I'll just start with a page of links, and we'll see where it goes.
https://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how-to-talk-to-a-sceptic/
https://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how-to-talk-to-a-sceptic/
Global Warming -- How to Talk to a Skeptic
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Whatever Rush Limbaugh and Hannity say is correct.
Libruls are dum black and Mexican peeple who lok for handouts and whant my monies. Freeking commies
Heaven forbid we clean up this planet for nothing!
Libruls are dum black and Mexican peeple who lok for handouts and whant my monies. Freeking commies
Heaven forbid we clean up this planet for nothing!
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Its so dumb to focus on climate change. Just focus on air pollution and air quality. Its visible and easy to prove and there is no way anybody can argue it. People in Utah are suffering from air pollution and its creating huge health problems. If we clean up our air it will solve global warming.
Within the next 10 years these two things need to be the focus.
-Homes getting solar energy
-electric cars becoming cheaper and more common
A huge majority of pollution comes from electricity coal plants and from car exhaust. So by having a home on solar and someone charging their car from solar power solves both those issues.
Within the next 10 years these two things need to be the focus.
-Homes getting solar energy
-electric cars becoming cheaper and more common
A huge majority of pollution comes from electricity coal plants and from car exhaust. So by having a home on solar and someone charging their car from solar power solves both those issues.
Companies making money can and will argue anything, even things like denying the link between smoking and cancer.
How do the companies make money? Change must come from the canaille. If people prefer the friendlier alternatives, companies will accommodate.
A CEO has to listen to stockholders to keep a job, even if stockholder interests aren't the 'best' in the minds of most people (myself included)
What a lovely word, expressing contempt for all the poor at one time, instead in separate groups.
The common folk use progressive government policies to protect themselves from the companies whose sole interest is the stockholder, not the general welfare.
CO2 does not cause hazy air or health problems. It's not really a pollutant except that it is a greenhouse gas. It is not harmful to our health unless there is so much of it that it starves us of oxygen.
But why would the companies have any other interest? If they do not listen to stockholders they will be out of their jobs. Seems to me that the common people hold the trump card, but the group is simply too large and diverse to organize a counter-strike.
The government often operates the same way as a major corporation. Politicians catering to votes and advancing their personal re-election interests, not sure that their interest is the general welfare either.
Also, the long term-effects of progressive government policy may be much worse than the long-term effects of global warming.
Honest question: Why is it vital to keep the climate the same? Is it natural for Earth's climate to remain static indefinitely?
Okay, not entirely honest. I understand that melting polar caps could raise the sea level. I understand that land currently used for farming may become unsuitable for the purpose. I understand that cities on the coasts (most of our human population) could be disrupted by rising sea levels. I understand that weather patterns could change.
What if I were to shrug my shoulder's at all that. Is there something more severe that I'm missing?
Okay, not entirely honest. I understand that melting polar caps could raise the sea level. I understand that land currently used for farming may become unsuitable for the purpose. I understand that cities on the coasts (most of our human population) could be disrupted by rising sea levels. I understand that weather patterns could change.
What if I were to shrug my shoulder's at all that. Is there something more severe that I'm missing?
It will lead to destruction of ecosystems and species extinction as well, but you've hit the nail on the head. No one can be certain of the severity or nature of the long-term effects, which is why many don't make controlling emissions a higher priority. It's nearly a blind investment.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Fixed.
I did not suggest the companies would have any other interest, in our culture. Hence the need for protection against them.
I agree that people often fote against their interests.
The supposed long-term negative effects of the former are ephemeral and not measurable, the long-term effects of the latter are physical and measured.
It natural for species to die out, as 99.9% of all populations in the earth's history have no descendants living today. However, I prefer humans to not die out as a species, even though this is unnatural.
I agree that we can't can't keep climate static indefinitely, but slowing down the rate of change to what it was in the pre-industrial era would give better chances for our survival. CO2 levels have never risen this high, and never risen this quickly before.
Nothing is more severe than that natural. That's why we have created a society of artificial safeguards.
I'm sure you think that graph said something, but outside of showing the general increase in temperatures in that ten-year period could be masked by wide variation over small periods of time I'm not sure what the point was.
Yes, they can measure how much ice melts, the volume of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere, the rise of the global temperature. But what does this mean? These numbers could get larger and have no effect on my life, or they could lead to world-ending disaster. The long-term effects cannot be seen, while the long-term effects of government policy can be seen.
There's no "might" about it. Species extinction from climate change is already being witnessed, a species that once depended on each other waking at the same time are now waking at different times, often because one is cued by temperature and the other by sun position or daylight level. Historically, climate change of the level we are started to experience is associated with mass extinctions.
I agree that there will probably be not much effect on most of your life, which will probably be over in 100 years. However, it's not like we don't have a record of mass extinctions being associated with these temperature changes.
https://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather/