Why no one cares about global warming.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@davida03801

In the 1st place the experts generally are wrong. Everything that is “proved” to be bad and terrible or to be good and wholesome is then years later shown to be not so. For example in the news this week was reports that vitamins could be a cause of cancer. Say again…… for years we’ve been told to take them.

Ah yes, the “scientists have been wrong” gambit. Classic.

5th you never take into account that maybe, just maybe, there is nature’s cycles that perhaps account for much of what you claim is climate change.

We’ve taken this into account extensively. We first established that CO2 and greenhouse gases could be responsible - that they did, in fact, have the effect of warming the planet. Then we looked into all other possible avenues. Could it be the sun? Nope, sun’s been in decline lately. Could it be cosmic background radiation? Nope, the trend is wrong. Could the water cycle prove to be a negative feedback? Nope, that doesn’t work that way. Far from this never being taken into account, it’s been studied at length. At this point, anyone saying “natural cycles” and not offering a specific candidate and evidence for how it could be causing this cycle is essentially saying “Nah, it was magic”.

6th you want the scientific process that has been in effect for hundreds of years to be suspended for your cause. For hundreds of years there was open scientific debate on all issues many of which took decades to resolve. You want that suspended.

Bullshit. First of all, what do you call ongoing research since the 1800s in a field of study trying to build an accurate model of reality if not the scientific process? Secondly, anyone is free to present any evidence they’d like. The current models could be overturned. It’s not likely, but it could happen. It’s just that the denialist camp has presented somewhere between “no evidence” and “negative evidence”.

7th you all claim that anyone who disputes the climate change model is either in the pay of big oil, or ignorant, a denier, etc. When you resort to name calling it diminishes your argument, and it makes one think you not have much of an argument in the first place so therefore you have to resort to name calling.

Anyone who disputes the climate change model at this point is either in the possession of some new evidence not presented that somehow manages to overturn the entire theory (extremely unlikely), ignorant of the science, or in denial of the science. There is no fourth option, and that first option is about as likely as a silver bullet capable of overturning the theory that the earth is not flat. Call it name-calling all you want, the fact of the matter is that most people don’t understand the science or the evidence behind it.

Including you.

How do I know this? Because you turn around and say it makes us look like we don’t have an argument in the first place. Uh, dude, are you serious?!

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent...

10,883 out of 10,885 scientific articles agree: Global warming is happening,...

Understanding the Effects of Climate Change and Global Warming - dummies

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/videos/category/3play_1/climate-change-101-with-bill-nye-the-science/
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Climate+Science+Evidence

I’m sorry, but if you think that there is no case for anthropogenic climate change, and that people haven’t been making this case, you clearly have not spent even five minutes looking. Calling someone ignorant when they clearly have not spent any time whatsoever examining the subject is not an insult. It’s not name-calling. Calling someone who damn well should know better a denialist may very well be name-calling, but at that point there’s no point in engaging with them anyways. And the shill gambit? Hey, guess what: for once, it actually works.

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry