Like I said, I’m undecided about Global Warming. However, it is sheer idiocy to say Climate Change is a myth.
It’s your prerogative to believe or not believe in whatever you want, just as Christians are free to believe or disbelieve in Evolutionary theory if it makes them more comfortable with their faith.
When a Christian casts doubt on the validity of evolution, it’s obvious that he finds the implications of the theory uncomfortable, not the logic of the theory itself - it’s just about disagreeing with the implications that seem to contradict Creation. That’s why he maintains his faith that the theory is false, regardless of evidence, because it was never about being convinced by the evidence.
In the same way, arguments against Global Warming aren’t critiques of the actual theory. They are a means of avoiding dealing with the implications of the theory as it relates to societal and personal behavior.
moved down 4 posts due to chronology.
I say who gives a fuck anyways?
YEAH! It’s not like the Earth is the only planet in the vicinity that can sustain life. We have a bunch of others we can go to easily, right?
…right?[/SIZE]
just bear with it.
Originally I was going to bitch you out for the above post, but I gave my self some time to take it in. I do find it absurd to say that the only way to rationalize people’s opposition to global warming as a belief system. Not in a sense as a individuals take on a topic but as a personal religion. In order for such a statement to be made the presenter’s stance must be infallible. As the topic is that of which we are debating, I seriously doubt such a statements credibility.
The reason my whole post isn’t just complaining is that I do see some truth to your argument. Personally I wouldn’t have put it as you did because of the reasons I have already mentioned. I do see some ignoring or belittling the indicators because they have an interest to not acknowledge it or they, as you say, don’t want to deal with the effects.
Personally I do support “the green movement” as an ideal but I often find myself opposing the actions of “green moment” individuals. This leads me into my reason why I support “the green movement”. Personally I am dissatisfied with both parties (those for or against the effects of global warming) of this argument. I often find both sides have “special interests” and both will do whatever it takes to find “evidence” to support their argument. Even when all the bullshit is set aside and a norm can be set everything comes full circle when everyone ends up bickering over logistics.
So even with my support for either party I am still in support for A green movement. The reason being not global warming but instead of a more concrete and analytical entity. Our environment is something that I think we should value more than we should. I may be a computer type person and I spend the majority of my time staring at a monitor but I still understand the importance of nature and its resources. So the TWO main factors that cause me to support a greener way of doing things are 1) Pollution, and 2) Resources.
I grew up in urban sprawl. I moved to Orion MI about a decade and a half ago ago I witnessed a rural town turn into suburbia. Every square inch of developable land was bulldozed and there was a constant stream of arguments with the developers and the zoning board about protected land boundaries. That being the one thing our local government got right. So about 3/4 of this land is filled with crappy condos and even crappier strip malls. The rest remain vacant bulldozed lots that no development will purchase due to the recent economy downturn; epically here in Michigan, and even more so being located in the automotive ally known as Oakland County. Prices plummeted and no one was ready to sell their property at a loss. So more and more lots go un-devolved, and more and more houses get sold to the banks. With all of this development (and lack thereof) had messed up the nature in and around our city. Sure we have Oakland parks (you should all support your local park service) but the land everywhere else is now just brown and grey. The liken is gone from the trees, and that fresh nature smell is gone from the air. Not just development but also being in Michigan we have almost no public transportation. EVERYONE DRIVES. No one takes the bus, no one walks, and when people bike ride you wither are doing it for leisure, or you have to drive to a trail.
My other point is resources. Whether you want electric cars, to stop being robbed at the pump, or it be a political one due to foreign oil, pick one. There is a multitude of reasons to want greener cars and I can’t find a GOOD reason now to have them. I could get into a conspiracy talk about the automotive companies (and I can make a good argument), I could talk about politics, the bush administration, Iraq, Iran, but I won’t. Even with all of that we as a public should demand electric cars and cleaner power collection plants.
Not the best formatting, or layout of ideas but I have been yearning to let it out for some time.
[color=’#161616’]tl;dr s and grammar nazies can fuck off[/SIZE]
thank you, FireTime. That was actually something more than just random claims and insults.
…I’m humbled and impressed. I do agree that people should care more for the environment, but I just think that they are taking too far in the wrong direction.
Mattemuse, let me make this perfectly clear.
I DISAGREE WITH GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE I CAN’T FIND EVIDENCE FOR IT, NOT BECAUSE I AM IN SOME HALF-ASSED DENIAL AS YOU IMPLY OVER AND OVER AGAIN, YOU. FUCKING. IDIOT. THIS IS NOT RELIGION. THIS IS NOT EVEN BELIEF. THIS IS ME, LOOKING AT THE SO-CALLED EVIDENCE AND SAYING “Nope.” YOU GOT THAT?
Now that that’s cleared up, either let it go or GTFO my thread.
Also, thanks for the info on the Co2. That actually makes a form of sense.
…But wouldn’t clouds somewhat nullify that?
Now, climate change I accept. It’s going all over the place. But global warming, as caused by humans, is the fourth most idiotic idea in the last century.
Also, ramirezoid, steampunk isn’t just victorian, as I have said. It’s sci-fi that has futuristic technology with at least the FEEL of any time period between 1975-1750, or thereabouts.
I was laughing my ass off watching “an inconvenient truth” when Al Gore showed his graphic and claimed it to prove global warming being a concequence of an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, when clearly that graphic was showing the opposite. Priceless.
EDIT: Not to be misunderstood - I am still all for exploring alternative energy sources, renewable resources and all that. A greener world will be a better and more peaceful world to live in.
Just because you think “Nope.” doesn’t mean it’s actually “Nope.” I think 99% of the scientists have a better, more informed insight into the matter, and are better equipped to interpret it.
So until you provide some sort of evidence that the currently held theory is wrong, gtfo.
Might want to actually start reading scientific findings. 
Here’s one to start you out:
https://www.realclimate.org
It answers most of the claims made by deniers and backs it up with evidence.
I found mattemuse’s post to be brilliantly well-worded, and concise, unlike firetime’s which I don’t have the time to read or attempt to understand. And really, I know you’re pretty butthurt right now that nobody would join your denial club, but you have no right to tell us “GTFO of my thread.”
Plenty of evidence exists, you just choose to irrationally deny it because you love your solid gold 3 MPG hummer-limo too much. Or you just like to think of yourself as a rebel, like all the 911 truth douchebags.
So let me go over this. Never in the recorded history of our climate (which goes much further back than when humans started producing CO2) has there been such a massive and rapid temperature increase. So this isn’t normal. Now what could cause it? First lets see what is different now from the rest of the history. Okay, we’re here. There’s a fraction of the forests there used to be. We have tons of factories spewing pollutants. CO2 levels are ridiculously high and rising. Wait, lets compare CO2 levels and temperature. Hey, temperature seems to go up as CO2 levels rise.
If yous stand under a greenhouse, it’s gonna be hot as fuck. What makes it that way? Light passes through the plastic around the greenhouse, and then gets trapped inside. CO2 is the plastic and the Earth is the greenhouse.
And back to the topic, now that I actually know what it is, I quite like steampunk and there is no point in whining or boycotting greenpunk as no one is going to give a shit about it and if people did I see no reason why it’d destroy steampunk.
I this guy serious? I mean: Global warming is happening. You have to be either an idiot or it’s just to unbelievable for you to not believe it. I do agree however, that it’s a natural process that’s just sped up by humans.
First off, kudos for taking time to analyze opposing viewpoints. That’s a very rare and valuable attitude. However I think you may have been confused by my analogy, because you aren’t accurately summarizing what I said. I’m not claiming opposition to global warming is the equivalent of a personal religion. I’m saying opposition comes from personal beliefs, usually political ones, rather than an analysis of the evidence.
I was simply using Christianity/Evolution as an example which people on this forum should understand (since there’s a hundred page discussion about it). A Christian’s disbelief in Evolution isn’t a personal religion. Christianity is their religion. Their disbelief in evolution stems from it’s implied contradictions with their religion, rather than from an analysis of its logic.
I’ll give you a specific Global Warming example, rather than an analogy: Take someone who is politically Libertarian. Global Warming implies that personal responsibility can’t possibly reduce carbon emissions, since someone else will always be irresponsible, and that means government-mandated regulations are necessary.
Libertarians don’t believe government-mandated regulations are ever necessary, therefore if their political beliefs are correct, Global Warming must be incorrect. That’s the core rationale behind Libertarian opposition to global warming. A Libertarian would, after coming to this conclusion, do research into facts that he thinks disprove Global Warming. But it’s not the same thing at all as a neutral observer, who would consider the facts themselves and draw a conclusion from the facts, rather than come to a conclusion first and find facts to support that solution second.
You can see this process quite clearly in BMSMSG’s posts. There’s no way his opinion is based on an analysis of the facts, because he admits he doesn’t know the facts. It’s simply inconvenient ideologically, therefore it must be wrong.
That…no. I don’t know ALL the facts. What I do know doesn’t add up.
Now. Actually read my post for once:
I AM NOT REJECTING GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE IT’S INCONVENIENT. IF IT EXISTED AND THERE WAS SOMETHING I COULD DO, I WOULD BE DOING IT!
Understood?
And for the record, I don’t have a car. The only things I use that require power are a computer, a glucometer, an alarm clock, a microwave, and two fans. So being energy-conservative wouldn’t be too big a leap for me.
Also, I just realized that all this warming started at the same time we he had the lowest amount of communism in history! It CAN’T be coincidence!
You may also note I have repeatedly asked for a list of evidence other that “Greenhouse gas causes warming and carbon dioxide causes greenhouse gas and humans are the fifteenth most common cause of carbon dioxide”
By the way, I’m not a rebel. I don’t WANT to be a rebel.
Ironically, that probably makes me a rebel.
Yes. And, by the way, it does exist and there are things you can do.
How much do you consume otherwise? Not just electricity coming into your home.
wat
You may also note that you have received what you asked for. You have also been told where to look. We can lead you to water but we can’t force you to drink.
@mattemuse
Ah I see now. That is a much better example; Even tho I do consider my self to be impart Libertarian. I prefer to be called “liberal but not annoying”.
You never said it but the thing that initiated my argument was some of your terminology kinda danced around the word religion.
I went back and re read your original and I better see how you were defining it. I even said " ignoring or belittling the indicators because they have a…[special] interest…" in my discourse. So it seams that our views, in part, coincide.
@garthbartin
I’m sorry that you don’t have the time to read an opposing view point.(That in reality isn’t opposing your end goal)
Okay, I’ll try to explain it to you. I already showed you why greenhouse gasses cause warming earlier in the thread. So, here’s the logic behind the theory.
- Greenhouse gasses cause warming by trapping radiated solar heat.
- CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
- Since humans started burning carbon for fuel, the amount of CO2 increased.
- Since humans started burning carbon for fuel, the avg. temp increased.
NASA GIS has publicly available temperature data which proves point 4. There’s publicly available arctic ice core analysis that proves point 3. Points 1 and 2 are facts of chemistry.
Please explain which part of this you don’t understand or agree with.
I think there are other factors to take into account. The increasing population means more farming. More farming means more cattle. More cattle means more farts. More farts = more queenhouse gases.