Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 7:51pm:


Very important point, I agree.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 3:32pm:


Why wouldn't it be, history would suggest so, so I place my faith in the thousands of years that have gone before us.

Instead of the computer circulation models of the IPCC that thus far have got everyone of their predictions wrong.

If you want some sort of window into the future look to our past, and leave the nonsense of the IPCC where it belongs in the trash can.

why??

no idea.. seems almost a moral quandary for some..
 
admit WE have a major hand in the decimation of our only planet..??  God NO///  we are the pinnacle of evolution///  WE could NOT do such damage..!! 

?? 
Get real..
do you honestly STILL CLAIM that WE..  you know  HUMANS..  >>/??? 
are innocent..?? 

You haven't shown me any reason to give the title of the topic anything BUT ridicule. 
Tell me.. in  just a short sentence... 

WHY ??

are you really such  a ..?   No  No  sorry.. you are probably a Virgo.!   

no  ..
just seems the tight-sphincture set are determined to reject any culpability... in the face of reasonable intelligentsia.

Denial of obvious,  in your face,  real-time  events.. can surely only reside with those who have some agenda.. which is other than reality.

Motive >?? 
Greed = Money.
Pride = Hubris.

AD NAUSEAM

Emma wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 10:00pm:

So you didn't want a list you want a too long don't read? (TL:DR)

I would say the reason why people are skeptical over AGW and the approach our government has used (carbon tax), is that we are dealing with billions of lives here. So if someone is telling us to completely change our lives you want to be damn sure you are as close to 100% as possible and that you can prove you are right(and hold up to criticism), before we take the risk of potentially forcing millions into poverty , which is a proven killer.

Does that help clarify the reason?

Emma wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:22am:

Haha calm down I think you might have had a terrible day?
I'm not saying I'm against change at all, no one that disputes AGW is against transitioning to sustainable energy or making sacrifice or change for the future generations.

There is though an issue when people talk about reducing energy use and charging taxes, they could potentially force people into poverty.  (Especially when having negative effects to a countries economy) This isn't necessarily my personal argument just my observation of the why.

Please don't make assumptions about my beliefs, purely because I am trying to sum up the reason why people are reluctant to accept AGW at face value without scrutiny.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:59am:


That is fair enough, except that it seems to me that a great many peeps are and will remain reluctant even in the face of significant scrutiny, peer review and ongoing demonstrations of the theory. In short, it is still just a theory, however, according to some in the scientific community, it is a theory that is hard to blithely dismiss, therefore still has some credibility as a theory.

The entire problem with this ongoing debate is exactly that. People on both sides arguing about a theory as though it is a proven fact one way or the other. Now that is, as you pointed out (sort of) simply a conflicting set of beliefs. I realise this won't be popular, but it has been a firmly held idea of mine for a long time now that strongly held beliefs have been a significant bane of human existence.

For my part I see it like this, we do pollute - that much is evident. Large amounts of pollution does cause significant environmental (and ultimately life threatening) damage - this much is indisputable. At some point we will genuinely reach a tipping point of no return - that too is actually to a fair degree indisputable because our environment is a closed system, therefore we can upset the fine balance of it to our detriment. The time frame of this of course may be up for debate, until it actually occurs of course.

The overall problem then it seems that, it would be absolutely wonderful if the sceptics were right on the money, however, it will be ultimately disastrous for future generations if they are not. To my mind that is the game being played with this ridiculous debate about what people believe as opposed to what actually is.

# wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 10:57am:


people?

what is the actual break up amongst scientists and scientific organisations worldwide?

Within the bodies that matter and expert scientists whose assessments should be valued and listened to there doesn't seem to be any controversy as to whether Human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation are causing the earth to warm.

The internet and the mass media are different animals