Why peoples don't believe in Global Warming...

Post Reply New Topic

That is a good example of what happens when the government gets entwined with "climate science". It provides a pretext for further regulation of the minute portions of our lives. That last thing you want is the government regulating the size of your "carbon footprint". It is worse than the government regulating the size of your shoes. If the government does that, we will get size 9 width D regardless of the size and shape of our feet.

ruveyn

As opposed to private industry that turns out perfect products all the time. (Do you have some sort of deal with Toyota?)

I think we humans are at a tough stage where we deffinately need different fuels, and also put different chemicles in our food to. If global warming ideas help this process, I'll go along with it. The polution to... sigh..

I drive a Scion. No problems.

But that is beside the point. A private company cannot compel you by force or threat of force to deal with them. A government can.

Toyota will face the wrath of the market place. They will lose sales and they will eventually clean up their act or they will go broke. This will be done without force, without civil war, without violence and without bloodshed.

For Toyota owners the way is clear. Don't buy Toyota cars any more. It is that simple.

Try getting rid of a government this easily.

Governments are monopolies and they have guns. Companies generally are not monopolies (some are, but very few) and they don't have guns.

ruveyn

I don't believe in it. If anything, its getting colder here in the UK. Snow is now common, we've had it for the past few years, and quite a bit this year too!

If it is real, everyone go and buy a Hummer H3, and drive it like mad! We need a nice warm winter next year

I assume you are aware the world has warmed up between 1815 and now. Did you know that?

The real questions are why and how.

ruveyn

I doubt it has much to do with ice caps and the north pole since the population of polar bears has increased from the 50s to now.

The problem is that there's two directions this whole debate is going; one is scientific truth, the other is political 'truth'.
Scientifically, it can be shown that, on average, there has been a small increase in temperatures over time. Whether it's completely sustained, irreversible, or has happened before this, is a little harder to prove. Millions of years ago, Siberia was a huge plain of volcanic activity. That probably spewed out a lot of noxious gasses.
Carbon dioxide can be absorbed by various mechanisms over time. If the production is greater than absorption, then the net level of CO2 increases.

Now for political truth, it's just too attractive a war club to use against certain societies.
Even though it's global warming, the underlying message seems to be that the only country held to account for global warming is the US. If we just shoudered our responsibility (and a little bit more), the whole thing would 'go away'.

The overal 'resdistribution of wealth' thing works wonders. By stopping developed nations' technology in its' tracks, the less-developed nations can catch up and surpass them. You don't hear much about poor countries contributing to CO2 emissions (even though open flames are the primary method of heating and cooking there)

The biggest 'attraction' is that the whole problem is defined as one 'magic bullet' solution; sacrifice. Everything is about what you can give up, lose, do without, live a poorer (but oh, so noble) life. It's all set in a negative way, so you prove how 'cool' you are by how much worse your life is, until someone comes along and sacrifices even more, so you have to sacrifice more. I mean, c'mon, why aren't we banning carbonated beverages; we know what they put in them (to prove an 'obvious' point, and don't think someone won't try to enact this IRL...

And finally, it all supposes that only sacrifice can set things right. As I've said before, the worst thing that can happen to activism is that it succeeds. A hundred years from now, I think solutions (plural) will be found, and people will look back at us and laugh.

No such thing in the real world. Maybe in -1984- but not here and not now.l

ruveyn

too complex, too many difficult words, too difficult, let me rephrase in a way that people will actually read and comprehend.
people get confused that there even exists a northern hemisphere at the same time as global warming.

people make me want to cry...

Becos they are not experiencing it first hand. If you live in the Maldives and find your home sinking. You will say that Global Warming is true.

We are well aware of your life in fantasy.

As if the little insignificant things we as individuals do have any major impact on Global Warming.

Reliance on corporate power is a little thing, isn't it? I mean, the corporations make life so much easier and better for everyone. We must all feed this behemoth machine of an economy somehow, yes?

The corporations seem to have caught up on this as well, and have some companies have put an "eco-friendly" image - while not being so eco-friendly in practice. People buy into it, of course, thinking they have done at least something to help. Many of these individual environment actions seem little less than a way to make the individual feel better.

I see that a lot in the comments from those who either think there is no global warming or that it has nothing to do with human activity. They say something like "I'll believe it if it doesn't cost me anything".