- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
AGW Deniers - Seems Kind of Hopeless
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:39 am
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:39 am
So I was thinking this weekend that the chances for someone who currently denies the existence of AGW being convinced that they are wrong is pretty hopeless. I say this because what could possibly change their mind given this:
NASA - Consensus
Think about it seriously for a moment.....if 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are, in fact, at least partially responsible for climate change......what could possibly change their mind? 99% of scientists? 100%? I think thats doubtful.
It seems that what we have is a situation where literally no scientific evidence can be presented to them which can affect change on their opinion.
WTF
NASA - Consensus
Think about it seriously for a moment.....if 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are, in fact, at least partially responsible for climate change......what could possibly change their mind? 99% of scientists? 100%? I think thats doubtful.
It seems that what we have is a situation where literally no scientific evidence can be presented to them which can affect change on their opinion.
WTF
51
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:41 am to AUbused
What is the solution and how do we achieve it?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:41 am to AUbused
what temperature is Earth supposed to be at?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:44 am to AUbused
quote:
f 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are, in fact, at least partially responsible for climate change
Consensus isn't proof.
What bothers me is the religious call to action based on 'urgency' when we don't know for certain the weather cycle of the planet even a few weeks in advance.
Somehow we 'know' that humans have played a role without even predicting weather correctly a month in advance.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:46 am to Choctaw
quote:
what temperature is Earth supposed to be at?
Yes, please let me know, and I might consider adjusting my actions to modify the temp of Mother Earth to that exact temperature with my immense POWER!
I CONTROL THE CLIMATE! HO-DOOOOOORRRRRRR!
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:46 am to Choctaw
quote:
what temperature is Earth supposed to be at?
I'd say at the temperature that prompted hundreds of millions of people to settle along the Earth's sea coasts.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:48 am to BBONDS25
quote:
What is the solution and how do we achieve it?
I am trying to get an answer to my question. Are you saying that if 97% of scientists laid out a solution and a path to achieve it that it would change your mind?
quote:
What temperature is the earth supposed to be at?
If scientists gave you an exact temperature to achieve maximum utility from the earth would this change your mind?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:49 am to MagicCityBlazer
quote:
Consensus isn't proof.
What bothers me is the religious call to action based on 'urgency' when we don't know for certain the weather cycle of the planet even a few weeks in advance.
Somehow we 'know' that humans have played a role without even predicting weather correctly a month in advance.
So, in effect, what you are saying is "There is no scientific proof I could be offered that would change my views". Is that right?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:52 am to AUbused
quote:
I am trying to get an answer to my question. Are you saying that if 97% of scientists laid out a solution and a path to achieve it that it would change your mind?
Change my mind? I never stated a position. If there is a consensus that there is an issue...I would imagine a solution would be a natural follow up. Unless you are saying all of this is being used simply as a political tool.....handwringing is not enough. If there is a consensus...then the debate over the issue is done. Why have we not moved onto a solution? What is the proposed solution?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:52 am to AUbused
i'll make a decision if they actually prove it. there's your answer
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:53 am to navy
quote:
I CONTROL THE CLIMATE! HO-DOOOOOORRRRRRR!
You sound like one of those Christians who finds the idea that humans can affect the climate of Gods creation offensive to your religious ideals.
Its pretty obvious that we have the ability to affect the climate....... We could detonate every existing nuke for example and experience quite a bit of climate change. Or cut every tree and poison the oceans. Virtually EVERYONE knows that we CAN affect the climate if we try hard enough.....yet people act like its some sort of logical leap to believe we can do it slowly.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:54 am to AUbused
quote:
Think about it seriously for a moment.....if 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are, in fact, at least partially responsible for climate change......what could possibly change their mind? 99% of scientists? 100%? I think thats doubtful.
At one point, weren't all scholars and scientists 100% sure of a Geocentric orbit of the solar system? Didn't doctors almost universally believe that the human heart could never be operated on prior to the blue baby surgery at Johns Hopkins?
Simply having a consensus does not prove a theory, especially in a time where there is great money to be made off of certain theories.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:55 am to AUbused
quote:
So, in effect, what you are saying is "There is no scientific proof I could be offered that would change my views". Is that right?
I'm saying consensus isn't proof.
That the burden of proving such an extreme claim as 'humans are creating a runaway climate through combustible fuel emissions' needs some more concrete evidence than consensus or research from parties that benefit wildly from AGW being true.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:55 am to Choctaw
There's a pretty solid consensus that this Administration is an absolute train wreck on many fronts ... and that doesn't seem to affect certain people's opinions.
Since when does "consensus" equal proof/fact?
Since when does "consensus" equal proof/fact?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:56 am to AUbused
quote:
AUbused
Also, according to your link, the source for the 97% quote is an article written by William R. L. Anderegg. He graduated from undergrad in 2008. His job title since getting his PHD is Climate & Global Change Post-doctoral fellow.
Not saying this challenges the validity of his assertion....but I would love to see the studies and questions asked that he relied upon to make that assertion.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:57 am to AUbused
I'm in favor of taking care of the environment.
What I'm opposed to is left-wing extremists using the environment in an attempt to further their foolish agendas, such as redistribution of wealth.
What I'm opposed to is left-wing extremists using the environment in an attempt to further their foolish agendas, such as redistribution of wealth.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:58 am to BBONDS25
Well the solution has pretty much been pounded into the ground and I believe you well know that. Reducing carbon output. Your retort would likely be "well but china, emerging countries etc" and my answer would be that there currently exists no clear path to a "solution" only a general direct we need to start traveling. The solution is complex and painful.
Given the tone of your post, you seem to be saying even if AGW is real, we can't do shite about it, its hopeless so why do anything. If this is an unfair characterization then sorry.
Given the tone of your post, you seem to be saying even if AGW is real, we can't do shite about it, its hopeless so why do anything. If this is an unfair characterization then sorry.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:59 am to AUbused
Do you think there would be a consensus if they weren't receiving gov. grants to reach a particular conclusion?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:00 am to AUbused
quote:
You sound like one of those Christians who finds the idea that humans can affect the climate of Gods creation offensive to your religious ideals. Its pretty obvious that we have the ability to affect the climate....... We could detonate every existing nuke for example and experience quite a bit of climate change. Or cut every tree and poison the oceans. Virtually EVERYONE knows that we CAN affect the climate if we try hard enough.....yet people act like its some sort of logical leap to believe we can do it slowly.
You sound like a douchebag liberal who wants to attack me because I don't agree with what MSNBC told you to tell people to agree with you about or attack them.
Even if "affect" is agreed upon ... I presume your argument is that human actions are the predominant factor in what happens to the earth.
Maybe we should just all kill ourselves ... you go first, please.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:02 am to elprez00
quote:
Simply having a consensus does not prove a theory, especially in a time where there is great money to be made off of certain theories.
Science has come quite a long way since Geocentrism. Thats a pretty ridiculous argument. 100% of people once believed a great deal of things.
Here's the funny thing go. I'd wager that if 97% of doctors agree'd that a certain operation would save your life we wouldn't hear jack shite about a "consensus not being proof".
Page 1 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News