is that most of the research has been skewed or politisised so much that its impossible to have an actual discussion about the issue anymore. Which is a shame, but thats how our current media and culture goes.

No, I really just hate and mistrust Canada. Search the forum, I have been consistent.

[Himster]

Who cares, if it doesn't happen everything will be fine, if it does happen we'll probably be dead.

[Denny Crane!]

Dismiss climate change? No. Assume that bad science can and does exist and computer models can be wrong and its a hugely complex topic that needs a lot more research, yes. It is the only rational position.

I'm not doubting that the climate change scientists have a strong case for what they have. I'm just not taking it as gospel truth either. Much like I wouldn't take a theory on the current fundamentals of certain aspects of theoretical physics as gospel. When you deal with millions of variables and make a model based on that then it is inherently complex and concrete conclusions are problematical.

And finally the existence or not of mass change based on recent human action seems to me to be rather a separate issue to what governments can or can not do based on that.

[Col. Tartleton]

The much simpler explanation, is that around the year 1,000 AD the world started getting warmer because the sun went through a hotter period for several centuries. This was followed by a cold period called the little ice age.

Around 1800 the Industrial Revolution is taking off and this industrial modern state of affairs is still ongoing.

Studies have shown that increased correlating CO2 follows approximately 800 years in the wake of natural global warming. As this is the case, it would make sense that the increases in CO2 levels would be related to the after effects of the Medieval Warm Period, and have nothing to do with human industry.

We happen to be entering a "Modern Warm Period" because the sun is warming (that's why there are signs of melting ice on Mars, and Jupiter and Saturn's moons) which in turn will be followed by a "Modern Little Ice Age."

It's one of those coincidences that looks like it's something else.

The "Wake Theory" explains the facts logically and doesn't suggest we ought to over the whole world economy by not using fossil fuels. If you want solar, that's fine, but I want to make use of the lifetime of American Natural Gas for my future home and Gasoline for my Car.

I'm confident the 22nd or 23rd century will be a "Green" century. Whatever. The 21st century will not be. We aren't ready, and we've got lots of fuel to use first.

This is one of the few things I'm comfortable with as a conservative "kicking the can" on.

[Vizvii]

I find it amusing and saddening at the same time that the masses are so easy to indoctrinate and misinform, that they are willing to believe any lie provided they hear it often enough, yet they are automatically sceptical about some things and unwilling to let themselves be convinced. It probably depends on which side barks the loudest.

[Himster]

Deforestation and ocean pollution (killing off plankton) is a far bigger contributer to atmoshpere alteration than anything mankind actually produces.