UK: Climate change data dumped.

You would think so, but there are still flat-earthers, and there are still people who think the earth is less than 10,000 years old, yet 99%, in fact, I would say 100% of the evidence is against them. You wouldn't know it from how loudly the flat/young earthers shout, and how much air time the media gives them though.

So let's not belittle the nay-sayers and flat-earthers, it only detracts and influences the ones that may be changeable. Some people are for changing. I am not singling you out, this is a general comment.

I am not talking about the ones who don't believe in climate change (can't imagine anyone not agreeing with this) but the ones who are in doubt that it is a mankind generated problem.

I lean slightly towards the mankind generated theory but am still trying to getting my head around all the data and viewpoints floating about. But when experienced and highly educated scientists can't agree, what chance do mere mortals such as ourselves have at understanding it?

Depending on the article, I can see both views and just get more confused. I think without devoting my life to becoming a climate scientists, I will never fully understand. I have made pages and pages of notes and facts (yea I am anal) to try and understand. Unfortunately, this is one area I don't feel I have the understanding to contribute to a logical dsiscussion/debate. But I do want to read about about it and hear differing views.

This common saying was disproved, vinegar works better than honey... and manure works better than both.   

Been disproved? Sorry but honey still works for me. If it doesn't, then I don't bother with the vinegar. But just in case, which manure is best - pig or cow? 

how can one expect both an acceptance of one's opinions and, at the same time, present them with no fact or logic?

You can't. But as soon as I encounter hands-over-the-ears and shouting, I end my debate with that individual. It isn't worth it. Genuine debaters will counter arguments with civility and logic and facts (perceived or not) and perhaps, just perhaps some of us will walk away with a different view.

Then again, Im "arguing on teh interwebz, lulz!" again, which means I haven't won either.

I hear ya on that. Makes me wonder what did we did before the net? Oh yea, had a peaceful, ignorant, blissful life. LOL     
But keep posting as I do appreciate your POV and others.

So let's not belittle the nay-sayers and flat-earthers, it only detracts and influences the ones that may be changeable.

I don't believe in showing respect to ideas that are ridiculous and stupid as if they were respectable ideas, and me calling a flat-earther an ignorant fool doesn't make the world any less spherical. If someone decides to believe one side or the other based on how people in the know act towards those who are wrong rather than the actual evidence, I can't respect that either. This isn't about trying to woo people, this is about facts. Look at them and decide, and if you don't feel able to understand the evidence, look to the people doing the work and trust them to understand it. Pretty much everyone working on climate change agrees that the pace of climate change is man-made, and when you look closely at those who don't, they are more often than not affiliated with special interest groups like oil companies. People wouldn't think of questioning a brain surgeon on whether he's doing it right, but people who don't know the first thing about scientific method feel happy to doubt scientists because Glenn Beck shouted a lot.

There's a difference between respecting the person and respecting the viewpoint.  There's also a huge difference between making an argument based upon what's being discussed and making a personal attack.  

There seems to be a lot of confusion (not just here of course) about what is attacking a person and what is focusing on the argument at hand.  Really aggressive calls to "civility" can be just as much of an attack on a person rather than a real discussion of an issue.  But I've seen plenty of times when people have been accused of making a personal attack when the person was clearly not saying anything remotely personal about the person whose argument they were rebutting.

I avoided this thread, not because I don't have an opinion on it, but because of how it was framed from the beginning.  Folksy admonishments work both ways.

I am actually a moderate when it comes to my support of climate change policy, although I have made some personally radical changes based upon it.  That doesn't mean that I think the answer to everything always lies within the middle.  Favouring moderation is a bias that clouds many people's minds when trying to be "rational" (SuperL99 touched on that a bit).  But, yes, sometimes the answer does lie within the middle.

People tend to latch on to anything that seems to buttress their belief system and ignore what doesn't.  We don't like changing our minds about things, and it actually takes a long time for us to do so, and we fight it every step of the way.  It's human nature.

Unfortunately, we don't really have the luxury of waiting to see who is right on this one unless we are going to assume that it is more likely that humans are not contributing to climate change and this climate change is not going to have a huge impact on humanity.

 But I've seen plenty of times when people have been accused of making a personal attack when the person was clearly not saying anything remotely personal about the person whose argument they were rebutting.

Which is why I dont understand why my comment was moderated in the first place. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist given the context wasn't really out of line. Although I apologized nonetheless. but there you go.

I don't believe in showing respect to ideas that are ridiculous and stupid as if they were respectable ideas, and me calling a flat-earther an ignorant fool doesn't make the world any less spherical. If someone decides to believe one side or the other based on how people in the know act towards those who are wrong rather than the actual evidence, I can't respect that either. This isn't about trying to woo people, this is about facts. Look at them and decide, and if you don't feel able to understand the evidence, look to the people doing the work and trust them to understand it. Pretty much everyone working on climate change agrees that the pace of climate change is man-made, and when you look closely at those who don't, they are more often than not affiliated with special interest groups like oil companies. People wouldn't think of questioning a brain surgeon on whether he's doing it right, but people who don't know the first thing about scientific method feel happy to doubt scientists because Glenn Beck shouted a lot.

This is about wooing. Do you or do you not want to educate these people? Do you not want to get people on side so that we can speed up a plan? As long as there are nay-sayers, this whole process is going to take a lot longer. Can we afford the luxury of waiting?

With regards to facts, if someone is disrespectful, I cannot respect the facts they present are indeed facts (unless of course one provides backup to their words).

How can I trust educated scientists doing the work when both are opposed? Not all belong to Oil companies, just as not all pros are affiliated with the gov't.

People would question a brain surgeon, if what they were doing affected most of the world. I would. And let's not forget that someone had to come bottom of their class, scientists and surgeons alike.

Don't know who the heck Glenn Beck is and if he is shouting and being disrespectful, then I would not listen to him either.



I don't believe I have attacked anyone. I have just clearly explained my viewpoint and how to win me around. It is detracting from the main point of the debate as is commenting on side issues as people's behaviour. I really would like to hear what both sides have to say on climaate change. I do't think I am alone in this respect.

I am just saying, if someone disagrees with me and calls me a offensive term or belittles my viewpoint, I should not stoop to their level. One won't change that person's viewpoint but one may make others wonder about one's own standing.

I don't like changing my mind either. I was anti seat belts at one time. I figured one had a better chance of not being trapped by the seat belt. Through facts, not law, I changed my habits. It took a while but I got there in the end.

I am slow to changing my ways but I have changed many aspects of my life through listening to logical and respectful debates and arguments. And I dare say, many, many others are the same.

I am actually a moderate when it comes to my support of climate change policy, although I have made some personally radical changes based upon it.  That doesn't mean that I think the answer to everything always lies within the middle.  Favouring moderation is a bias that clouds many people's minds when trying to be "rational" (SuperL99 touched on that a bit).  But, yes, sometimes the answer does lie within the middle.

I completely agree with this viewpoint.

The way I see it, whether or not we are having a direct impact on how hot the earth is getting, surely there is sense in moderating our behaviour regarding the natural resources we use?

For many years, the battle raged over whether or not smoking caused cancer. Even then, in the absence of any real evidence, sensible people didn't deny that it wasn't the smartest thing to do to yourself. This is no different.

Whether or not our wasteful, profligate behaviour directly causes global warming is just splitting hairs, because it IS depleting natural resources and filling our world with rubbish and killing off the bees and fish and countless other animals. Stopping the things we do that is causing this damage also seems to be the same things we need to stop to slow global warming (if, indeed we are responsible), so why fight it? It just smacks of the attitude that the problems in our lives are always someone else's fault; that OUR behaviour is above reproach always.

I, like Legs Akimbo, have modified my behaviour (nowhere near enough, I'm sure, but it's a start) and make conscious decisions about what I do because the things I do affect the environment. Even if it's not warming the world, it IS filling it with rubbish, wasting food and resources and creating a headache for our children.

Whether or not our wasteful, profligate behaviour directly causes global warming is just splitting hairs, because it IS depleting natural resources and filling our world with rubbish and killing off the bees and fish and countless other animals. Stopping the things we do that is causing this damage also seems to be the same things we need to stop to slow global warming (if, indeed we are responsible), so why fight it? It just smacks of the attitude that the problems in our lives are always someone else's fault; that OUR behaviour is above reproach always.

I love this statement.  The only problem with it is it's too idealistic.  The Day The Earth Stood Still captured the problem quite well: People (and to a large extent, most things along evolutionary history) do not change unless forced to.  But in our case, it may be too late by then.

I completely agree with this viewpoint.

The way I see it, whether or not we are having a direct impact on how hot the earth is getting, surely there is sense in moderating our behaviour regarding the natural resources we use?

For many years, the battle raged over whether or not smoking caused cancer. Even then, in the absence of any real evidence, sensible people didn't deny that it wasn't the smartest thing to do to yourself. This is no different.

Whether or not our wasteful, profligate behaviour directly causes global warming is just splitting hairs, because it IS depleting natural resources and filling our world with rubbish and killing off the bees and fish and countless other animals. Stopping the things we do that is causing this damage also seems to be the same things we need to stop to slow global warming (if, indeed we are responsible), so why fight it? It just smacks of the attitude that the problems in our lives are always someone else's fault; that OUR behaviour is above reproach always.

I, like Legs Akimbo, have modified my behaviour (nowhere near enough, I'm sure, but it's a start) and make conscious decisions about what I do because the things I do affect the environment. Even if it's not warming the world, it IS filling it with rubbish, wasting food and resources and creating a headache for our children.

Well said.

Thanks for the well thought out and decent debates.  Kudos to AyouBob and others!

If you do have a question about the board moderation, I am but a PM away.

I love this statement.  The only problem with it is it's too idealistic.  The Day The Earth Stood Still captured the problem quite well: People (and to a large extent, most things along evolutionary history) do not change unless forced to.  But in our case, it may be too late by then.

That's a damn good point well made.

With regards to facts, if someone is disrespectful, I cannot respect the facts they present are indeed facts (unless of course one provides backup to their words).

I'm sorry, but that's crazy. You don't like how I say something, so you assume it isn't true without bothering to check for yourself? How is that sensible?

You have to understand the exasperation of scientists that leads to less than civil behaviour. To stick with the flat earth example, let's show a sample discussion.

Flat Earther: The world is flat. The whole round world thing is a conspiracy perpetuated by scientists and politicians who want to control us and destroy the economy by putting money into their pet projects. They're all liars and they don't have the evidence to back up the round earth theory so they make it up and try to shut up people trying to tell the truth!

Scientist: I'm sorry, but all of the evidence favours an earth that is roughly spherical.

FE: What evidence is that? People are always talking about this so-called evidence, but it doesn't exist!

S: Yes it does. We are able to travel around the world without falling off the edge, because there is no edge.

FE: There is an edge, but all the evidence about people falling off the edge has been suppressed by lying scientists and government!

S: (annoyed) That is a lie, there has never been evidence of people falling off the edge, because there is no edge. We have photos of the earth from space showing that it is roughly spherical, and people have even seen it from space.

FE: Lies! Conspiracy! Humans have never been to space, and even if they have, they're all in on the conspiracy!

S: (increasingly frustrated) What about satellites? You have SKY tv and satnav, those wouldn't work if the earth were flat.

FE: Satellites hang above the flat earth, all the stuff about orbits and things is scientific lies! It's just common sense that the earth is flat, when you look around it looks flat, I don't need science telling me I'm wrong when I can see it for myself!

(repeat above arguments endlessly for the best part of a decade)

S: WTF? Are you serious? That is ridiculous! Are you really that gullible?

FE: Haha, your evidence must be crap because you can't even back it up, you're just calling me names now!

S: OK, I'm not bothering to argue with you, you're obviously ignorant and pigheaded. Your viewpoint is so stupid that it doesn't even deserve the respect of a civilised argument.

FE: I win! Your rudeness shows that I'm right and your evidence is crap! Plus you and the scientific establishment are repressing me! You would only do that if you were part of the round earth conspiracy! Flat earth! Flat earth!

etc.

S: OK, I'm not bothering to argue with you, you're obviously ignorant and pigheaded. Your viewpoint is so stupid that it doesn't even deserve the respect of a civilised argument.

FE: I win! Your rudeness shows that I'm right and your evidence is crap! Plus you and the scientific establishment are repressing me! You would only do that if you were part of the round earth conspiracy! Flat earth! Flat earth!

Full. Of. Win!

On the overall point, this is why people result to personal attacks.  Does it justify it? Probably not. But the agrument is enough to give even the most mild mannered high blood pressure.

I'm sorry, but that's crazy. You don't like how I say something, so you assume it isn't true without bothering to check for yourself? How is that sensible?

You can't call someone a fool and expect them to want to listen to what you have to say. I don't believe I am fool, but if someone called me a fool for expressing and arguing my beliefs, I most likely won't listen to them. It doesn't sound credible to make a sweeping generalization then suddenly make it all about the facts. You can make your point any way you want to, but I most certainly find it difficult to listen to someone if they are not of sound mind, even if their argument is, apparently, sound. Most likely, I'm not going to stick around long enough to decide if their argument is sound.

 

You can't call someone a fool and expect them to want to listen to what you have to say. I don't believe I am fool, but if someone called me a fool for expressing and arguing my beliefs, I most likely won't listen to them. It doesn't sound credible to make a sweeping generalization then suddenly make it all about the facts. You can make your point any way you want to, but I most certainly find it difficult to listen to someone if they are not of sound mind, even if their argument is, apparently, sound. Most likely, I'm not going to stick around long enough to decide if their argument is sound.

That might hold true for personal opinions, but for something like climate change, which is a major world issue with lots of people talking in different ways on both sides, it's just silly to say you're going to ignore the whole thing because a few people on one of the sides were a bit snarky at you. Can you really not see that?

That might hold true for personal opinions, but for something like climate change, which is a major world issue with lots of people talking in different ways on both sides, it's just silly to say you're going to ignore the whole thing because a few people on one of the sides were a bit snarky at you. Can you really not see that?

Yes, but we're talking about how a bunch of internet nerds talk to each other on forums, not on how scientists debate their various points. As funny as it would be (and as much as it would make me wish I hadn't slept through biology), I doubt that guys that debated the Kyoto treaty resorted to name calling (at least to each other's faces).