Why do so many people seem to think it's "liberal BS" it's not like scientists are just saying stuff for the heck of it. There is compelling evidence. While I won't say I have a definite opinion, I don't think it's some sort of widespread hoax for money. But research on this topic is making my brain hurt right now because I'm tired, so can someone please just tell me, why is it such a problematic controversy?

It must be our wickedness because we're not Mormon.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2015 04:25AM by The Savior's Elf.

Yeah that's what I always thought. I don't understand how that's even debatable. On top of that we have deforestation. We've gotten rid of like 1/5 of the rain forests already so there's less counteraction. That's what I'm confused about. Where is the controversy?

The controversy comes from a culture that refuses to understand. It's that simple.

It begins with understanding the heard mentality, the credulity, the resistance to change, and the respect for authority that exists in the conservative mentality.

And then you have understand current American conservative culture specifically. In the post cold war era, they love capitalism (business), freedom (unaccountability), God (theocracy) , and they hate hippies, tree huggers, atheists and communists (the liberals).

Now, let's say you own Chevron and you stand to make a billion dollars more if you can muster conservative sentiments against the ideology underpinning a change being pushed in legislation by the liberals. Do you think this is hard? No. It's almost too easy. All you have to say is that global warming is a communist plot by liberal envionrmentalists to strip us of our freedom so they push their liberal agenda further down our throats and erode our morals under the guise of freedom while they rip God out of our culture, again under the guise of freedom, which will piss off the almighty and ripen our country for sore afflictions and eventually an everlasting destruction. Hell no, says the conservative, I'm a god-fearing patriot and you liberal commy tree huggers can go fuck yourselves, because God said in the Bible that we have dominion over the earth and that means we can do whatever we want to it. The herd mentality, irrationality, and resistance to change will take it from there.

If you actually do make any headway and show them that science is not a satanic religion coming to strip them of faith, they will still come up with any other explanation than concede that you are right. No, it's a cycle. Or, my favorite, it was prophesied and Jesus is coming soon anyway.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2015 05:15AM by Cold-Dodger.

"Now, let's say you own Chevron . . ."

Loved that explanation, Cold-Dodger! That describes one side of my family precisely - judging by what they keep posting on Facebook every friggin day.

You'd think the Chevrons of the world would stand to make a good deal more money from developing non-fossil-fuel technologies. They are perfectly positioned to simply add to their product line and already have distribution systems in place.

I agree, it's the fossil fuel industry putting pressure on conservative politics in order to wring every last dollar out of nonrenewable energy. And some companies in the industry are sort of making noises in that direction (I'm looking at you, BP Oil).

But really, it has never made much sense to me why it's gone this way. There's money to be made in renewable energy. Supply and demand can be manipulated -- and already is! To suggest "there isn't enough demand for renewable energy" is stupid. Change the propaganda message and boom, there's your demand.

I don't think you truly get the big picture, or the real world obstacles that are there to prevent this great green revolution. It isn't simply right wingers and oil companies making shit up to hold back progress. It takes money, effort, collaboration, cooperation, and planning. Things that typically don't come together when politicians are in charge.

I've give you one example that I personally know of.

Texas is the evil oil leader of the US. Interestingly it also produces the most amount of electricity from wind power 14MWatts, compared to the 2nd highest wind producer, California, that only manages 6MWatts.

Texas can produce even more from wind, but since the wind farms are typically in the remote West part of Texas, there isn't the massive power line infrastructure in place to bring the power from the turbines to the consumers. So the state is limited in how much renewables it can produce.

Recently they have built some new main power lines out West to collect the power. If you drive along the I-10 out west you can see the new stuff going up, but it is an expensive and slow process.

Meanwhile those who are on the obsessive side of the global warming debate are screaming that things are not changing fast enough and we are all going to die!

It just takes time, and it takes a longer time when the threat isn't actually present. It is all future doom and gloom, it isn't today.

Edit: I also don't want a propaganda message to make things change. I want verifiable facts and evidence. Logic and a clear message that makes sense. Not propaganda. I hate propaganda, from both sides of the debate.

Edit 2: And soundbites. I hate soundbites too.
We can't have serious debate on a complex, multifaceted topic when everything is broken down to media friendly soundbites. And both sides of the debate do this.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2015 10:12AM by scotslander.

I think the controversy is mostly about the claim that humans are the major cause, or humans are mainly along for the ride with a minor influence.

Then people take virulent sides on that debate and it kills meaningful dialogue.

So we never really get to discuss in a sensible manner the bigger issues which are

- over population
- deforestation
- pollution
etc, etc

Which are all part of the bigger picture that impact our lovely little planet.

Then I get people who have no scientific training or knowledge telling me (PhD in physics) that I am an idiot because I don't buy into the narrative hook line and sinker.

I could go on......

"Then I get people who have no scientific training or knowledge telling me (PhD in physics) that I am an idiot because I don't buy into the narrative hook line and sinker."

You do have a leg up on the scientifically uneducated. What do your fellow PhD holders say to you on the subject?

We are all doomed.

The more doom they can put into a peer reviewed publication, the more likely it is to get accepted and the more likely it is to get mainstream media coverage.

1) If you're a physicist, and want to succeed, you need to publish in peer-reviewed journals.
2) To publish in same, you need to conform to prevailing beliefs.
3) Physicists will thus write and submit articles which so conform, just as an undergraduate who wants an honor grade tells his professor want he (the professor) wants to hear.
4) Thus, certain scientific positions and theses prevail; when they reach the popular press, these positions are described as "settled science."
5) Dissenters have a steep uphill climb to get their positions published, and
5-A the Doomsayers currently prevail.

Corollary: Just as certain positions are held dogmatically, certain topics are especially trendy. To get published, write an article which reinforces some small aspect of a Trendy & Prevailing Thesis.

I don't think you have that right at all.

That wasn't my experience in college or grad school, or in publishing my papers.

In fact, I had several advisers, professors, and mentors tell me regularly: "Don't just go along, challenge the conventional wisdom!"

Great comment. Since you're not trying to get financial grants or media attention, I'd tend to value your opinion over many others in the science business.

Oh, brother. Historischer, are you a professional? Are you in the US--you, know a market economy? Do you get paid for your work, or are you a volunteer, an amateur? If you get paid, then you must be a liar.

Well then, since I don't get paid much, I must not be much of a liar.

Historischer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great comment. Since you're not trying to get
> financial grants or media attention, I'd tend to
> value your opinion over many others in the science
> business.

Don't fucking trust me! I'm an anonymous jerk on the interwebs that could be lying about his academic credentials. I also work for one of the largest oil majors in the the self-proclaimed oil capital of the world.

As you wish.

I do think a scientist who is well-informed but comments slightly off-label, out of one's area, has less incentive to exaggerate. But you're right, I don't know that you're even that.

Yeah, but I was also a scientist that was fully self-delusional and was a full on, paid-up TBM believer in the Mormon church. Even during and after my PhD!

Clearly my science training took a while to kick in, maybe it still hasn't. LOL

Amazing, isn't it? A relative of mine has a PhD in physics and recently returned from a term as mission president.

Someday we can discuss the rotation of Kolob.

No one learns and no one changes their mind because they think their belief is "the one truth on the face of the earth."

And this is another problem with the climate change debate. It has become more like a religious obsession for many, and it is therefore framed in a true versus lies kind of debate.

You are either for us or against us!

And if you are against us, I have a bunch of well used insults and put downs that I can use against you.....

Isn't global warming just a bunch of hot air?

sonofabish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't global warming just a bunch of hot air?

And hot oceans.

Global warming is a weighted average. How should the various local measurements be weighted?

I meant to write that global *temperature* is a weighted average.

Historischer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Global warming is a weighted average. How should
> the various local measurements be weighted?

Probably with a weighting scale of 1.0?

Unless you are concerned that you have 300 measurements from a populated part of the world that are showing higher temps, but only 10 that are being recorded in less populated areas, but are showing temp stability or decrease?

And don't satellite measurements reduce that effect anyway?

I really don't think the major debate is about temperature rise, it is hard to dismiss actual measurements taken by inanimate instruments that don't have an agenda. it is really is about the cause of any temperature rise.

scotslander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And don't satellite measurements reduce that
> effect anyway?

Yep.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

> I really don't think the major debate is about
> temperature rise, it is hard to dismiss actual
> measurements taken by inanimate instruments that
> don't have an agenda. it is really is about the
> cause of any temperature rise.

That *is* what it's "really about." But that's not often what it's SAID to be really about.

There's no question our release of huge amounts of CO2 have contributed to a greenhouse effect. How much they've contributed, how "permanent" those effects are, etc. are all topics for debate, research, etc. And as you mentioned, that takes time (as does doing something about it if it is a major cause).

My take? Fossil fuels are a finite resource. No matter what, whether our CO2 releases are a major cause of warming or a minor one, we need to get away from them and move towards renewable sources. The sooner the better, but it does take time, and I'm skeptical of many of the more "doom and gloom unless we act radically now" projections.

Until the East Anglia Climate Center adjusts the temperature data to conform to the predictive models.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Until the East Anglia Climate Center adjusts the
> temperature data to conform to the predictive
> models.

Hard to keep the funding rolling in if the models you created from tax payers funding look real shit.

In addition, East Anglia University? WTF is that place? Why should it be a global center of excellence in anything? But now that it is, they will do anything to maintain that prestige.

Human nature at work.


Plus they destroyed a golf course to build that ugly 1960's monstrosity. That is blasphemy to take out a golf course!

You'll find a very large overlap of people who don't believe that global warming is real, and people who don't believe in evolution.

Not 100%, but I'd say it's at least 90%

There are many logical, well educated people and many scientists who believe in evolution and doubt the claims made by socialists that man is the cause of "global warming".

I think the people who are firmly in the camp supporting global warming need to at least make it clear they are specifically talking about "anthropomorphic climate change".

That is the big debatable issue.

The whole debate has become obsessed with CO2 emissions, but gives very little air time to population control, deforestation, and all that other good stuff that helps the earth naturally maintain it's temperature range.

Which again, seems to vary, in the past the earth has been warmer, and sometimes cooler. The animals back in the day didn't particularly contribute to the temperature swings, but those that could adapt survived, and those that could not died.