Talked to some relatives about global warming.....

[LibertyEagle]

Drake, you planted the seed. It will stay at the back of her mind.

 

[Antischism]

Skepticalscience only cares about promoting one side of the story. Stay away from it.

Why? It does a fantastic job presenting research and studies. Not only that, but there's a comments section for each topic where people can pose questions and many chime in with answers. You can make up your own mind and have your own beliefs, but I'm not going to limit what I read. So far, this site has been one of the best resources on the net regarding climate change and is constantly being updated/revised as new information is made available. It uses peer-reviewed scientific literature to present arguments and refute claims.

You can read both this site and others that promote skepticism and their rebuttals to peer-reviewed scientific studies. You don't have to be on either extreme end of the debate. No cognitive dissonance here.

 

[robert9712000]

we had our first ever white Thanksgiving here that i can recall.I keep reading were breaking records for earth warming ,but this whole year has been the coolest i remember.This summer in Ohio we had about 4 90+ days when we normally have about 12.I saw my first snow flurry in September when its usually in October and now like i said we had a white Thanksgiving.Ill go by what i see and not what im told.

 

[Philhelm]

we had our first ever white Thanksgiving here that i can recall.I keep reading were breaking records for earth warming ,but this whole year has been the coolest i remember.This summer in Ohio we had about 4 90+ days when we normally have about 12.I saw my first snow flurry in September when its usually in October and now like i said we had a white Thanksgiving.Ill go by what i see and not what im told.

You've never seen "The Day After Tomorrow?" It gets so hot that an Ice Age is initiated.

 

[jmdrake]

A lot of times when I talk to people about man made destruction they tend to speak in terms of the basic things that humans do and so they only place the man made language into things that they can relate to. This limits their position in scope. They don't tend to place a multi-national corporation's poisons and disruptions into the man made category but, as we have come to foolishly accept, corporations are people too. You see?

Now, I'm just talking about average joes here, Not people who actually study this stuff. But the average joes are the ones soliciting the dumbing down discussion on it and then all we hear about is farts and whatnot. Wood stoves and other things they can relate with which doesn't really do the phenomenon any justice in scope.

Okay. I don't think activity by humans, whether individuals or corporations, are a major driving force of climate change. I believe the climate has had wild swings since there has been a planet earth driven mostly by the sun. The scientific method is based on testable hypotheses right? One of those testable hypothoses is that global tempertures still should be going up since carbon emissions have not been significantly reduced. That hasn't happened. The ice caps should still be melting and, by some accounts, should be gone by now. That hasn't happened. So at this point the underlying idea that carbon emissions cause global warming is extremely suspect.

 

[aGameOfThrones]

we had our first ever white Thanksgiving here that i can recall.I keep reading were breaking records for earth warming ,but this whole year has been the coolest i remember.This summer in Ohio we had about 4 90+ days when we normally have about 12.I saw my first snow flurry in September when its usually in October and now like i said we had a white Thanksgiving.Ill go by what i see and not what im told.

Racist! BTW, I blame The Gods for Global Warming.

 

[jmdrake]

I have mixed feelings on this issue. However the scientific consensus is lie 98% of scientists believe Climate Change to be real. You get a few oddballs who are possibly oil funded scientists who post on blogs about how its fake. Am I really one to question a scientific majority though?

Okay, assuming you aren't just pulling our legs, where do you get your "98%" statistic from? Because I've never seen that from a reliable source. That said, look at the predictions from these "scientists" and note that they aren't coming true. Also note that back in the 1970s the same scientists were claiming that carbon emissions were going to cause global cooling!

I mean really. Trust your common sense. You've been lied to. We all have been. The one thing my aunt got right is that the media is full of propaganda. What she doesn't understand is how to tell the difference between the propaganda and the truth. Here is an easy way. When a media outlet allows a fact to slip through that goes against what they are typically saying, that's the truth. When Fox news lets something slip that attacks the neocon position, that's the truth. When MSNBC reports on some negative aspect of Obamacare, that's the truth. The fact that the global warming cheerleading media has to admit that the earth hasn't gotten warmer for the past 15 years shows that is the truth.

 

[jmdrake]

Drake, you planted the seed. It will stay at the back of her mind.

Thanks for the encouragement! And hey, she voted for Ron Paul in the primary (Obama in the general) so I guess I should be happy with that. (Note: I believe Ron Paul could have won the GOP primary if we had done more outreach to democrats in open primary states instead of only targetting "likely republican voters.")

 

[XNavyNuke]

Me personally, I'm more suspicious of events the media won't talk about. Such as arresting reporters on the beach after the BP disaster in the Gulf. There is very little talk about the Fukushima incident.

Do you live under a rock? The mainstream and alternative media can't help but tie everything into a Fukushima angle. In the wake of Super Typhoon Haiyan, we get headlines like this: Typhoons-spreading-fukushima-fallout

. Typhoons that hit Japan each year are contributing to the spread of radioactive material from the Fukushima nuclear disaster into the country's waterways, researchers say.

OMG! The end is near. The end is near.

XNN

 

[JK/SEA]

well, there must be something to this climate change nomenclature. Its cold and rainy, and it might snow next week....very strange weather for this time of year in Seattle.....wait...it is November right?....



nevermind....

 

[jmdrake]

Do you live under a rock? The mainstream and alternative media can't help but tie everything into a Fukushima angle. In the wake of Super Typhoon Haiyan, we get headlines like this: Typhoons-spreading-fukushima-fallout



OMG! The end is near. The end is near.

XNN

Umm....so are you saying that a typhoon couldn't spread fallout? At least the MSM isn't trying to say Fukashima is causing the typhoons. Global warming gets blamed for eathquakes.

 

[FSU63]

Whether or not man-made global warming exists (I believe it does), why would we want dirty streets and dirty air? Why would you NOT want a clean society? Arguing whether man-made global warming exists or not is pointless. Rather, we should be arguing whether people want to be inhaling dirty air.

 

[Wooden Indian]

Whether or not man-made global warming exists (I believe it does), why would we want dirty streets and dirty air? Why would you NOT want a clean society? Arguing whether man-made global warming exists or not is pointless. Rather, we should be arguing whether people want to be inhaling dirty air.

No... that's still the wrong argument. You're ignoring the elephant in the room.

Remember that the goal of the Global Warming alarmists is to pressure Government into even more regulation and taxation in order to "protect our environment".

Do I want to breath stinky air? No. I've been to cities like LA, and it's foul.
Do I want the gubmit to protect me from breathing "dirty" air? Heck no.

/discussion

 

[FSU63]

No... that's still the wrong argument. You're ignoring the elephant in the room.

Remember that the goal of the Global Warming alarmists is to pressure Government into even more regulation and taxation in order to "protect our environment".

Do I want to breath stinky air? No. I've been to cities like LA, and it's foul.
Do I want the gubmit to protect me from breathing "dirty" air? Heck no.

/discussion

I'm not ignoring it. I believe we should get the government out of it. However, I still believe we should be encouraged to "go green". Not to help global warming, but because I doubt people want to be breathing in smog.

 

[Wooden Indian]

I'm not ignoring it. I believe we should get the government out of it. However, I still believe we should be encouraged to "go green". Not to help global warming, but because I doubt people want to be breathing in smog.

We should "be encouraged"? In what ways? What types of incentives or programs would you support?

 

[jmdrake]

Whether or not man-made global warming exists (I believe it does), why would we want dirty streets and dirty air? Why would you NOT want a clean society? Arguing whether man-made global warming exists or not is pointless. Rather, we should be arguing whether people want to be inhaling dirty air.

1) Do you believe the polar ice caps are melting or expanding?

2) Do you believe the report, admitted to be true by the IPCC, that for the past 15 years there has been no warming period?

3) Are you aware of the fact that in the 1970s these same "scientists" were claiming that CO2 emissions were causing global cooling?

4) Do you understand that CO2 is not "dirty"?

5) Do you understand that one of the main "solutions" to cutting greenhouse emissions is increased investment in nuclear power? Do you think nuclear power is environmentally responsible?

6) Do you understand that some environmentalists are now turning against wind power because wind turbines kill birds?

7) Do you understand that the whole "carbon footprint scheme" that is the main proposed solution to global warming doesn't actually reduce CO2 emmissions?

Sorry, but you can't goet to a real solution by focusing on fake problems. The money being wasted on "CO2 scrubbers" should instead be spent on cutting down on real pollutants like sulfur dioxide or carbon monoxide. Focusing on stopping CO2 emmissions is about as helpful for saving the environment as focusing on cutting dihydrogen-monoxide emissions.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not ignoring it. I believe we should get the government out of it. However, I still believe we should be encouraged to "go green". Not to help global warming, but because I doubt people want to be breathing in smog.

CO2 has absofucking nothing to do with "smog". Smog kills trees. Trees thrive on CO2.

 

[parocks]

Okay. I'm going to preface this by saying that the particular relative that disagreed with me on this is in many ways smarter than I am. My point is that sometimes you can't get people to see your point of view even when the facts are on your side. So my nephew was asked by my mom about ways man is destroying the earth, and he included carbon dioxide. I pointed out that man made global warming is a hoax propogated by people who want to control the economy through carbon credits. Later at Thanksgiving dinner, he asked my aunt if she knew global warming is a hoax. She said "I know some people believe that but I think its real." I pointed out that even the IPCC has had to admit that the earth hasn't been warming for the past 15 years. She was like "They SAY that, but we don't know that's true." I was like "But they're the ones that were pushing this thing the hardest." She was like "Well why are the ice caps melting". I said "They're melting, they're expanding." She's like "So you say". I'm like "No. I don't say. It's been in the news. I can look it up." (I pull up a story from the Washington Post on the artic ice expanding.) She was like "If the Washington post says rain doesn't fall, does that mean it doesn't fall?" I'm like "That makes no sense. You can see the rain fall. Neither you nor eye have witnessed the polar ice caps so we have to go from someone else's report. The Washington post is a liberal newspaper. Why would they make something up to attack global warming?" She was like "It's propaganda."

At the end of the day, once someone has fully convinced him or herself that something is definitely true it is very difficult to get that person to see a different point of view.

You see these relatives last year? I'm getting old. If it's the same people as last year, there's really no point. "Oh, so we're talking politics now? Anybody switch from Obama in the last year? No? So then everything is pretty much the same then."

 

[parocks]

Thanks for the encouragement! And hey, she voted for Ron Paul in the primary (Obama in the general) so I guess I should be happy with that. (Note: I believe Ron Paul could have won the GOP primary if we had done more outreach to democrats in open primary states instead of only targetting "likely republican voters.")

or if we had done more outreach to people with cell phones. The guy, I can't remember his s/n offhand, the one from Australia, did a fantastic job with calling cell phones. People with cell phones tend to be young. And young people tended to support Ron Paul.

 

[FSU63]

We should "be encouraged"? In what ways? What types of incentives or programs would you support?

Certainly not any government ones. But I believe that people should recycle, should opt for clean energy when given the choice, should switch to "cleaner" cars, etc.

As I said, I don't give two shits about global warming. But why do people feel that not believing in global warming gives them an excuse to dirty up the air? All I'm saying is that we should want to NOT pollute our environment.

1) Do you believe the polar ice caps are melting or expanding?

2) Do you believe the report, admitted to be true by the IPCC, that for the past 15 years there has been no warming period?

3) Are you aware of the fact that in the 1970s these same "scientists" were claiming that CO2 emissions were causing global cooling?

4) Do you understand that CO2 is not "dirty"?

5) Do you understand that one of the main "solutions" to cutting greenhouse emissions is increased investment in nuclear power? Do you think nuclear power is environmentally responsible?

6) Do you understand that some environmentalists are now turning against wind power because wind turbines kill birds?

7) Do you understand that the whole "carbon footprint scheme" that is the main proposed solution to global warming doesn't actually reduce CO2 emmissions?

Sorry, but you can't goet to a real solution by focusing on fake problems. The money being wasted on "CO2 scrubbers" should instead be spent on cutting down on real pollutants like sulfur dioxide or carbon monoxide. Focusing on stopping CO2 emmissions is about as helpful for saving the environment as focusing on cutting dihydrogen-monoxide emissions.

I never specifically mentioned CO2 at all.

CO2 has absofucking nothing to do with "smog". Smog kills trees. Trees thrive on CO2.

I never said it did. I'm not talking about global warming, I'm talking more about pollution in general.