As a former science teacher, I berkeleying hate this cultural trend to ignore or deny science. "How do They know?" Because they've berkeleying studied it. Do you know more about your field of study than the average bear? Yup, and if someone hasn't studied as hard as you so that they can't understand what you know, doesn't invalidate your knowledge. Sure, in any one field you will get a few unscrupulous people, but we're talking a mass consensus by everyone who has studied what is going on. To deny the legitimacy of the research is to ignore Science.
This is the same cultural denial of science that leads to evolution being dismissed as "only a theory" and anti-vaxers allowing controlled diseases to resurge. This is why space exploration and technical innovation are being handed off to other countries.
/rant
Anyone who thinks the current warming isn't historically unprecedented or that the models have been inaccurate doesn't know what they're talking about...all the info is out there for you to read, but so are the tinfoil hat blogs. And if it hasn't been driving the R&D of new technologies then where is all this new green tech coming from at a faster and faster pace? I don't think they're doing it just for fun.
Research into the psychology of the issue has indeed found that "scare tactics" and "negativity" turn people off, but it's not an easy problem to solve. It's like trying to tell someone that their house is on fire and they need to do something quickly without sounding negative or scaring them. The best ideas so far have been to point out the new business opportunities and improved community togetherness (whatever that means). To me, those are some of the least motivating propositions I've ever heard.
All the talk about climate change presumes two basic things that need to be seriously addressed.
First we have an absurd global population that continues to grow out of control daily dumping 200+ THOUSAND more humans into our global biosphere. Until that gets controlled, everything and anything else we do is just whistling past the graveyard.
Second, climate change is viewed negatively because it will disrupt big business and redistibute resources. There have been studies showing that moving the temperate zone further toward the poles will actually help us out as a species by yielding more usable land. Unfortunately whenever there is a large scale change there are "winners" and "losers". The current crop of winners sure don't want to become losers so they want to keep the status quo.
KyAllroad wrote:
Second, climate change is viewed negatively because it will disrupt big business and redistibute resources. There have been studies showing that moving the temperate zone further toward the poles will actually help us out as a species by yielding more usable land.
I'd have to see that. I know it could be good for Canada and Russia, maybe the US, but it would suck pretty hard for everyone else.
Oh jeez not the ice age thing again...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
I visually debunked this with the book-search tool that Keith found:
link
rotard
Dork
11/19/14 11:57 a.m.
GameboyRMH wrote:
KyAllroad wrote:
Second, climate change is viewed negatively because it will disrupt big business and redistibute resources. There have been studies showing that moving the temperate zone further toward the poles will actually help us out as a species by yielding more usable land.
I'd have to see that. I know it could be good for Canada and Russia, maybe the US, but it would suck pretty hard for everyone else.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Midwest would turn into a desert faster than it already is.
yamaha
UltimaDork
11/19/14 12:15 p.m.
KyAllroad wrote:
Second, climate change is viewed negatively
Due to their handling of anything contradictory to their own claims. Examples include to retaliate with personal insults, belittling, etc.....never anything resembling a higher form of thinking.
I am of the "History always repeats itself" crowd, which is why I don't dispute that on average its warming up, anyone who can read a history book knows we are coming out of a mini ice age that only lasted about 400 years. My biggest complaint is that they don't bother to attempt to explain any findings that don't further their source of the gravy train.
For example, this has happened several times before, and we weren't there to cause it. Have they even figured out what caused the multiple ice ages and warm eras? Something did, but they will probably never look into that. 
yamaha
UltimaDork
11/19/14 12:15 p.m.
rotard wrote:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Midwest would turn into a desert faster than it already is.
Does that explain why we have oil? 
rotard
Dork
11/19/14 12:35 p.m.
yamaha wrote:
rotard wrote:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Midwest would turn into a desert faster than it already is.
Does that explain why we have oil?
Haha, you have the Western Interior Seaway to thank for that.
rotard
Dork
11/19/14 12:40 p.m.
Who knows, maybe our species will cause an extinction event similar to the end-Permian extinction, or Great Dying as it's called. That'd be pretty sweet.
GameboyRMH wrote:
I visually debunked this with the book-search tool that Keith found:
link
I'm pretty sure that's the worst logic I've ever seen.
If the global cooling scare was a mainstream theory, it should get some kind of noticeable mention in literature, shouldn't it? Newspapers, books, stuff like that?
yamaha wrote:
KyAllroad wrote:
Second, climate change is viewed negatively
Due to their handling of anything contradictory to their own claims. Examples include to retaliate with personal insults, belittling, etc.....never anything resembling a higher form of thinking.
I am of the "History always repeats itself" crowd, which is why I don't dispute that on average its warming up, anyone who can read a history book knows we are coming out of a mini ice age that only lasted about 400 years. My biggest complaint is that they don't bother to attempt to explain any findings that don't further their source of the gravy train.
For example, this has happened several times before, and we weren't there to cause it. Have they even figured out what caused the multiple ice ages and warm eras? Something did, but they will probably never look into that.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
rotard
Dork
11/19/14 1:31 p.m.
Yeah, CO2 leads to methane thawing and getting in the air, which creates more heat, which leads to more water in the atmosphere. Water is an awesome greenhouse gas.
GameboyRMH wrote:
KyAllroad wrote:
Second, climate change is viewed negatively because it will disrupt big business and redistibute resources. There have been studies showing that moving the temperate zone further toward the poles will actually help us out as a species by yielding more usable land.
I'd have to see that. I know it could be good for Canada and Russia, maybe the US, but it would suck pretty hard for everyone else.
Well you know hydroponics would become a boom industry for anyone living around the coast as it is now.
yamaha
UltimaDork
11/19/14 3:22 p.m.
Tom Suddard wrote:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
5 paragraphs is not an explanation.......if its abrupt without a correction from the earth, I suggest buying future beachfront property in Georgia and quit living on a sand bar.
We need to kill all of the cows.
In reply to iceracer:
I'm working on it, one steak at a time.
1988RedT2 wrote:
Most of us choose to believe that which is reported as fact. Others will question those reports and weigh the validity of opposing viewpoints.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681812/Its-politics-not-science-driving-climate-change-mania-UN-predictions-subject-ridicule-stunning-failure.html
Dude... you just linked The Daily Mail. Not exactly a reputable source.
