3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
> Ice
Todd Simpson
post Jun 21 2017, 09:57 PM
Post #21


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.874
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



So sad, yet so true. We live in a "Fact Free", "Alternative Fact", world these days. Logical, rational discourse has sadly gone the way of the dinosaur and it's just best to leave some topics alone as the end result is just pig wrestling and getting dirty. No progress is made, none can be. Some folks, are simply intransigent in the face of overwhelming evidence. Articles of faith are immune to facts. Perhaps it's just best to let them be. Feel free to troll on. After reading Kris's post. I'm back in the Mud smile.gif

QUOTE (Rammikin @ Jun 21 2017, 01:47 PM) *
smile.gif Replying to a troll is like wrestling a pig. The pig gets enjoyment from it, but all you get is dirty. The worst part is: your reply encourages more threads like this.


This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 21 2017, 10:21 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kristofer Dahl
post Jun 21 2017, 10:06 PM
Post #22


GMC Founder & Rocker
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 15.276
Joined: 15-August 05
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (Rammikin @ Jun 21 2017, 07:47 PM) *
smile.gif Replying to a troll is like wrestling a pig. The pig gets enjoyment from it, but all you get is dirty. The worst part is: your reply encourages more threads like this.


I don't really agree with the conclusion that we should not feed this discussion -

Because this opinion is not something jstcrsn came up with by himself. Oddly enough it represents an opinion which is still out there - and it is even adopted by US president Trump. So I think the discussion is OK as it is highly relevant.

Just as with so many other destructive human habits - an overwhelming amount of evidence needs to be presented over a long period of time, until new facts are finally widely accepted.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 21 2017, 10:16 PM
Post #23


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.874
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Your post gives me hope Kris, I'm glad you made it smile.gif Reading through this thread was really getting me down. You make a great point. The minority view on this topic is very real to quite a few people including our President and many in his administration. So despite getting dirty, we do have a responsibility to pig wrestle, as it were. Persistence in the face of intransigency is really the only way forward. Well said Kris.

AKRICH: I'd like to ask you the same question I asked CRSN. What draws you personally to the minority position on this? Are you really that concerned about the birds that get caught in wind farms? Even though the numbers are small, and the energy produced is free and eternal. That balance for you ends up being "pro bird"? Also you are attracted to the "pro coal" idea? Which is responsible for more Black Lung than any other profession on earth? I was born and raised in Kentucky. I know coal mines and coal miners. Most just want a well paid gig with bennies. All they know is mining. They'd rather get out of the mine to be honest, and do something else that makes the same money. It's just that making the transition is quite hard for them. I'd be for a govt program to retrain them to write computer code, fix networks, anything. Just get them out of the mines and stop burning coal.


Todd
QUOTE (Kristofer Dahl @ Jun 21 2017, 05:06 PM) *
I don't really agree with the conclusion that we should not feed this discussion -

Because this opinion is not something jstcrsn came up with by himself. Oddly enough it represents an opinion which is still out there - and it is even adopted by US president Trump. So I think the discussion is OK as it is highly relevant.

Just as with so many other destructive human habits - an overwhelming amount of evidence needs to be presented over a long period of time, until new facts are finally widely accepted.


This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 21 2017, 10:23 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rammikin
post Jun 21 2017, 10:18 PM
Post #24


Experienced Rock Star
*

Group: Members
Posts: 875
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 11.529



QUOTE (Kristofer Dahl @ Jun 21 2017, 09:06 PM) *
I don't really agree with the conclusion that we should not feed this discussion -


Here's the obligatory xkcd for your line of thought smile.gif :



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Jun 22 2017, 06:21 AM
Post #25


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.743
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 21 2017, 03:57 PM) *
So sad, yet so true. We live in a "Fact Free", "Alternative Fact", world these days. Logical, rational discourse has sadly gone the way of the dinosaur and it's just best to leave some topics alone as the end result is just pig wrestling and getting dirty. No progress is made, none can be. Some folks, are simply intransigent in the face of overwhelming evidence. Articles of faith are immune to facts. Perhaps it's just best to let them be. Feel free to troll on. After reading Kris's post. I'm back in the Mud smile.gif


I would still just present knowledge to them. Who knows, you might get through to some of them. Sea levels are rising. There are really only two possible causes, thermal expansion and the melting of ice, both due to global warming. If the source of the major share of the ice melt is different than we had thought, well maybe. But it is still happening, perhaps just more in some areas than thought and less in others. You really can't substantiate the primary cause of the warming as being other than man made, the natural causes of climate change are known. Yes some of the warming in the first half of the 20th century was associated with sunspot activity, but that has subsided since then.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

Although to tell you the truth, I am less concerned with global warming than other ecological time bombs ticking out there, that most of the public is totally oblivious to. The one that should really concern people is that the rate of species extinction now exceeds 1,000 times the normal background rate, we are now in the midst of only the 6th mass extinction in Earth history, going back a half billion years.

This post has been edited by fkalich: Jun 22 2017, 06:43 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Jun 22 2017, 06:32 PM
Post #26


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.676
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 21 2017, 01:16 PM) *
Your post gives me hope Kris, I'm glad you made it smile.gif Reading through this thread was really getting me down. You make a great point. The minority view on this topic is very real to quite a few people including our President and many in his administration. So despite getting dirty, we do have a responsibility to pig wrestle, as it were. Persistence in the face of intransigency is really the only way forward. Well said Kris.

AKRICH: I'd like to ask you the same question I asked CRSN. What draws you personally to the minority position on this? Are you really that concerned about the birds that get caught in wind farms? Even though the numbers are small, and the energy produced is free and eternal. That balance for you ends up being "pro bird"? Also you are attracted to the "pro coal" idea? Which is responsible for more Black Lung than any other profession on earth? I was born and raised in Kentucky. I know coal mines and coal miners. Most just want a well paid gig with bennies. All they know is mining. They'd rather get out of the mine to be honest, and do something else that makes the same money. It's just that making the transition is quite hard for them. I'd be for a govt program to retrain them to write computer code, fix networks, anything. Just get them out of the mines and stop burning coal.


Todd

I have stayed out of this discussion for the most part because we have been over it all before here and as usual there is quite a bit of exaggeration going on to prop up positions.
First of all, as far as I can tell, it is your position that is in the minority, at least in this country among the general population.
The 97% consensus myth that keeps being pushed here is a product of politicians and the media and certainly not scientists. A good scientist would not use such language (Cook's study has been debunked).
The evidence of CAGM is extremely flimsy and is the view that is actually most akin to a religious belief, not the skeptics view as has been suggested in this thread.
Natural variation is far more likely to be the cause of the warming and the rate of and intensity of the warming is highly contested due to the quality of the data that has been used and the manipulation of past and present data (garbage in, garbage out).
And finally there is much evidence of dishonesty over the years among the CAGW community related to climate science which in my opinion has not been properly investigated (Internal investigations are a joke and don't count).
Contrary to the views held here, there are plenty of good reasons to be skeptical of the CAGW theory and those reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with believing that the earth is flat which was your insulting comparison I believe.
Natural variation as the reason for change in climate stands on far more solid ground than the CAGW theory to put it simply.
Some of us need a bit more solid evidence than you and Lindsey Buckingham I guess.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Jun 22 2017, 06:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 23 2017, 04:10 AM
Post #27


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.874
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Hmm. Ok, I guess yeah, I've certainly read some exaggerated bits, seems they were coming from that one site that crsn kept quoting that folks kept trying to point out was packed with faulty info. But that didn't seem to to stop it. But folks believe things, sometimes, because it lines up with what they "feel" is right. Not because of "science" or "facts". Happens all the time smile.gif Especially on topics that are politically charged. Pretty much anything Alex Jones says, anything on Fox, anything on Brieitbart, most of the hard core right wing, anti left, folks. Same talking points, dubious evidence, lots of conspiracy theory. Still, if we give up on talking, then we really won't make any progress ever. So Kris has a point about hope and patience.

Sadly, no, my position that climate change is, in fact, the majority position among scientists and among the population as you well know. Or at least you should. Trying to argue that climate change is a minority position is just indefensible. But then again, I'm sure there is no source that I could quote that you would accept, so you'll just have to keep on thinking that climate change being man made is a minority view. Wow.

As for "natural variation", NASA pulled the plug on that and it's even quoted earlier in the thread. They know what they are talking about smile.gif They are actual scientists. Not pundits. But all this is beside the point, I really wanna know what draws folks to thing that climate change = killing jobs as put forth on FOX so often. When in fact, "green Jobs" are growing much faster that "carbon jobs". But again, article of faith. Sources/facts be damned.

So what are these GOOD REASONS that climate change data should be questioned and debunked despite the data? I'd sure like to hear a few smile.gif

I doubt all the solid evidence on earth would sway those who just want to believe that climate change is a hoax or what not. Wads of great evidence has been provided in this thread alone and pretty much rejected by two posters (the minority view) so far, two people who shall remain nameless. Don't want to get personal.

So about those good reasons to be skeptical of the nasa data? BTW just saw an article that several air line flights had to be canceled in the mid west as some planes can't operate above 120 degrees. Not to mention we have tonnage of peer reviewed scientific evidence correlating green house gasses and climate change. Basically, the more we pump out, the hotter each summer is gonna get. The more disturbed the jet stream will get, and the more severe the storms will get. Many say we are already past the turning point, so it's your kids that will get to have new beach front property and the Russians think it's great! They now have very temperate summers and milder winters. Meanwhile, the Florida coastline is already starting to sink. They use pumps to keep four inches of water from collecting on the roads during every high tide.

Here is an article about it from those commie pinkos at newsweek.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/05/marco-r...sis-420326.html

I'd point you to this one too, it's got actual "FACT", though we live in an alternative fact world.
This is from folks who actual study this kind of thing.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

Here is one on the relationship between sea level and climate change. Govt funded.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/under...lobal-sea-level

This pretty much sums it up, from that article.

"As global temperatures continue to warm, sea level will continue to rise. How much it will rise depends mostly on the rate of future carbon dioxide emissions and future global warming. How fast it will rise depends mostly on the rate of glacier and ice sheet melting."

QUOTE (AK Rich @ Jun 22 2017, 01:32 PM) *
I have stayed out of this discussion for the most part because we have been over it all before here and as usual there is quite a bit of exaggeration going on to prop up positions.
First of all, as far as I can tell, it is your position that is in the minority, at least in this country among the general population.
The 97% consensus myth that keeps being pushed here is a product of politicians and the media and certainly not scientists. A good scientist would not use such language (Cook's study has been debunked).
The evidence of CAGM is extremely flimsy and is the view that is actually most akin to a religious belief, not the skeptics view as has been suggested in this thread.
Natural variation is far more likely to be the cause of the warming and the rate of and intensity of the warming is highly contested due to the quality of the data that has been used and the manipulation of past and present data (garbage in, garbage out).
And finally there is much evidence of dishonesty over the years among the CAGW community related to climate science which in my opinion has not been properly investigated (Internal investigations are a joke and don't count).
Contrary to the views held here, there are plenty of good reasons to be skeptical of the CAGW theory and those reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with believing that the earth is flat which was your insulting comparison I believe.
Natural variation as the reason for change in climate stands on far more solid ground than the CAGW theory to put it simply.
Some of us need a bit more solid evidence than you and Lindsey Buckingham I guess.


This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 23 2017, 04:20 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Jun 23 2017, 05:58 PM
Post #28


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.676
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 22 2017, 07:10 PM) *
Hmm. Ok, I guess yeah, I've certainly read some exaggerated bits, seems they were coming from that one site that crsn kept quoting that folks kept trying to point out was packed with faulty info. But that didn't seem to to stop it. But folks believe things, sometimes, because it lines up with what they "feel" is right. Not because of "science" or "facts". Happens all the time smile.gif Especially on topics that are politically charged. Pretty much anything Alex Jones says, anything on Fox, anything on Brieitbart, most of the hard core right wing, anti left, folks. Same talking points, dubious evidence, lots of conspiracy theory. Still, if we give up on talking, then we really won't make any progress ever. So Kris has a point about hope and patience.

Sadly, no, my position that climate change is, in fact, the majority position among scientists and among the population as you well know. Or at least you should. Trying to argue that climate change is a minority position is just indefensible. But then again, I'm sure there is no source that I could quote that you would accept, so you'll just have to keep on thinking that climate change being man made is a minority view. Wow.

As for "natural variation", NASA pulled the plug on that and it's even quoted earlier in the thread. They know what they are talking about smile.gif They are actual scientists. Not pundits. But all this is beside the point, I really wanna know what draws folks to thing that climate change = killing jobs as put forth on FOX so often. When in fact, "green Jobs" are growing much faster that "carbon jobs". But again, article of faith. Sources/facts be damned.

So what are these GOOD REASONS that climate change data should be questioned and debunked despite the data? I'd sure like to hear a few smile.gif

I doubt all the solid evidence on earth would sway those who just want to believe that climate change is a hoax or what not. Wads of great evidence has been provided in this thread alone and pretty much rejected by two posters (the minority view) so far, two people who shall remain nameless. Don't want to get personal.

So about those good reasons to be skeptical of the nasa data? BTW just saw an article that several air line flights had to be canceled in the mid west as some planes can't operate above 120 degrees. Not to mention we have tonnage of peer reviewed scientific evidence correlating green house gasses and climate change. Basically, the more we pump out, the hotter each summer is gonna get. The more disturbed the jet stream will get, and the more severe the storms will get. Many say we are already past the turning point, so it's your kids that will get to have new beach front property and the Russians think it's great! They now have very temperate summers and milder winters. Meanwhile, the Florida coastline is already starting to sink. They use pumps to keep four inches of water from collecting on the roads during every high tide.

Here is an article about it from those commie pinkos at newsweek.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/05/marco-r...sis-420326.html

I'd point you to this one too, it's got actual "FACT", though we live in an alternative fact world.
This is from folks who actual study this kind of thing.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

Here is one on the relationship between sea level and climate change. Govt funded.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/under...lobal-sea-level

This pretty much sums it up, from that article.

"As global temperatures continue to warm, sea level will continue to rise. How much it will rise depends mostly on the rate of future carbon dioxide emissions and future global warming. How fast it will rise depends mostly on the rate of glacier and ice sheet melting."

I guess you didn't understand my post so I'll try to explain it one more time. The fact that the climate is changing is not in dispute.
The causes are what are disputed and the claim that mankind is the primary driver of climate change is in fact a minority position in this country and IN FACT, far less likely than the explanation of natural variability.
I also believe it to be pretty arrogant at this point to believe we know all we need to know in this area of science to be able to make the call that mankind is the primary driver of climate change or to believe that mankind can control or manipulate global climate to control global temperatures like one would adjust a thermostat in their home.
Ice ages and more temperate times have come and gone during the life of this planet and they will continue to do so no matter what we do because it is something that we cannot control. Different kinds of life have come and gone and I expect that cycle to continue with or without mankind being along for the ride. That ride for us and many other kinds of life on this rock will end at some point and new kinds of life or times of no life may emerge and there isn't a damn thing that we can do about it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Jun 24 2017, 12:53 AM
Post #29


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.743
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (AK Rich @ Jun 23 2017, 11:58 AM) *
I guess you didn't understand my post so I'll try to explain it one more time. The fact that the climate is changing is not in dispute.
The causes are what are disputed and the claim that mankind is the primary driver of climate change is in fact a minority position in this country and IN FACT, far less likely than the explanation of natural variability.
I also believe it to be pretty arrogant at this point to believe we know all we need to know in this area of science to be able to make the call that mankind is the primary driver of climate change or to believe that mankind can control or manipulate global climate to control global temperatures like one would adjust a thermostat in their home.
Ice ages and more temperate times have come and gone during the life of this planet and they will continue to do so no matter what we do because it is something that we cannot control. Different kinds of life have come and gone and I expect that cycle to continue with or without mankind being along for the ride. That ride for us and many other kinds of life on this rock will end at some point and new kinds of life or times of no life may emerge and there isn't a damn thing that we can do about it.


You may be right that the majority of Americans do not believe mankind is the primary driver of climate change. 46% of Americans also believe in Creationism.

The level of CO2, over 400 ppm, is now at a greater concentration than it has been in the past 25 million years. You think that it is just a coincidence that this has occurred after 25 million years in just the past 200 years where man has been burning fossil fuels? Light energy from the Sun reaches the ground, electrons on the surface molecules make quantum leaps to higher energy levels, and then release the energy in the form of ultraviolent light that is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course the temperature of the earth has to rise, it is simple chemistry, that is the only way equilibrium can be maintained, with as much energy being released to outer space as is absorbed from the sun. What is so hard about understanding this?

This post has been edited by fkalich: Jun 24 2017, 12:59 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 24 2017, 05:59 AM
Post #30


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.874
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Oh I got your point smile.gif It's just at odds with the available evidence. Not blog posts or youtube videos but actual scientific evidence. This article correlates the rise in sea level with climate change and talked about the causes. Pretty much explains the entire thing. It's by folks who would know something about it smile.gif Worth a read.

Handy Direct Link.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/under...lobal-sea-level

To save you the trouble, here is a summary.

"Future sea level rise
As global temperatures continue to warm, sea level will continue to rise. How much it will rise depends mostly on the rate of future carbon dioxide emissions and future global warming. How fast it will rise depends mostly on the rate of glacier and ice sheet melting."

In a nutshell, carbon emissions are impacting global climate. This in turn is impacting global sea levels and storm patterns. It's really that simple. The facts are there if you just take a peak. This is not a special interest group. These are just scientists, doing their job. However, I expect some witty retort as that's what I usually get so I won't be offended if you feel like making one smile.gif

Todd






QUOTE (AK Rich @ Jun 23 2017, 12:58 PM) *
I guess you didn't understand my post so I'll try to explain it one more time. The fact that the climate is changing is not in dispute.
The causes are what are disputed and the claim that mankind is the primary driver of climate change is in fact a minority position in this country and IN FACT, far less likely than the explanation of natural variability.
I also believe it to be pretty arrogant at this point to believe we know all we need to know in this area of science to be able to make the call that mankind is the primary driver of climate change or to believe that mankind can control or manipulate global climate to control global temperatures like one would adjust a thermostat in their home.
Ice ages and more temperate times have come and gone during the life of this planet and they will continue to do so no matter what we do because it is something that we cannot control. Different kinds of life have come and gone and I expect that cycle to continue with or without mankind being along for the ride. That ride for us and many other kinds of life on this rock will end at some point and new kinds of life or times of no life may emerge and there isn't a damn thing that we can do about it.


Sadly, it's a bit of an "Article of Faith" for those that lean toward the Rightish Wing of politics to be very skeptical on the idea of man made climate change. So it's very hard to use facts to dispute faith. Thus the endless loop we find ourselves in now. smile.gif

QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 23 2017, 07:53 PM) *
You may be right that the majority of Americans do not believe mankind is the primary driver of climate change. 46% of Americans also believe in Creationism.

The level of CO2, over 400 ppm, is now at a greater concentration than it has been in the past 25 million years. You think that it is just a coincidence that this has occurred after 25 million years in just the past 200 years where man has been burning fossil fuels? Light energy from the Sun reaches the ground, electrons on the surface molecules make quantum leaps to higher energy levels, and then release the energy in the form of ultraviolent light that is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course the temperature of the earth has to rise, it is simple chemistry, that is the only way equilibrium can be maintained, with as much energy being released to outer space as is absorbed from the sun. What is so hard about understanding this?


This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 24 2017, 05:57 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Jun 24 2017, 07:03 PM
Post #31


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.676
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 23 2017, 03:53 PM) *
The level of CO2, over 400 ppm, is now at a greater concentration than it has been in the past 25 million years. You think that it is just a coincidence that this has occurred after 25 million years in just the past 200 years where man has been burning fossil fuels?

I know that this is part of a theory that has been contradicted in peer reviewed papers and published in science journals and is not a fact.

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 23 2017, 08:59 PM) *
Oh I got your point smile.gif It's just at odds with the available evidence. Not blog posts or youtube videos but actual scientific evidence. This article correlates the rise in sea level with climate change and talked about the causes. Pretty much explains the entire thing. It's by folks who would know something about it smile.gif Worth a read.

Handy Direct Link.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/under...lobal-sea-level

To save you the trouble, here is a summary.

"Future sea level rise
As global temperatures continue to warm, sea level will continue to rise. How much it will rise depends mostly on the rate of future carbon dioxide emissions and future global warming. How fast it will rise depends mostly on the rate of glacier and ice sheet melting."

In a nutshell, carbon emissions are impacting global climate. This in turn is impacting global sea levels and storm patterns. It's really that simple. The facts are there if you just take a peak. This is not a special interest group. These are just scientists, doing their job. However, I expect some witty retort as that's what I usually get so I won't be offended if you feel like making one smile.gif

Todd

Same answer goes to you, Todd.

Why so much concentration on only CO2 I have to wonder. Anyway, if you guys want to freak out about this stuff then go right ahead. From all the fear mongering about this that I have seen for the past 3 or 4 decades and the failed predictions that have come to pass or are still not coming to pass since then, it's pretty easy to be skeptical. So I'll leave you guys to it.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Jun 24 2017, 07:14 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Jun 24 2017, 08:28 PM
Post #32


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.743
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



I believe that the reason one cannot get through to people, even when the evidence is overwhelming, is due to an evolutionary factor. Have you read the book Sapiens? In that the author postulates, and I think reasonably so, that the key to the emergence of Homo Sapiens as the dominant species is due to our ability to have mythologies. These tie us together, and allowed us to eliminate the other 6 or 8 Homo species that walked the Earth in the past, as they are what enabled us to form larger social groups than other related species were capable of. This facilitated civilization.

We see this all around us, political beliefs, religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs. Heck look at sports fans, getting emotionally tied to the exploits of obscenely paid athletes who play with a ball, all because they have the name of your city sewn onto their shirts.

People just tend to hold strongly onto their mythological beliefs. With environmental issues, well they espouse the conservative mythology and see this as a liberal cause, something that those awful liberals care about, and they see all things such as that to be rejected, no matter what arguments are made. It is not the science they hate per see, it is the fact that most people of science are liberal minded, so they must be rejected.

There is no point in trying to reason with them, the science dos not matter, the perceived tie with liberal types is the factor that prevents them from listening, from opening up their minds. You will have as much success as you would trying to get a Boston Red Sox fan to root for the New York Yankees, mythological beliefs are resistant to assault by logic or reasoning.

This post has been edited by fkalich: Jun 24 2017, 08:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 24 2017, 10:30 PM
Post #33


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.874
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Not freaking out at all. Just staying up to date on the science and it's impact on the world we live in. We are doing this to ourselves. It's our own fault. Future generations will have to deal with it, but we are the ones that really got HEAT rolling and starting melting ice caps with our love of CO2/Green House Gasses/Coal Burning, etc. The reason to focus on Co2 is that it's a bit part of the problem smile.gif The more we pump out, the hotter our summers will get, the more the oceans will rise, etc. I'm not freaking out at all as I have no kids. It's not going to be my problem. I"ll be dead. smile.gif

Still, resisting the simple truth that co2 emissions are causing the problem just doesn't seem to make any rational sense in light of the evidence at hand. Did you read the article I linked? Pretty much spells it out coming from non partisan scientists. Not policy wonks, just scientists.

I fear the actual reason some folks are willing to ignore the evidence is that right wing media paints climate change as a hoax by democrats to increase taxes. That's mostly the bottom line. When in fact, it's rich folks, trying to keep their riches and keep polluting the one planet we have. That's about the long and short of it.

All any of us can do is try to share info. Resistance to the idea may be more a function of media intake than based on the bulk of available data. But that's politics for ya smile.gif


Todd
QUOTE (AK Rich @ Jun 24 2017, 02:03 PM) *
I know that this is part of a theory that has been contradicted in peer reviewed papers and published in science journals and is not a fact.


Same answer goes to you, Todd.

Why so much concentration on only CO2 I have to wonder. Anyway, if you guys want to freak out about this stuff then go right ahead. From all the fear mongering about this that I have seen for the past 3 or 4 decades and the failed predictions that have come to pass or are still not coming to pass since then, it's pretty easy to be skeptical. So I'll leave you guys to it.


I agree smile.gif Indoctrination is something that becomes internalized when it resonates on an emotional level. At that point, the "indoctrinated" person is simply immune to any information that goes against said doctrine. It has become a matter of Faith, not a matter of logic. It may have started in religion, it's made it's way in to politics. We have wads of proof of this theory right here in this thread sadly sad.gif Such folks have to be "Deprogrammed" which is a long and arduous process. Most folks just cling to their bibles and guns as it were, seeing no contradiction. Comforted by doctrine, immune to facts.

I ran up against this on a religous level when I was actually a religion major for a couple of years at a VERY conservative Baptist college in Kentucky. You can't imagine the kind of resistance I ran into when I started spouting against the very concept of "Dogma" and even "Doctrine" based on the teachings of the man from Nazereth. Needless to say, I had to leave. No heretics allowed smile.gif

Todd


QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 24 2017, 03:28 PM) *
I believe that the reason one cannot get through to people, even when the evidence is overwhelming, is due to an evolutionary factor. Have you read the book Sapiens? In that the author postulates, and I think reasonably so, that the key to the emergence of Homo Sapiens as the dominant species is due to our ability to have mythologies. These tie us together, and allowed us to eliminate the other 6 or 8 Homo species that walked the Earth in the past, as they are what enabled us to form larger social groups than other related species were capable of. This facilitated civilization.

We see this all around us, political beliefs, religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs. Heck look at sports fans, getting emotionally tied to the exploits of obscenely paid athletes who play with a ball, all because they have the name of your city sewn onto their shirts.

People just tend to hold strongly onto their mythological beliefs. With environmental issues, well they espouse the conservative mythology and see this as a liberal cause, something that those awful liberals care about, and they see all things such as that to be rejected, no matter what arguments are made. It is not the science they hate per see, it is the fact that most people of science are liberal minded, so they must be rejected.

There is no point in trying to reason with them, the science dos not matter, the perceived tie with liberal types is the factor that prevents them from listening, from opening up their minds. You will have as much success as you would trying to get a Boston Red Sox fan to root for the New York Yankees, mythological beliefs are resistant to assault by logic or reasoning.



This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 24 2017, 10:23 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Jun 25 2017, 04:00 AM
Post #34


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.845
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 24 2017, 12:53 AM) *
You may be right that the majority of Americans do not believe mankind is the primary driver of climate change. 46% of Americans also believe in Creationism.

The level of CO2, over 400 ppm, is now at a greater concentration than it has been in the past 25 million years. You think that it is just a coincidence that this has occurred after 25 million years in just the past 200 years where man has been burning fossil fuels? Light energy from the Sun reaches the ground, electrons on the surface molecules make quantum leaps to higher energy levels, and then release the energy in the form of ultraviolent light that is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course the temperature of the earth has to rise, it is simple chemistry, that is the only way equilibrium can be maintained, with as much energy being released to outer space as is absorbed from the sun. What is so hard about understanding this?

The quickest search of when co2 was over 400 reveals this https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=last+...p;hsimp=yhs-001

800,000 to 3.5 million years ago , get better facts , so....... This post is fake news , very fake news

Did man cause it back then ? if it happened before and our less developed ancestors evolved thru it , seems to me we have time to figure it out properly


And for the record . I have LED bulbs for all the lights in my house , I would hope (at least those that find it a problem ) at least have that

This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Jun 25 2017, 04:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 25 2017, 07:17 AM
Post #35


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.874
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



It's important NOT to take ANY Of this personally as these are simply ideas. We each have every right to our own ideas no matter how far fetched they seem to anyone else. So I fully support your right to think what you do. Also I find value in dissenting views. IF everyone thought the same life would get dull quick smile.gif


Glad to hear you are using LED bulbs! I hope your kids can swim though. Depending where you live, the sea level rise might give you some free beach real estate!! So it's not all bad smile.gif


Todd

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jun 24 2017, 11:00 PM) *
The quickest search of when co2 was over 400 reveals this https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=last+...p;hsimp=yhs-001

800,000 to 3.5 million years ago , get better facts , so....... This post is fake news , very fake news

Did man cause it back then ? if it happened before and our less developed ancestors evolved thru it , seems to me we have time to figure it out properly


And for the record . I have LED bulbs for all the lights in my house , I would hope (at least those that find it a problem ) at least have that


This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 25 2017, 07:18 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Jun 25 2017, 06:20 PM
Post #36


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.676
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 23 2017, 03:53 PM) *
46% of Americans also believe in Creationism.

Including many scientists, Lindsey.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Jun 26 2017, 03:22 AM
Post #37


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.743
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jun 24 2017, 10:00 PM) *
The quickest search of when co2 was over 400 reveals this https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=last+...p;hsimp=yhs-001

800,000 to 3.5 million years ago , get better facts , so....... This post is fake news , very fake news


You again are not reading carefully. They certainly have not surpassed 300ppm in the past 800,000 years. This article in Scientific American states they were above 400ppm 3.6 million years ago. The core sampled was between 2.2 million and 3.6 million but the article only specifically states they were above 400 ppm 3.6 million years ago.
Still, 3.6 million years is a long time. At that time our ancestors were Australopithecines with ape sized brains.

What is really odd is that you picked a study that clearly supports global warming as being caused by man's CO2 emissions. In fact it suggest that even if we were to curtail CO2 emissions that the artic may melt anyway, that it takes some time for that part of the world to catch to the effects of higher levels.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/...s-above-400ppm/

QUOTE (AK Rich @ Jun 25 2017, 12:20 PM) *
Including many scientists, Lindsey.


You actually believe in creationism. I just find this so unbelievable that a human being could actually do that.

BTW, I spent a lot of time around scientists, in graduate school, working at NASA at Goddard Space Center outside Washington D.C., at United States Geological Survey in Sioux Falls. No, you have to look around awhile to find anyone well educated in a science that believes in hocus pocus. Yes you can find a few, but you do have to look around awhile. Can you tell me just what life experiences you have had that have framed your perspectives on science?

This post has been edited by fkalich: Jun 26 2017, 03:26 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 26 2017, 04:07 AM
Post #38


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.874
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Now I think you are getting closer to the heart of the issue FKALICH smile.gif By asking Rich what led him to his current belief/faith structure in terms of "science" would be very interesting indeed.

To mirror your comments, now and then when I was teaching in Graduate School, I would run across some curmudgeon who just wanted to embrace the exact opposite of every idea that everyone else seemed to take as valid. Such folks are important for simply having a dissenting view, to challenge the views we do have. So it's almost a public service that some folks say climage change isn't man made, has nothing to do with C02, or the earth is flat, or Big Foot lives in Colorado, take your pick.

QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 25 2017, 10:22 PM) *
You again are not reading carefully. They certainly have not surpassed 300ppm in the past 800,000 years. This article in Scientific American states they were above 400ppm 3.6 million years ago. The core sampled was between 2.2 million and 3.6 million but the article only specifically states they were above 400 ppm 3.6 million years ago.
Still, 3.6 million years is a long time. At that time our ancestors were Australopithecines with ape sized brains.

What is really odd is that you picked a study that clearly supports global warming as being caused by man's CO2 emissions. In fact it suggest that even if we were to curtail CO2 emissions that the artic may melt anyway, that it takes some time for that part of the world to catch to the effects of higher levels.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/...s-above-400ppm/



You actually believe in creationism. I just find this so unbelievable that a human being could actually do that.

BTW, I spent a lot of time around scientists, in graduate school, working at NASA at Goddard Space Center outside Washington D.C., at United States Geological Survey in Sioux Falls. No, you have to look around awhile to find anyone well educated in a science that believes in hocus pocus. Yes you can find a few, but you do have to look around awhile. Can you tell me just what life experiences you have had that have framed your perspectives on science?



Wow!! This one really caught my eye smile.gif Please share with us, these "scientists" who believe in creationism. They have every right to of course, but still. It's along the "Flat Earth" vein of science. Love to read a paper on someone defending it.

Then again, maybe gravity is a myth too? We are being pushed down by angels. smile.gif Without scientific method, we could embrace just about any crazy idea.

Todd

QUOTE (AK Rich @ Jun 25 2017, 01:20 PM) *
Including many scientists, Lindsey.



This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 26 2017, 04:07 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Jun 26 2017, 04:29 AM
Post #39


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.845
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 26 2017, 03:22 AM) *
You again are not reading carefully. They certainly have not surpassed 300ppm in the past 800,000 years. This article in Scientific American states they were above 400ppm 3.6 million years ago. The core sampled was between 2.2 million and 3.6 million but the article only specifically states they were above 400 ppm 3.6 million years ago.
Still, 3.6 million years is a long time. At that time our ancestors were Australopithecines with ape sized brains.

What is really odd is that you picked a study that clearly supports global warming as being caused by man's CO2 emissions. In fact it suggest that even if we were to curtail CO2 emissions that the artic may melt anyway, that it takes some time for that part of the world to catch to the effects of higher levels.
I picked that site because I knew you could not question it seeing how it is on your side of the argument , and I showed many links as to debunk your clear exaggeration of 25 million years , why did you not due your diligence and post 25 million when it was so easily debunk-able ?.
This is why it is impossible to debate someone who exaggerates , they will (as you just did ) exaggerate to make their point seem more valid!

. yes i knew about our underdeveloped ancestors that evolved thru it, they evolved thru it , they evolved thru it , how many times can I say until you get that it did not kill them and probably won't kill us in the same way. Many of the links talk about sea levels being 100 hundred feet higher than today , hence our current level is lower than the earth's natural fluctuation by 100 freakin feet , this once again debunks the scare tactics of seas rising and have not been at this level before .
Here are some links showing high levels of co2 during glaciation
https://www.iceagenow.info/ice-age-occurred...ent-higher-now/
http://www.whoi.edu/science/MCG/people/ppo...ns/paleo_99.pdf
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05...t-2000-ppm-co2/

All this shows the possibility that even if man has increased ( and I believe man has )that levels are not above normal and the debate should only begin .

I use science from your side because I find it equally as credible as science from the other ( not all of course ) . I find myself in the middle as I have been trying to tell you , but you all are to busy trying to tell me it's not rel science , even though I keep giving names and credentials .

So from where I am standing , you are the science deniers since I am trying to blend and you flat out reject one side of the argument, thats why I have all LED bulbs , I go green when I can as I don't see it hurting , but I think we have time if we can get a fair panel of scientists from both sides of the argument .
If we built cities on the sea knowing that the earth has had 100 foot higher seas than now , we can't complain and blame man unless it was mans fault back then .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Jun 26 2017, 05:25 AM
Post #40


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.676
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 25 2017, 06:22 PM) *
You actually believe in creationism. I just find this so unbelievable that a human being could actually do that.

BTW, I spent a lot of time around scientists, in graduate school, working at NASA at Goddard Space Center outside Washington D.C., at United States Geological Survey in Sioux Falls. No, you have to look around awhile to find anyone well educated in a science that believes in hocus pocus. Yes you can find a few, but you do have to look around awhile. Can you tell me just what life experiences you have had that have framed your perspectives on science?

I haven't stated one way or another concerning creationism although I do not dismiss the possibility of intelligent design/creationism.
Also, I am not sure I believe your name is Lindsey Buckingham so by the same token I don't know that I believe you were employed at NASA either, or if I should believe anything else you have stated for that matter. Sorry.
Anyway, as far as I can tell there are quite a few scientists, past and present that do not dismiss the possibility of intelligent design/creationism for the reason that the complexity of the universe may be too complex to be random.
Either way I think that there is about as much evidence of man being the primary cause of warming, or cooling for that matter on this planet as there is evidence of intelligent design and that both could be called a religious belief.

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 25 2017, 07:07 PM) *
Wow!! This one really caught my eye smile.gif Please share with us, these "scientists" who believe in creationism. They have every right to of course, but still. It's along the "Flat Earth" vein of science. Love to read a paper on someone defending it.

Then again, maybe gravity is a myth too? We are being pushed down by angels. smile.gif Without scientific method, we could embrace just about any crazy idea.

Todd

Google it, I think you will be very surprised.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Jun 26 2017, 05:27 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th August 2017 - 04:14 AM