A question about climate change/global warming.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1318 of them)

http://cdn5.tribalfusion.com/media/761536.gif

― g®▲Ðұ, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 22:19 (nineteen years ago)

Things I've heard people say:

"Don't get me started on environmentalists! Soon denying global warming'll be like denying the holocaust. It'll be all "How dare you say it doesn't exist blah blah" (same bloke blamed "this PC world in which we live" for the rise in health and safety measures - my boss blamed lawyers. I think I agree with my boss)

"They ask me to switch off my TV instead of leaving it on standby, saying it saves energy, but have they considered that that so-called "wasted" energy is actually helping to heat my house?"

― the next grozart, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:23 (nineteen years ago)

These are also the kind of people who have an incredibly high suspicion of scientists, doctors and other professionals. "What's he talking about?! These people! He's not a proper scientist!" etc.

― the next grozart, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:26 (nineteen years ago)

"The cost of recycling is actually greater than the damage done"

― the next grozart, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:27 (nineteen years ago)

Recycling IS very expensive and energy-intensive, though

How about Ken Livingstone, eh??

Cleaning up the Big Smoke: Livingstone plans to cut carbon emissions by 60%

and presumably some of the experience gained with this long-term initiative can be imparted to Venezuela through Ken's expertise-in-exchange-for-cheap-oil-for-poor-Londoners deal he struck with Chavez:

Livingstone seals Venezuelan fuel deal

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:53 (nineteen years ago)

interesting!

― blueski, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 13:08 (nineteen years ago)

follow up information to all those attacks against Gore over the last two day, from the " Tennessee Center for Policy Research" to every rightwing radio show and blogger out there

― kingfish, Thursday, 1 March 2007 00:21 (nineteen years ago)

I suspect the biggest reason is that too many people have been preaching catastrophe from too many angles for too long. People are incurious about all sorts of subjects that could be deemed vital or essential. Picking "humans cause global warming" as a topic is really kind of pointless, unless you happen to be a big believer in it. If it's your dogma, then it suddenly it's unreasonable that others don't share your enthusiasm, wonder, or abject fear. Abortion, Iraq, Putin whoring himself around the Middle East, poverty, saving the whales...everyone's got a cause that someone else doesn't care about.

And really, you can't blame people for being at least a little bit jaded, non-plussed, or even cynical on this topic.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 1 March 2007 01:35 (nineteen years ago)

Ah......sure I can.

― peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 15:07 (nineteen years ago)

......so we're only capable to worry about one cause?

― peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 15:09 (nineteen years ago)

we can have as many causes (and crisis) as we want. Some have many, some have few. People have jammed their heads in the sand for eons for a variety of issues.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Sunday, 4 March 2007 15:35 (nineteen years ago)

But then why choosing to jam their heads with such an energetic response against it?

― peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 15:48 (nineteen years ago)

Instead of consulting a message board of what amounts to like minded people on this subject, maybe it would be more productive to sit down with these people and ask them why it is they think the way they do. That way, you wouldn't have to speculate. Maybe it's your approach to the subject that makes them wave you off. Maybe they'd be willing to consider your perspective on different terms. Are you out to change their mind or simply expose them because you think they are idiots? How is it "energetic" to merely refuse to consider possibilities of humans causing global warming? Sounds pretty passive to me.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Sunday, 4 March 2007 16:26 (nineteen years ago)

Ouch!

I'm consulting a message board right now, because I'm at home, and the two people who live in this house have questions, and y'all MIGHT have some insight.

I do not argue with these people. I am calm and non-judgemental with them. I ask them questions. The thing that always gets me , though, is a lack of willingness to read something, or watch something, etc. I get along with these people. We talk in a friendly manner about all kinds of things everyday.

I have asked them why they're so bitterly opposed to the concept, and they usually have no answer except "It's a bunch of bull!", as if they'd rather not discuss it unless we're in agreement that it is a bunch of bull.

Dan, please don't project those nasty traits onto me.

(Am I comming across in a nasty way on this thread?)

― peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 16:36 (nineteen years ago)

In other words, I don't bring the topic up. Someone will mention how it's all bunk, and I'd say something like "it seems a reasonable conclusion to come to, given all of the scientific data." And THEY'LL go off. I stay calm, but ask them about their logic, and they'll mention that Al Gore's fat or its cold outside today.

― peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

This is defferent from my own experience, I rarely come across any denial of global warming / climate change. What I do come across is a large amount of indifference. The mental link has yet to be made between ongoing problem/possible solutions I can implement. Still, in a country where our own PM seems to be of the opinion that scientists will come up with something to sort it all out, this is hardly surprising.

― Matt, Sunday, 4 March 2007 16:48 (nineteen years ago)

I'm not trying to project those traits on you peepee and I'm sorry if you thought I was.

I'd say it sounds like the people you are referring to probably think that the issue is more partisan than scientific. They probably don't think much of Al Gore, they may not trust what he has to say, they may resent him being a celebrity for his cause, etc. Like Matt said, they may be predisposed to be indifferent towards climate issues and therefore see environmentalists as a bunch of paranoid scolds. Environmental issues have long been polarizing, with both sides being dismissive of the other to the point of losing any sort of healthy skepticism.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Sunday, 4 March 2007 18:06 (nineteen years ago)

Maria - yes it is hip for boys to darn socks! At least in the circles I run in. Even better if they make their own period clothing. (Alas, I will never win such a boy over with my homemade ball gowns, but I am a pretty good cook for a student!)

I don't know the reasons for totally shutting off to the idea of global warming, and I'm afraid any speculation I could provide would sound horrendously insulting and condescending.

― Maria, Monday, 5 March 2007 00:05 (nineteen years ago)

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb0305awj.jpg

Algore is fat lol

― kingfish, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 00:35 (nineteen years ago)

Here's another reason, when the paper of record publishes bullshit hit pieces on Al Gore and his movie, by people who've done the same thing previously and been found wrong for it.

More detail here:

Bill Broad took to the pages of the paper of record to establish that there is significant concern in the scientific community about the accuracy of Gore's movie. To do so, he trotted out scientific outliers, non-scientists, and hacks with discredited arguments. In at least two cases (Pielke Jr. being a scientist and the NAS report contradicting Gore) he made gross factual errors. As for the rest, it's a classic case of journalistic "false balance" -- something I thought we were done with on global warming. I guess when it comes to Al Gore, the press still thinks it can get by on smear, suggestion, and innuendo.

And also what happened when they tried to attack the study Al cites about the 900+ peer-reviewed research papers supporting climate change.

That's the thing; b/c it's so political now, plenty of people have such vested stakes in their positions, and absolutely cannot admit that those Dirty Fucking Hippies are right, and that fat communist Algore actually knows his shit. So they cannot accept actual facts and cling to any life raft that keeps them from drowning in their own sewage, e.g. "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Facts alone don't set you free, since humans are so easily able to reject them.

― kingfish, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:45 (nineteen years ago)

interesting evangelical split on this issue - story up on CNN about it

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:52 (nineteen years ago)

thing i don't get is wtf do the global-warming-is-bullshit people think the global-warming-is-fucking-us-all-and-mostly-done-by-humangs people are getting out of it? by denying it the former get to live their lives seeing the world as a resource and no more, get richer, whatever, but what do the latter get out of not denying it? some obv retorts - not answers - spring to mind but first, what do you think?

― emsk, Thursday, 15 March 2007 23:43 (nineteen years ago)

that we're communists who hate america and capitalism and the free market and want us all to live in sod huts and covered wagons and eat tofu. This is more or less what rightwinger columnists say, almost verbatim.

― kingfish, Thursday, 15 March 2007 23:46 (nineteen years ago)

Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.
The world was created in six days, less than 7000 years ago.
Tax cuts are a cure for deficits.

Clearly, these people are hard-to-convince skeptics.

― M.V., Friday, 16 March 2007 00:15 (nineteen years ago)

In fact, when some of 'em are pushed hard enough(like the CEI/AEI folks on that Thom Hartmann has on his show), they almost all revert to talking about how Kyoto will bankrupt the U.S. The equation comes down to that particular instance, as if there was one and only one particular way to go about it, and that way would be Bad for America, so we can't do anything. It almost always comes down to them holding that it's not economically possible to change how fucked up the system is right now, so status quo uber alles.

That and inertia is a bitch to overcome with people and industrial types not known for their adaptability or openness to new ideas.

― kingfish, Friday, 16 March 2007 00:42 (nineteen years ago)

"Market idolatry" is another good term for it.

― kingfish, Friday, 16 March 2007 00:42 (nineteen years ago)

jeezus, kingfish. you sound pretty reactionary and defensive.

this issue is absolute dogma for some people, a nearly prophetic belief where anyone who's not on board with the apocalypse is a "denier." Is that what science has become?

― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 16 March 2007 01:37 (nineteen years ago)

You're projecting again, and using the problems you have with a few of the adherents to try to discredit the phenomenom itself. Using religious language on people who don't hold the knowledge thru relegious teachings is the same shit that fundie creationists do, screeching around about "Darwinists."

― kingfish, Friday, 16 March 2007 06:18 (nineteen years ago)

who's doing the projecting here?

Nice try.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 16 March 2007 10:45 (nineteen years ago)

i think "what more can i do?" a lot of the time. I find it hard not to be smug, coz i look down the list of things in the "how to be greener" list and I think "well, i'm doing ALL of those already and have been for years".

like use yr less for example. I have no driver's licence; I will never have a driver's licence, end of.

i could fly less I suppose, but the most I've ever flown in a year is three return trips in 2005, last year it was two, likely to be two this year. From 1970-1990 inclusive it was none at all, same again from 1992 to 1995 inlcusive.

― Grandpont Genie, Friday, 16 March 2007 10:50 (nineteen years ago)

emsk - that's exactly what I've been wondering; there seems to be a bit of a backlash at the moment, that C4 documentary has meant a few tabloids feeling bold enough to run pieces trashing the whole idea. Admittedly I don't really rate the intellectual credentials of the Mail, Brian Reade and Richard Madeley but the worrying thing is that these twats have an audience. The one which really got me was a Mail leader article about how "they" want "us" to change "our lifestyles" for "no good reason." It's like refusing to go out of your way to buy dinosaur repellent when there's a herd of Apatosaurs bearing down on you.

The thing is, I'm not going to pretend to understand the situation fully, I doubt I am well-enough informed to win a debate with a hard-core climate change denier (purely because I don't have any facts at my disposal to counter their cherry-picked ones); but there's clearly enough evidence to convince me to alter my lifestyle as much as I can. I'm not being particularly inconvenienced, and I'm certainly not doing any more harm, so where's the problem?

― Matt, Friday, 16 March 2007 11:00 (nineteen years ago)

Matt, you could always start here. A critique written by Sir John Houghton, ex Met Office Chief Exec who campaigns against climate change from a Christian viewpoint.

http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warming_Swindle.doc

― Billy Dods, Friday, 16 March 2007 12:15 (nineteen years ago)

Ta, I was listening to their arguments and think that it sounded like absolute rubbish but I couldn't prove why. See, I don't doubt the existence of climate change, and I don't doubt the magnitude of the problem. I remember when that documentary was screened a channel 4 rep got torn aprt on the radio (Today, I think), and the main thrust of his argument was a somewhat lame "well it's a different viewpoint and needs hearing" as opposed to the more honest "it's grossly irresponsible but will nevertheless generate media attention. Ker-ching!"

― Matt, Friday, 16 March 2007 13:18 (nineteen years ago)

I thought this was mainly a US phenomenon and everyone over here was resigned to global warming's existence (while not actually doing anything about it) except maybe for a tiny, tiny minority of the desperately stupid, but a very smart friend saw that Great Global Warming Swindle programme and the next day he was absolutely sold that everything he saw in it was FACT and we had been LIED to and it was all a conspiracy by anti-capitalists who hate oil companies for no good reason or something. I've since seen a newspaper TV review of it in a paper I just about trust enough to buy also saying "makes you think, doesn't it?" etc bla.

Now I haven't seen this programme (I probably should before I rant, it's on u|<n0v4 but I'm out of disk space, maybe this weekend), but the bits he was quoting as absolute proof it didn't exist were fairly well, er, if not refuted then at least contradicted in both the Gore film and the Planet Earth (?) episode about future climate change, but I didn't have any facts or figures in my head.

Any Britishers here seen it? Anyone else surprised at smart people being convinced by it? I'm a little surprised and disappointed at C4 for putting it on.

― a passing spacecadet, Friday, 16 March 2007 13:24 (nineteen years ago)

this issue is absolute dogma for some people, a nearly prophetic belief where anyone who's not on board with the apocalypse is a "denier." Is that what science has become?

I think the problem here, is that you move from "some people" to "Is that what science has become?"

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 16 March 2007 13:38 (nineteen years ago)

[i] "Bergeron's epitaph for the planet, I remember, which he said should be carved in big letters in a wall of the Grand Canyon for the flying-saucer people to find, was this:

WE COULD HAVE SAVED IT
BUT WE WERE TOO DOGGONE CHEAP

Only he didn't say 'doggone.'"
- KV, _Hocus Pocus_[i]

― kingfish, Friday, 16 March 2007 17:41 (nineteen years ago)

I don't understand anyone who says the scientific community's evidence is inconclusive when every major peer-reviewed science journal, international study team, and independent scientific authority has either verified it or expressed major concern about it. They may not be able accurately predict all the effects - the global system is too complex for that kind of prognostication - but the fact that human activity is impacting the temperature and weather systems of the planet is indisputable.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 16 March 2007 17:56 (nineteen years ago)

B/c when you finally admit that a problem is happening, it kind of behooves you to do something about it. Any why make the effort to change when things are going so well for this quarter?

― kingfish, Friday, 16 March 2007 18:02 (nineteen years ago)

The argument isn't whether or not humans impact the earth. It's how much.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 16 March 2007 18:04 (nineteen years ago)

About $5 billion worth just in grain crops.

― Leee, Friday, 16 March 2007 19:21 (nineteen years ago)

"Not every scientist agrees that agriculture is suffering from warmer temperatures."

We like to call these so-called scientists "deniers."

― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 16 March 2007 19:44 (nineteen years ago)

Who are the scientists? Are they gunna pull from a political scientist & statistician like the dude did in the NYT thing?

― kingfish, Friday, 16 March 2007 19:49 (nineteen years ago)

They are unnamed in that article because certainly, they are not real scientists who have done any original research on the subject. They are just shills for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Haliburton, George Bush, and Jesus H. Christ.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 16 March 2007 19:56 (nineteen years ago)

haha - you say that like it isn't possible

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 16 March 2007 20:03 (nineteen years ago)

See? Even Don Weiner understands.

― Leee, Friday, 16 March 2007 20:04 (nineteen years ago)

Shakey, by now you should know that I've rolled over and come to accept everything that Al Gore has said as the Gospel Truth. I regret that this took me so long, but I'm pretty ignorant and was brainwashed by the Republican Rapture.

The Heretics

― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 16 March 2007 20:08 (nineteen years ago)

29.

Versus the 928 in the Oreskes survey.

― Leee, Friday, 16 March 2007 20:15 (nineteen years ago)

Don surely you're aware that there have been actual illegitimate efforts (some even by people you listed) to silence and/or discredit scientists scientific studies verifying global warming.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 16 March 2007 20:20 (nineteen years ago)

"scientists AND scientific studies"

gah

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 16 March 2007 20:20 (nineteen years ago)

That's why these fake scientists are referred to as "deniers", Lee. Because clearly, they must be willfully ignorant to ignore the scientific consensus at hand. It just doesn't make sense to me, this minority of opinion. Surely Exxon, Dick Cheney, the NRA, Big Auto, Big Tobacco, Big Timber, The Beef Council, and Goodyear must be paying these people off. This crowd probably believes in Intelligent Design, are pro-life, and hate the gays. I wonder if they keep their wives locked in the kitchen.

I think we should take away their credentials and make sure Young People are not subject to their faulty teachings. Especially that wingnut Richard Lindzen--he's at MIT fer cryin' out loud! His original research was biased anyway.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 16 March 2007 20:23 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 1218 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

i honestly didn't get past the first chapter, which is harrowing as fuck

― mookieproof, Monday, 18 September 2023 01:57 (two years ago)

It is harrowing as fuck, but the book is somewhat hopeful and offers some kind of pathway that isn't exercises in prepping and doomerism.

― Elvis Telecom, Monday, 18 September 2023 04:17 (two years ago)

iirc that book makes a pretty convincing argument that "adaptation" to climate change will not be an option for millions and millions of people

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 18 September 2023 07:12 (two years ago)

KSR sounds amazing. Have to read that book.

― xyzzzz__, Monday, 18 September 2023 07:49 (two years ago)

I also didn't make it much past the first chapter, though I skimmed ahead some. It hadn't been that long since the heat dome in the PNW when I tried to read it, so it was all horrifyingly easy to imagine.

― Lily Dale, Tuesday, 19 September 2023 03:32 (two years ago)

four months pass...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/15/spain-water-barcelona-farmers-tourism-catalonia-drought

― xyzzzz__, Thursday, 15 February 2024 19:28 (two years ago)

two months pass...

We are getting our answers

Burundi’s capital has been under heavy flood and landslide for over a week now. Many areas affected include Kibenga, Gatumba, Kajaga and so on. Thousands of people forced to flee their homes fearing for their lives. The govt of Burundi & the @UN launched a call for financial aid. pic.twitter.com/4vPyEsjfe7
— African News feed. (@africansinnews) April 21, 2024

― xyzzzz__, Sunday, 21 April 2024 08:59 (two years ago)

one month passes...

Tourists are dying from the heat in hiking trips.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/16/tourist-dead-greek-island-near-corfu

― xyzzzz__, Monday, 17 June 2024 08:29 (two years ago)

300+ dead at Mecca in 50C heat

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/18/hundreds-of-hajj-pilgrims-die-in-mecca-from-heat-related-illness

― xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 19 June 2024 06:56 (two years ago)

500+..

― xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 19 June 2024 06:58 (two years ago)

1000+

Many thousands have been dying in North India.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/24/delhi-heat-stroke-clinic-first-ram-manohar-lohia-hospital

― xyzzzz__, Monday, 24 June 2024 09:48 (two years ago)

one month passes...

Can't help thinking this is a rehearsal for all of us soon.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/09/texas-heat-prisons-lawsuit

― xyzzzz__, Saturday, 10 August 2024 12:52 (one year ago)

one month passes...

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/sep/26/how-did-an-argentina-lake-the-size-of-new-york-city-disappear-lake-colhue-huapi-musters-patagonia

― xyzzzz__, Saturday, 28 September 2024 16:46 (one year ago)

ten months pass...

This is unbelievable.

The high temperature at one of Finland’s northernmost weather stations, in the municipality of Sodankylä (Lapland region) within the Arctic Circle at latitude 67.3°N, reached at least 25°C for 26 days in a row.

Records date back to 1908. pic.twitter.com/l0y34A3y0C
— Nahel Belgherze (@WxNB_) August 6, 2025

― xyzzzz__, Friday, 8 August 2025 13:10 (ten months ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.