Climate change "threatens our planet, our only home", warns

[Teaos]

A good, lameamans explanation on Global warming, read the link he posts as well

I'm Sorry Vic but you are just wrong, 5 years ago you may have had a leg to stand on, three years ago you could have raised some points like you did above, but everything you have mentioned are arguments from 5 years ago and have been addressed.

What you said did use to be fair points, but they have been addressed and corrected for.

Climate change is happening, it is man made, it is natural as well but we have made it worse. Even if it was natural (which it isnt) does that mean we should sit back and let our ecosystem get fucked?

95-97% of climate scientists agree on all the major points of climate change (They still quibble on the small details like very branch of science does). These are real climate scientists, with at least a BA in their feilds if not master and PhD's, the data is there presents for consumption by non scientists if you want it.

Do you really think you know better than them? have you read the lattest data? Have you seen the total and complete take down of every single arguement you made by real scientist?

[Jim]

Don't go after people for using plastic, develop am alternative. Don't go after people that use cars with big gas engines, develop an alternative.

Do you think that Joe-Average cares what the bottle he is using is made of or what the food he just got at the grocer store is wrapped in? No. Make a "better plastic" even if it isn't plastic, then the problem is solved. Frankly it would be easier to do that than get everyone to stop buying products packaged in "regular" plastic.

Stop treating the symptoms (end users) and treat the problem (manufacturer). Changing what one company uses translates into changing what thousands and thousands of end users use.

[Graham Kennedy]

Skepticism is a fine thing, but actual skepticism doesn't just consist of saying you don't think something is true. Actual skepticism consists of trying to find flaws in the data, or alternative explanations for it. There comes a time when the evidence is overwhelming enough that skepticism isn't justified.

Climate denial is really no different from evolution denial. Both try hard to cloak themselves in the mantle of skepticism, but both really are outright denial - and both movements are ultimately driven by political and economic gain.

[McAvoy]

Evolution denial is more religion based. Climate change denial is more... political based.... or what they have been told.

In a way I have a better understanding why people deny evolution than people who deny climate change. And I am one of those people that think creationists or plain deniers are idiots.

[Graham Kennedy]

Evolution denial is more religion based. Climate change denial is more... political based.... or what they have been told.

But those two fields overlap a lot in the US.

In a way I have a better understanding why people deny evolution than people who deny climate change. And I am one of those people that think creationists or plain deniers are idiots.

Actually one of the sources of climate change denial is that some people quite literally believe that god wouldn't allow it. I've seen people cite as "fact" that after Noah's Ark god sent a rainbow as a symbol of his promise that he would never drown the world again - and thus, promises of major coastal flooding from global warming cannot possibly be true.

[Teaos]

Seems sensible.

[McAvoy]

Evolution denial is more religion based. Climate change denial is more... political based.... or what they have been told.

But those two fields overlap a lot in the US.

In a way I have a better understanding why people deny evolution than people who deny climate change. And I am one of those people that think creationists or plain deniers are idiots.

Actually one of the sources of climate change denial is that some people quite literally believe that god wouldn't allow it. I've seen people cite as "fact" that after Noah's Ark god sent a rainbow as a symbol of his promise that he would never drown the world again - and thus, promises of major coastal flooding from global warming cannot possibly be true.

Never heard that before. Interesting.

[sunnyside]

I hear the two most immediate and direct results will be the greatly diminished Ganges and Yellow ivers due to glacia melt in the Himalyas. This will force massive drought for about 1.2 billion people.

This sort of thing is, I suspect, at the heart of climate change denial when you really get down to it. I recall reading some reports on the impacts of climate change (I'm drawing in particular on one titled "The Age of Consequences" in case you're interested. Anyway in the cases I'm thinking of the reports accept man-made climate change and generally just accept the IPCC models, and then they start talking about all that bad stuff that could happen.

However, while they might not agree with this paraphrasing, their conclusions sounded something like "unabated climate change would be bad for the US. But we have the technology to build up dikes, the ability to move cities back, and between GMOs and our ability to handle quite different climates and still easily feed ourselves we'll mostly be inconvenienced. Much of the rest of the world will be absolutely devastated, and they will be so pissed off about the US's relative comfort and the exorbitant prices we're charging for food that it will get us into all sorts of geopolitical trouble"

I don't think that sounds so bad to many people.

The way I put it in conversation when I wouldn't be as long winded is to say that when some people hear about global warming they might respond "So you're saying that if I want to nuke Iran, all I have to do is keep driving my SUV?"