• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

I think I figured out the Politics/Climate Change paradox.

J

JnEricsonx

Android Enthusiast
Note, this is simply my opinion, and Im sure to many, I'm dead wrong, this is just how I see it:

Ok, so, 97%+ of climate scientists are saying we're either in deep crap, or screwed. If 97%+ of people agree on a topic, thats a pretty strong argument. But, at the same time, I hear plenty of politicians, admittedly, right-wing, saying that climate change is a hoax, its not that bad, etc, etc. But to quote a comedian I once heard, "Lets assume its not a hoax, because if we're wrong, we're all f---ked!"

But, here, again, my opinon, is the counterpoint to the right-wing majority view. Many of them are also very religious, and forth. That's fine....save for one thing, I think.

THEY. DONT. CARE. ABOUT. THE. WORLD.

Let me explain. I read a poll in which a large percentage of Christians said they believed Jesus was coming back....IN THEIR LIFETIME. Are you frakking kidding. So, here's my point: If those right-wing people who are also very religious and also do not believe in climate change, its because they don't care. If its real, it just brings about the end of the world faster, ie, brings back Jesus faster. Now, my own faith may bounce around like a Baywatch girl on a trampoline, but FFS, how about remember that you believe that God made the earth, and maybe we shouldn't mess up his creation than we already have? You can't say all the industrialization and the like, especially in the last 100 odd years, can't have some kind of at the very least moderate global effect, to say nothing of severe? I mean, am I missing something, or what?
 
.. but otherwise, there could be something in what you say ;)

Personally, I think the way religion plays here is more to do with personality type: people who are religious choose to live their lives (or at least try / claim to) according to a set of beliefs that they are essentially not allowed to challenge. They take someone else's word - be it their minister or whatever religious scribe wrote their particular religious text of choice - about what is right rather than look at evidence and make up their own mind.

And religion isn't always right about things that have nothing to do with religion: think the Catholic church and Copernicus. It took the church years to come around.

Religious people also tend to be drawn to certainty and consequently to people who offer certainty and who express strong beliefs. They're also conservative with a small 'c': very pro the status quo and very wary of change.

It's no real surprise, therefore that the religious people are prepared to take the word of anti-climate change people who express very strong beliefs that - though completely wrong - are rather convenient and pro the status quo.

It's also no surprise that religious people do not want to listen to what scientists have to say, particularly when it's very inconvenient, would mean quite a bit of change and is always expressed with equivocation. Scientist do not deal in certainty: they follow the evidence and know that further evidence can always change where they're headed.
 
Just saw a story that the world just had the hottest April in history.

This keeps happening: undeniable evidence of climate change just keep coming up, time and time again.

Must really frustrating for climate change deniers :rolleyes:
 
here is a Paradox...

Dr_Martens,_black,_old.jpg
 
I must be missing something: the only thing I see that's in any way related to race are your two mentions of the race card :confused:

dibblebill said:
States are fighting new science curriculum teaching climate change and evolution | The Verge
Click to expand...

:argh:

The morons are taking over - we're all doomed :afraid:
 
uda8amuq.jpg


Found that thought for sure it was relevant I always think of divide and conquer tactics and usually mainstream media isn't much of a help, personally I use mainstream media only for things they're willing to admit to
 
Just your friendly mod breezing through and making sure attacks are focused on the issues and no matter how hotly we debate, we respect the fact that we all have our own opinions.:)
 
I saw a headline somewhere this morning that apparently Climate Change is now more devise than abortion and gun control in the US.

:shot:

While abortion and gun control are essentially moral and political questions where opinion is valid, climate change is a question of fact: how can that be contentious? Opinions about facts are irrelevant: it doesn't matter that someone's opinion is that the earth is flat and the sun rotates around it, they're simply wrong. Likewise with climate change.
 
actually if you take your personal opinion out of it youll find that the entire climate change debate is opinion
 
copestag said:
actually if you take your personal opinion out of it
Click to expand...

.. my opinion is already out of it: I'm talking of the scientific consensus, backed by decades of data collection and research.

Climate change denial really is on a par with believing in the paranormal and alien abductions: there's an almost infinitisimally small chance there's something in them, but there is no evidence for the wild claims and oceans (literal and figurative in the case of climate change) of evidence against.

copestag said:
youll find that the entire climate change debate is ill informed opinion versus well informed fact
Click to expand...

FTFY ;)

Not entirely sure I understand what point Kritter888 is making about Agenda 21. It certainly has many laudable aims around conserving the enviroment, assisting development and combating things like racism, sexism and child exploitation. In other words, a very fine thing .. that sadly has zero chance of making any difference anywhere - largely, I guess because of devisive politics.

The problem, of course is that any such agenda would inevitably require the very rich and powerful minority to make (tiny) sacrifices for the good of the very poor and powerless majority - and we all know that's never going to happen in the political climate that has developed over the last 30 years.
 
The scandal of fiddled global warming data

The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard
 
The Torygraph is unfortuantely, a slightly better spoken British version of Fox News, i.e. a loony right wing rag that has been pushing anti-scientific, biased nonsense written by totally unqualified 'journalists' for years.

For example, consider this statement:

The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
Click to expand...

This is completely false: in the US, the last decade has been significantly hotter than the 1930s.

Even if it were true, unless the US had somehow migrated to a different planet, it would be totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that globally, 13 of 14 warmest years EVER RECORDED occurred in 21st century.

Yes: since 2000 only one year has failed to be among the hottest.

This year is shaping up to be another record breaker: while the US was freezing, on average across the world, this April was the hottest ever recorded.

I guess the question is, do you want to make decisions that affect the future of humanity based on the ranting of someone who refuses to believe anything that doesn't confirm his biases or do you want to base them on what massive volumes of actual evidence clearly and unequivocally demonstate?
 
do you want to make decisions that affect the future of humanity based on the ranting of someone who refuses to believe anything that doesn't confirm his biases or do you want to base them on what massive volumes of actual evidence clearly and unequivocally demonstate?
Click to expand...

Given your choice between two unproven opinions, I'll take the former, partly because I'm tired of of having the latter crammed down my throat.
 
copestag said:
and just as quickly disproven
Click to expand...

'Quickly disproven'? Strange interpretation of 'never disproven' :rolleyes:

The problem with this discussion is that one side (the scientific concensus) talk facts while the other side (the deniers) talk fantasy - really: they might as well claim the evidence was magiced up by pixies and fairies, it would make more sense.
 
always cracked me up the "scientific consensus" there are thousands of scientists with evidence to the contrary.... they just cannot get published due to the WELL ACKNOWLEDGED concerted effort of the alarmists to prevent them from being heard

silencing the opposite opinion does not make yours correct

every so called "fact" has been completely been debunked not once not twice but time and time again with empirical evidence.... but the low information alarmist sheeple refuse to accept that theyre being handed a bunch of lies

see above postings where one alarmist, rather than try to dispute the facts of an article, has to resort to ad hominem attacks as a defense....... which is kind of funny since all of the facts of that article come directly from GISS and NOAA... the low information alarmists simply cannot understand data.... instead they must be spoon fed their information and told what to believe

if you refuse to allow yourself to comprehend basic information you will always live inside a twisted world of alarmism....... as for the sane... allow us to live in reality please
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom