Isn't it possible to have a civil discussion about global climate change in this forum?

Question

The word of the day today was kook, the analogy a barnyard full of Chicken Little followers. Advocates sling insults too, but don't seem to include words like "hoax" and "myth" in their repertoire.

Why do you believe so many here resort to cheap shots in trying to get their point across? Is this more of reflection on this site or our educational system, or both?

I love a good debate. That's not often what we get in the global warming category though, is it?

Answer 1

Sure its possible, however people can let their passion overpower rational thought, thus causing this affect.

Have a good day Amy

Answer 2

No, it doesn't seem to be possible to have a civil discussion in this forum. One problem is that a lot of people can't separate the subject from their hatred of Al Gore. If it were up to me, I'd ban any mention of Al Gore in this forum so that the science could be talked about.  There are lots of interesting questions about the science that could be discussed, but they don't get discussed because the anti-GW people come up with a bunch of non-science, non-facts that they want you to dispute.

While I believe in the science of global warming, there are many questions about what's actually going to happen (Is global dimming mitigating global warming? Will hurricanes get stronger?  Will the global conveyor belt shut down?  Will there be more or less precipitation?) but people would rather yammer about how much electricity Gore uses in his house, or whether he should be flying around in a jet.  Frankly, none of that stuff matters.  What matters is the science, the chemistry and physics.

What I really don't get is the people that make accusations about climate scientists by people who know nothing about them. I DO know a few scientists of the IPCC, these are very smart, dedicated people who are usually making personal sacrifices to do this work, and who are NOT getting rich off of it.  Why do people say things like that? How would they like to have their own occupations trashed by people that know nothing about them?

Answer 3

Oh sure, !@#%$ fine &#%^@# that's it,  you can't say things like that... if's that's what you believe then there is no way in @#$^%&#$ that I will ever agree with you !@#$! *$##^%%$ on anything !!!!!!!

Politics, Religion, s*x, and in our polarized landscape even Economics and the Environment.

All third rail issues at the water cooler, boardroom and in the legislature.

All I can say is that I've never shied away from these topics, and I've paid a price for it.

When something is presented to me that is factually incorrect, or when someone states as a certainty something which is open to question, the discussion begins because I react to it.  I rarely offer unsoliticed advice.  I try to begin my part of the converstation with a question.  Admittedly one that confronts the statments made.  

Why is when I use the same invective that is hurled at me, it ends the conversation?  

I'll tell you why.  Because we have a better argument and it's a convenient excuse for them to claim injury and withdrawl.

They don't want a debate.  They would lose.  The are losing and the "debate" is going to become more heated as they get backed further into their corner.

If we don't confront these issues we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

Well, no answer here, but maybe you can enlighten me.

edit:

See?  Statements made based on premises that have been so thoroughly and repeatedly debunked and deconstructed it begs the question of the motivation of those who post them.  We know they haven't got the motivation to study the relevant science because it's their word against the word of (99% of) the world’s top scientists.

But the response, from the non-scientist, is that the science is bogus and part of a worldwide conspiracy.

I have mucho personal experience with this.  I have relatives who pretty much make a cross section of views.  All I ever said in response to them was to confront the nonsensical statements made; and to add little gems like:

It would be better if we used less oil; we could have the same lifestyle at the same cost if we would just change the systems we use, they are inefficient and make a lot of toxic waste; do you really need to drive your hummer out to the 7-11 for a pack of smokes and coffee?  If we pollute the whole world, where will we live?  If we pump all the oil out of the ground without coming up with an alternative, then what will we do?

And one of my personal favorites

Oh, you're all wondering out loud what that glow is on the horizon, everybody floating some guesses, nonsense.  Nah, sorry guys, that's called light pollution from streetlights in that big metropolis to our SE.  Astronomers have known about it for years.  That's why we can't see the stars here any more.  With some simple engineering we can get better lighting and at the same time cut light pollution by 90%.  It will cost a lot for everyone to change their fixtures, maybe we could have a government program to replace them and increase efficiency at the same time…  Oh, Uncle B, you always over-explain things.  And under the breath - you’re a hippy freak enviro-wacko socialist nut case.

Glum looks all around.  Nobody wants to talk to me any more.  The next time it gets more heated.  Invectives hurled my way.  I eventually either win the argument because they are out of ammunition, or they claim that I am "unreasonable" and they walk away.  They always lose or walk away.  I may lose on some points, but I never, ever walk away.

So now nobody talks to me, at all.

Somebody has to say the Emperor has no clothes.  And that cow farts have a real, measureable, quantifiable proven effect on global methane levels.

Guess I'm it.

The comment I get most is "You think too much".  I got news for them  - they think too little.  

And I never return this invective until they presume to lecture me on issues of which they have little (or no) understanding.

Answer 4

I think a lot of people are afraid that the Global Warming intiative is going to result in more regulations and taxes on the normal everyday people.  Al Gore is pushing for a Carbon Tax which is scaring a lot of people. It can result in taxes every year on your automobile. It is already happening in England.  Taxation is not the answer

Answer 5

The green groupthink has really reduced the average IQ to its lowest common denominator.

I really start to lose it when the discussion is resulting in increased taxes that do nothing to resolve the stated and unproven problem.

I really resent people setting the groundwork for imposing restrictive and fascist regulations. Regulations that will result in having people freeze in the dark and living in ignorance. The time for reasonable discussion is over when the agenda is more about aspirations to political power in a form that will be authoritarian if it is allowed to take hold, than any real agenda about the environment.

Answer 6

I would never call global warming per se,  a myth.  But you must have observed those who buy into in,  hook, line and sinker,  are condescending.   They believe they have science on their side, while dissenting opinion comes from the uneducated christian masses.   This is the portrayal and it is unfortunate.   The zeal in which they attack is mind boggling.

Yet,  most don't understand even the greenhouse effect and it's role in affecting our atmosphere.   The atmosphere is constantly changing and adapting to the changes brought about shifting weather systems and all that entails.  

We could only break it down so far,  because it would take all day to explain what is going on,  even so far as one storm system in the U.S.A.

We cannot discount warming patterns or believe there is nothing we can do about some parts of it,  but when I hear idiots saying man-made global warming is affected by cows passing gas and fat people,  I get upset.

That is not science,   that is the Emperor's New Clothes.

They are many competing sources but as a tagline,   you will usually see some hyperbolic blast of rhetoric,  a kind of very verbal jingoism intended to diminish dissenting views.

In a nutshell,   the physics involved here are very complex and a summary of a summary is not science.   It is really hearsay.

A computer weather model for example is an interpretation.  A forecaster looks at data and tries to convince himself and others what is going on.   Even an area of vorticity can change a forecast markedly but maybe that area was undetectable before.    Imagine the dozens of models we use and find the one that fits best.   It is an educated guess,  combined with a gut feeling.    Really,  it is mostly art with a good background of basic knowlege.

How this fits into climatology and temperature change:  I am saying to you that there is far more that needs to be evaluated before saying conclusively,  that a thing is or is not happening.    Not just emotions.  Not just teachers inculcating a particular mindset,  but give and take and respectful discourse.

Answer 7

Nope.

The "skeptics" don't have science on their side.  Their only resort is to use emotional arguments, rather than factual ones.  Things like "Al Gore", or "liberals" or "taxes" or "money", none of which have anything to do with the scientific facts about global warming.  

That isn't going to change.  Best to accept it, and keep stating facts.  The readers can sort out good stuff from emotional nonsense; it's a necessary skill on the Internet.  The use of these emotional arguments basically ruins the "skeptics" credibility, except with other people who are not interested in science, either.  It's not effective is persuading those who don't agree with them to start with, and really want to know the truth.

In that vein, here are some facts.  The debate about when it will get bad, what effects will occur, and how bad it will be isn't over.  The debate about whether it's real, and mostly caused by us is, at least in the scientific community, and among world leaders.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.a...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

EDIT - Note the number of people raising the irrelevant issues of Al Gore, taxes, etc. in this thread, as if they had anything to do with science.

Answer 8

A good debate begins with an educated question and an open mind to both sides of an issue. The problem is.... nobody really knows the answer to this debate. When we don't know what we are debating, we turn to slams and sarcasm to fortify our inability to answer a question. This is human nature! Our insecurities attached to a subject are highlighted by our sharp tongues and skeptical attitudes.  Be patient with we humans, we will never be able to debate this question of Global Warming until we are absolutely certain of our ultimate demise from it. Then it will be too late! But then again..... it may never happen!  In other words.... stop debating something that is misunderstood, misconveyed and unproven to this point.  Try to debate something you know something about.... It makes it much more interesting and satisfying.

Answer 9

No, its not possible.  

Because the proponents of Climate Change Theory say the facts are all in and the discussion and debate are both over, thus making the education of the ignorant masses the only activity left to be done.

Answer 10

It's a heated topic because it affects all of us in one way or the other.  Global warming is a accusatory topic to begin with because it blames people and societies.  Some refuse to be blamed for it while others want to cast blame.  In my opinion this will always be a hot topic because it crosses several boundaries.

Answer 11

You cant have a debate when the issue is what people like you wish to shove down the rest of our throats.

The simple truth is, most of us work, want to be left alone , don't try to harm anyone.  But we are accused to killing the earth, polluting the air, hating nature, on and on and on.  Your side tells our children our cars are going to kill everyone, the UN and the EU are salivating to end our nation, our industry, all the while ignoring China, India and ever other polluter out there.

We as a nation have made great strides in fixing our mistakes, but you never hear that, only the doom and gloom for your side, that "we just don't care."

Answer 12

the countries are doing it.

Answer 13

Not with the enviro-fascists.

Answer 14

No, because even when we show the believers truths that they refuse to see. Like the fact we are colder this year than last year, that you can't find a single report about how Antarctica did over the 2007-2008 summer season. It's now fall in the Southern Hemisphere. They want to believe melting is still happening in the polar regions, but I have a good feeling that it isn't or there'd be reports all over the web about it. I'm sure they don't want to report that there wasn't any or little melting that happened this year.

The believers just say that the skeptics are stupid and don't know what they are talking about.

I in part feel the believers are a bit delusional, since so far this year they're strong belief in global warming is being tromped on.