DividedQuantum said:

Are they being told what to think by politicians?

---

zensane said:

I believe climate change positions are predominantly tribal responses because people speak for their tribal alignment, not their individual assessment.  And, in the end, your evidence doesn't matter.

I will use two very broad, general categories with gross, stereotypical attributes:

Republican Tribe:

• Individualist
  
• Gun Rights
  
• Capitalist
  
• Strict Constitutionalist
  
• Hunters
  
• Live in the Rural Areas
  

Democrat Tribe:

• Socialist
  
• The constitution is a "good guide" but not the rules
  
• Live in Cities
  
• All guns are always bad
  
• Drugs Experiments
  
• Climate Change
  
• Ozone Layer & Climate Change
  
• "Baby Seals" ever used in a sentence
  

It is my personal belief that people try to determine if another person is closely associated with their tribe.  They do this primarily by understanding where a person stands on various issues.  As an example, it may be somewhat rare to find someone that wants to save the baby seals, is concerned about the ozone layer, experiments with mushrooms and votes Republican.  In addition, there seem to be some tribal identifiers that are more polarizing than others.  The end result in my experience is that if a person is identified as the opposing tribe, all views of the opposing tribe are summarily dismissed without evidence or consideration.  Issues are not often judged individually but are lumped together with other constructs to form categories to form tribal identifications.

---

Rahz said:

https://principia-scientific.org/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earth-s-climate/

---

bodhisatta said:

Im not a denialist I'm just a self admission known nothing-ist.

The big issue for me is that the hard sciences, the experts, the climate scientists. Have come up with too many models, theories, and prematurely sold them to the public.

It's their own work that's created distrust. First co2 was warming there was just as beautiful graphs and equations and physics arguments as presented in the link above my post saying co2 is actually responsible for cooling.

Fact is the climate scientists aint right yet, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about but they know way more than a lay person. Lay persons have extremely emotional attachment to the data they think is correct yet they couldn't begin to tell you about  Boltzmann equation radiation physics etc... They just have an attachment to what they have determined to be "expert evidence" much the same way climate conspiracy theorist people cling to what they believe to be "expert evidence".

The way I see it. Yea we're changing climate. But not even the experts can pinpoint anything with real accuracy. Ten years from now todays ideas and theories will also be wrong just like the ones from 2000-2008ish.

Should we curtail emissions, absolutely. Should we pretend like we know what we are doing, how it effects the atmosphere and planet, like our theories are sound... Absolutely not.

For example the resolution of that co2 chart in the first post is in tens of thousands of years. When it should be in tens of millions of years. It's biased to show overwhelming concern. Critical thinking comes in and says to me is this graph even interesting, if so i need the why articulated. Show me a graph that goes 10 million years with 100,000 year intervals on the X axis and maybe this is all within a pretty normal range.

---

DividedQuantum said:

Rahz said:

https://principia-scientific.org/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earth-s-climate/

---

A lot of fancy equations that I can actually somewhat understand (took math and physics in college), it seems a bit desperate to beat to a different drum and be the champion that defeated the work of thousands of other qualified researchers. I have an open mind, but this particular page is not compelling to me.

---

bodhisatta said:

Im not a denialist I'm just a self admission known nothing-ist.....Should we curtail emissions, absolutely. Should we pretend like we know what we are doing, how it effects the atmosphere and planet, like our theories are sound... Absolutely not…..Lay persons have extremely emotional attachment to the data they think is correct yet they couldn't begin to tell you about  Boltzmann equation radiation physics etc...

---

zensane said:

I believe climate change positions are predominantly tribal responses because people speak for their tribal alignment, not their individual assessment.  And, in the end, your evidence doesn't matter.

---

Rahz said:

DividedQuantum said:

Rahz said:

https://principia-scientific.org/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earth-s-climate/

---

A lot of fancy equations that I can actually somewhat understand (took math and physics in college), it seems a bit desperate to beat to a different drum and be the champion that defeated the work of thousands of other qualified researchers. I have an open mind, but this particular page is not compelling to me.

---

I don't suspect you have an open mind.

---

Maybe you're right.

laughingdog said:

The understandable evidence is simple: melting glaciers, animals being effected, islanders having to leave their islands, etc. - no tribalism necessary and tribalism is no  excuse, and no fancy equations are necessary. Simply reading the relevant news, tells the story. When beattles go where they didn't go before because it is warmer and wipe out forests, it doesn't take a "weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing".
Was the ozone hole caused by man? Yes.
Has post WWll & nuclear testing poisoned the earth and contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths? Yes.
https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing/general-overview-of-theeffects-of-nuclear-testing/
Are the oceans becoming acidified and the coral reefs bleached? Yes
Are there islands of plastic in the Pacific ocean? yes?
Are the worlds oceans over fished? Yes
Does the pollution in dozens of cities kill people every year? yes
Is ocean fish now dangerous to eat, as in only eat in limited amounts? Yes
But do we have anything to do with melting glaciers, animals being effected, islanders having to leave their islands, etc.? NO of course not, we are innocent! and some magical new technology will save us, or Elon Musk will take us to Mars.

---

bodhisatta said:

When the deserts formed if people were around they would be blaming their technology. When the ice ages came if people were around they would blame their technology.
Glaciers melt and we blame our technology.

I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn't adamantly control and reduce our pollution but the cause and effect game has little power in arguments so it should be abandoned imo with the focus on just being less of shit as a species.

---

Rahz said:

Though, things are not as they ever were.

---