Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Thanks for that Russtafa. Yes indeed. I would very much like the world that denies the very great threat we have created to take account of this and to stop being short term about things and look at the bigger picture. Our generation will be fine and probably that of our children. But beyond that, if we don't really address these issues, the world won't have a future.
Hence my remark about people like you fiddling while the world burns. And the pointlessness of engaging with you when you just see conspiracies.

---

The fact of the matter Prospero is there is no "overwhelming evidence" to back up your theories. There is science on both sides of the equation to support both opinions. What is alarming is the demonization of anyone that doesn't believe in what you do. World is flat? Give me a break. I don't try and ram my religion down your throat, please don't force feed me yours.

If science ever reaches a collective agreement I am sure you will see the world come together to seek a solution. But to tell the opposing side "your scientists are all idiots and ours are all geniuses" isn't doing anything to further your point. You continually try and convince us the "world is flat", and we just don't see that your point is valid.

Now please excuse me, my fiddle is calling me...

same you see truth where i see scam but you people are dangerous with your screaming at these gutless politicians who will fold to any bull shit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

The fact of the matter Prospero is there is no "overwhelming evidence" to back up your theories. There is science on both sides of the equation to support both opinions. What is alarming is the demonization of anyone that doesn't believe in what you do. World is flat? Give me a break. I don't try and ram my religion down your throat, please don't force feed me yours.

If science ever reaches a collective agreement I am sure you will see the world come together to seek a solution. But to tell the opposing side "your scientists are all idiots and ours are all geniuses" isn't doing anything to further your point. You continually try and convince us the "world is flat", and we just don't see that your point is valid.

Now please excuse me, my fiddle is calling me...

---

No chance in hell.

i don't see China shutting down coal generators in fact they are building more

Faldur - there is also a tiny body of scientists who also deny that HIV causes AIDS. They and the climate change deniers are recognised as, at best naive, but more probably craven idiots by the vast majority of serious scientists. You know perfectly well that the bulk of science now supports the idea of climate change - but for I assume are politically generated reasons deny this.

:bangheadbut the greens want our government to tax our industries and close them down

watermelon green on the outside red on the inside=greens

Quote:

---

If science ever reaches a collective agreement I am sure you will see the world come together to seek a solution.

---

It has (peruse any reputable refereed journal on climatology) and you won't (witness the current state of denial). Why isn't the world coming together? Two factors.

1) Denial. Look at the position to which russtafa persistently returns:

Quote:

---

the greens want our government to tax our industries and close them down

---

He, like many others, fears that solutions will stress the world economy in ways that will negatively impact his life and the welfare of his countrymen. When you don't understand science and you have to take your "truth" on the word of authority, that economic burden weighs heavily against accepting the authority of climate science. That's psychologically understandable, but it's also poor epistemology.

Once swayed by ignorance and the threat of economic burden, or by ignorance and ideology (or all three) a different psychology sets in: the need to defend one's position at all cost; even if that cost is your own intellectual integrity. Look for example at Faldur's claim above that there is no consensus among climate scientists. Even if you're ignorant of science, you shouldn't be ignorant of the easily checked fact that consensus exists. Faldur even knows, on a certain level, that is does when he sarcastically attacks climatologists generally in post #441. Why attack all climatologists when you claim (albeit falsely) that 50% of them support you? Or look at Faldur's post #333 where grasping for any straw to stay afloat he links to an article which he thinks attributes general long term ocean rise to the effects of El Nino and El Nina whereas the article makes no such claim, but even shows the El Nino and El Nina oscillations superposed upon the general rise due to global warming (see my post #334). These sorts of attempts to misrepresent and distort (whether they be due to inexcusable ignorance or deliberate) are examples of what the denier is led to in order to remain a denier. They are also examples of denier propaganda.

2. There is no obvious solution. It is unfeasible to simply stop burning fossil fuels. China is building coal burning plants hand over fist. Its the cheapest way for them to produce energy. It is estimated that there are enough coal deposits left on Earth to last a millennium (perhaps we should conserve them for the next ice age...but we won't). I don't see any way short of a miracle that we won't burn through them. For one thing, our first world lifestyles are at stake. Anyone here want to give up their computer, connectivity, winter heat, summer air-conditioning, car etc. etc. to save our great grandchildren that grief? For another thing, there's too much money to be made providing that energy. The coal is just laying there. All you gotta do is dig it up, sell it and ship it. One might try to slow down consumption by various sorts of regulations or incentives. Originally Democrats pushed for regulations. Republicans insisted on cap and trade. Now Democrats are pushing cap and trade, and Republicans say the free market will handle it. But to be effective, any regulation or incentive has to be international, and I'm pessimistic that we'll ever have effective national or international control of our energy consumption. The deniers (who, generally, deep down know they're wrong) are all waiting on the next scientific miracle that will produce safe energy for free while at the same time they want to reduce the funding of scientific institutions and take anti-science potshots at biologists, paleontologists, geologists and climatologists.

Disclaimer: Nowhere in this post (or prior posts in this thread) do I support any political position. I merely present the hard science and speculate on what might be going on in the heads of deniers.

Trish,

FYI - It's El Nino & La Nina. The male & female child (nino & nina) use the corresponding male or female article. (el & la both = the)

As for the rest: It reminds me of a farside cartoon that I can't seem to find. It shows a bunch of dogs in a lifeboat & they all have one front paw raised. One dog is saying: "All in favor of eating ALL the food right now, raise your paw.". The caption says: "why dogs rarely survive shipwrecks".

niño and niña
if youre gonna correct somebody at least type the words correctly