|
I know this is an old thread, but since it's kind of back, I had a question for myself a while ago.
I'm in a range between climate change skeptic to climate change don't care.
But I thought to myself...CO2 levels are definitely increasing. Can we prove why this is happening? And I think I came up with a way with a lot of credibility.
I started out by bringing up depression/recession data in the United States (World's leading energy consumer).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
Based on this, I wanted to look at these years in comparison to the CO2 charts. If what I'm thinking is true, I should expect to see something during the longer/more severe depressions. The ones I picked out specifically were:
1. 1973-1975 (Length+Severity)
2. Early 80s (Length+Severity)
3. Early 90s (Length/Severity/Time since last recession)
I felt the early 2000s recession was too shallow and brief, as well as anything happening between 1960 and 1970. While the 2010 or so recession would be very interesting, I would need another year or so of data to see what I would expect.
I'll let you look at what I saw.
![[image loading]](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png)
I've only applied this idea to the US economy, and only in a very simple way. I could go further with GDP growth rates and other variables, but I just haven't. If one of you wants to explore it further, be my guest.
But as you can see, a prolonged dip in the mid-70s, a dip in the early 80s, and another in the early 90s.
Solidifying this is the huge expansion throughout the 90s, widely accepted as a boom-time for the United States.
Take from this what you will.
|
On February 07 2012 14:34 xDaunt wrote:
For all of you who are in favor "doing something" about climate change, doesn't the blatant hypocrisy of many of the climate change promoters/leaders bother you?
Take Al Gore as an example. The guy has a huge, carbon-unfriendly house, drives around in SUV motorcades, and flies on private jets. Doesn't the whole "do as I say, not as I do" mentality of people like him give you pause?
I'm not sure how true that is, there's a clip of him telling a story about his lifestyle transition from high profile government to retired civilian. For example he flew on a regular airline and went through an airport security check. Maybe it's a story or maybe he does have all this fancy shit now that he's become famous in a different field.
|
On February 17 2012 04:44 AlphaWhale wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2012 14:34 xDaunt wrote:
For all of you who are in favor "doing something" about climate change, doesn't the blatant hypocrisy of many of the climate change promoters/leaders bother you?
Take Al Gore as an example. The guy has a huge, carbon-unfriendly house, drives around in SUV motorcades, and flies on private jets. Doesn't the whole "do as I say, not as I do" mentality of people like him give you pause? I'm not sure how true that is, there's a clip of him telling a story about his lifestyle transition from high profile government to retired civilian. For example he flew on a regular airline and went through an airport security check. Maybe it's a story or maybe he does have all this fancy shit now that he's become famous in a different field.
While I'm also not sure how accurate this is, my short answer is yes. It does bother me. Enormously. Several political leaders (and certainly not all of them) are definitely into climate change for political reasons and not personal ones. Even many of those who actively combat climate change are simply doing it wrong. But do you quit your 4v4 because one of your teammates went for mass sentries? No, you keep fighting it.
Flawed leaders do not invalidate an idea, especially one that has been so scientifically scrutinized.
|
Hey guys...I am not exaggerating or trying to put on the zombie apocalypse mentality here, but we are suppose to debate whether climate change caused by man is real or not in meteorology. I am the only one in the class who believes climate change is caused by human activity and the others believe it is a scam...I have read up a lot on climate change, even listened to Noam Chomsky interviews on how it turned into a "liberal scam" and I have no idea what to say to the class.
What bugs me the most is that the teacher says "The media promotes the scam" (she is not even trying to hiding her opinion)...should I just shut up or try to debate?
|
On February 17 2012 05:02 Shiragaku wrote:
Hey guys...I am not exaggerating or trying to put on the zombie apocalypse mentality here, but we are suppose to debate whether climate change caused by man is real or not in meteorology. I am the only one in the class who believes climate change is caused by human activity and the others believe it is a scam...I have read up a lot on climate change, even listened to Noam Chomsky interviews on how it turned into a "liberal scam" and I have no idea what to say to the class.
What bugs me the most is that the teacher says "The media promotes the scam" (she is not even trying to hiding her opinion)...should I just shut up or try to debate?
Sounds like you're in highschool/junior high. My advice is to take a geology course(in university) that focuses on the earths development over the past 4 billion years and find out about mass extinctions/climate change on the scope of that timeline. Or look in my posting history in this thread for a quick synopsis.
|
On February 17 2012 05:02 Shiragaku wrote:
Hey guys...I am not exaggerating or trying to put on the zombie apocalypse mentality here, but we are suppose to debate whether climate change caused by man is real or not in meteorology. I am the only one in the class who believes climate change is caused by human activity and the others believe it is a scam...I have read up a lot on climate change, even listened to Noam Chomsky interviews on how it turned into a "liberal scam" and I have no idea what to say to the class.
What bugs me the most is that the teacher says "The media promotes the scam" (she is not even trying to hiding her opinion)...should I just shut up or try to debate?
Seriously? Wow, I'd hate to be in your class. How can people argue against all the pollution caused by mankind? Or do they merely believe that pollution and climate change aren't connected? Either way, I think you should try to debate for it. I know you're right, and more importantly: you know you're right. Unless your teacher is one of those people who punishes people for disagreeing with them, I think you should go for it and stand up for your opinion.
|
On February 17 2012 05:02 Shiragaku wrote:
Hey guys...I am not exaggerating or trying to put on the zombie apocalypse mentality here, but we are suppose to debate whether climate change caused by man is real or not in meteorology. I am the only one in the class who believes climate change is caused by human activity and the others believe it is a scam...I have read up a lot on climate change, even listened to Noam Chomsky interviews on how it turned into a "liberal scam" and I have no idea what to say to the class.
What bugs me the most is that the teacher says "The media promotes the scam" (she is not even trying to hiding her opinion)...should I just shut up or try to debate?
You should find sources that can deliver the science at your educational level, read it a few times, make sure you understand it and then present it to your teacher/class. "Debates" in science seems like a slippery slope since the books used in the classes have to be approved by at least 19/20 scientists to make it below university level as far as I know.
Debate of "2+2=5 is true" next up?
|
On February 17 2012 05:12 HaXXspetten wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 05:02 Shiragaku wrote:
Hey guys...I am not exaggerating or trying to put on the zombie apocalypse mentality here, but we are suppose to debate whether climate change caused by man is real or not in meteorology. I am the only one in the class who believes climate change is caused by human activity and the others believe it is a scam...I have read up a lot on climate change, even listened to Noam Chomsky interviews on how it turned into a "liberal scam" and I have no idea what to say to the class.
What bugs me the most is that the teacher says "The media promotes the scam" (she is not even trying to hiding her opinion)...should I just shut up or try to debate? Seriously? Wow, I'd hate to be in your class. How can people argue against all the pollution caused by mankind? Or do they merely believe that pollution and climate change aren't connected? Either way, I think you should try to debate for it. I know you're right, and more importantly: you know you're right. Unless your teacher is one of those people who punishes people for disagreeing with them, I think you should go for it and stand up for your opinion.
The sort of class I am in scares me...
Thing is, I took the class to learn about climate change and I was the only one who wanted to take the class whereas the other kids were dumped there because they are expected to drop out or they do not care so whenever I try to say anything, they tell me to shut up.
And the teacher lost respect for me when I said to her "Rather than debating whether climate change is real, why not debate how is it caused exactly? It is like evolution, everyone knows evolution happened, but how it happened exactly is another story." Oops. She did not respond well to the evolution part. And to add salt on the wound, that is the last place I would want to come out gay because the homophobia is in the air...
And the teacher is not only a creationist scientist (da fak) but she is lazy. She does not enjoy teaching and she is very easily steered into talking about pop culture, American Idol, her relationships, football (Tim Teebow fangirl) so I am definitely going to study like hell from WirelessWaffle's posts, but I will not debate because I am only going to make a fool out of myself and from experience, people will simply keep their opinions.
|
On February 17 2012 05:02 Shiragaku wrote:
Hey guys...I am not exaggerating or trying to put on the zombie apocalypse mentality here, but we are suppose to debate whether climate change caused by man is real or not in meteorology. I am the only one in the class who believes climate change is caused by human activity and the others believe it is a scam...I have read up a lot on climate change, even listened to Noam Chomsky interviews on how it turned into a "liberal scam" and I have no idea what to say to the class.
What bugs me the most is that the teacher says "The media promotes the scam" (she is not even trying to hiding her opinion)...should I just shut up or try to debate?
hi shiragaku,
seems to be you are in the middle of a cultural clash not dissimilar to the evolution debate.
it is clear that something has be done for the curriculum for such an important contemporary science topic, and if only to increase awareness among the population as to how science functions.
two such calls can be found here:
a call for a "mainstream" climate science curriculum (national center for science education)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/so-whats-a-teacher-to-do/#more-10793
a call for a "sceptical" climate science curriculum (heartland institution)
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2012 Climate Strategy (3).pdf
decide yourself, which sounds more reasonable °J°
@ shiragaku: some fights, you cannot win. learn, read, argue, but dont be depressed, some people cannot be convinced with arguments, they will always move the discussion to a level of clash of opinion instead of exchange of scientific arguments.
best
w
|
On February 16 2012 21:29 LeibSaiLeib wrote:
Isnt it weird, that we talk about predictions for decades, when we cant get reliable weather proadcast for more then 5 days. Thats the reality, Climate change is real, if it wasnt real, we still yould have 50 000 ppm (Archean age) co2 in atmosphare. How has humans affected climate? Noone knows (exept for obvious stuff, taking down forest, stoping transpiration, thus destroying water cycle and it turns to desert). Sadly, global warming is one of the smallest threats to mankind, but still geting most attention (compared to turning west into totalitarian countries, lack of recources, massive pollution and waste etc).
The hell? Did you even look at the graph posted above you, there are no predictions in that graph, only statistics.
You don't even need to be a scientist to predict what will happen in a decade. Just look at the graph lol.
On February 16 2012 22:04 Knuppe wrote:In the 1970s it was all over the US newspapers "GLOBAL COOLING" In a few years all the crops would die and in 50 years a new ice age would begin IF the cooling would continue. A Swedish professor was actually given huge attention because he proposed we should warm the planet burning coal and what not to produce CO2 and fueling the green house effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_coolingWhat comes to my mind is these words: IF , WOULD , THEN, COULD Earths temperature have been rising and falling since its creation. People who think the climate should be stable is dilusional, it will get warmer people. Then it will get colder, after that, you guessed it: WARMER :D Get a grip, there is nothing wrong with the earth its the people that is fucked. The real problems we face are: Over-consuming Poisoning the little sweet water we still have left on the planet. Chopping down rain forrest, producing deserts Agriculture watering, depleting water wells for the inhabitants just so a company can make big bucks for 10 years of growing plants in a freaking desert.
Yes those are real problems, just like global warming.
There was no mention global cooling by scientists in the 1970's. In fact there were 4 times as many articles predicting warming.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm
|
On February 17 2012 05:02 Shiragaku wrote:
Hey guys...I am not exaggerating or trying to put on the zombie apocalypse mentality here, but we are suppose to debate whether climate change caused by man is real or not in meteorology. I am the only one in the class who believes climate change is caused by human activity and the others believe it is a scam...I have read up a lot on climate change, even listened to Noam Chomsky interviews on how it turned into a "liberal scam" and I have no idea what to say to the class.
What bugs me the most is that the teacher says "The media promotes the scam" (she is not even trying to hiding her opinion)...should I just shut up or try to debate?
I'd like to see this Noam Chomsky interview. Hes a philosopher I like listening to, but its gonna be a long stretch to try and prove with logic its a "scam". If he fails I have lost all respect for him. The most anyone can convince me is that global warming is not anthropological, any further than that and you are digging your own grave, everyone knows nerds of any field innately care more about respect among their community than money.
Also the newspaper article I posted showed that there has been a lot of money being pumped into schools to become "climate sceptic". And that there is an institutional movement, very much like the movement of teaching intelligent design and creationism in science. Of course we all know its a bunch of crap.
On February 17 2012 05:30 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 05:12 HaXXspetten wrote:On February 17 2012 05:02 Shiragaku wrote:
Hey guys...I am not exaggerating or trying to put on the zombie apocalypse mentality here, but we are suppose to debate whether climate change caused by man is real or not in meteorology. I am the only one in the class who believes climate change is caused by human activity and the others believe it is a scam...I have read up a lot on climate change, even listened to Noam Chomsky interviews on how it turned into a "liberal scam" and I have no idea what to say to the class.
What bugs me the most is that the teacher says "The media promotes the scam" (she is not even trying to hiding her opinion)...should I just shut up or try to debate? Seriously? Wow, I'd hate to be in your class. How can people argue against all the pollution caused by mankind? Or do they merely believe that pollution and climate change aren't connected? Either way, I think you should try to debate for it. I know you're right, and more importantly: you know you're right. Unless your teacher is one of those people who punishes people for disagreeing with them, I think you should go for it and stand up for your opinion. The sort of class I am in scares me... Thing is, I took the class to learn about climate change and I was the only one who wanted to take the class whereas the other kids were dumped there because they are expected to drop out or they do not care so whenever I try to say anything, they tell me to shut up. And the teacher lost respect for me when I said to her "Rather than debating whether climate change is real, why not debate how is it caused exactly? It is like evolution, everyone knows evolution happened, but how it happened exactly is another story." Oops. She did not respond well to the evolution part. And to add salt on the wound, that is the last place I would want to come out gay because the homophobia is in the air... And the teacher is not only a creationist scientist (da fak) but she is lazy. She does not enjoy teaching and she is very easily steered into talking about pop culture, American Idol, her relationships, football (Tim Teebow fangirl) so I am definitely going to study like hell from WirelessWaffle's posts, but I will not debate because I am only going to make a fool out of myself and from experience, people will simply keep their opinions.
I hate to have a defeatist attitude but there is nothing to be gained from speaking up, but there is a lot to lose, e.g committing social suicide.
I would just accept that the class is full of dumbasses and the its a waste of time. Your best bet is to go to a school or at least attend a subject that isn't retarded if you have the choice.
I mean if your big and you can stick up for yourself (e.g talk back and tell them to stfu and know that they won't retaliate physically) you can speak up and those guys might actually shutup and listen, but if your not, you have no chance lol. Logic doesn't work on those kinds of people, only fear, respect and physical presence. Although there is also the possibility that its not about you, but they think the teacher knows best and defend her and feel like they are doing the right thing. If the teacher encouraged debate and agreed with you, would they still tell you to shutup?
Then you have your teacher, who also clearly shouldn't be teaching, in which case its best to just not be in the class because you are obviously not learning anything.
Tbh I learned nothing useful in highschool, my career (software programming) is 100% based on all the learning I did at home, and I would have been better just picking all the subjects with all the girls (literature). University is a much better learning environment.
|
On February 17 2012 05:02 Shiragaku wrote:
Hey guys...I am not exaggerating or trying to put on the zombie apocalypse mentality here, but we are suppose to debate whether climate change caused by man is real or not in meteorology. I am the only one in the class who believes climate change is caused by human activity and the others believe it is a scam...I have read up a lot on climate change, even listened to Noam Chomsky interviews on how it turned into a "liberal scam" and I have no idea what to say to the class.
What bugs me the most is that the teacher says "The media promotes the scam" (she is not even trying to hiding her opinion)...should I just shut up or try to debate?
Be offensive 
1) Start with admitting everything people throw at you as 'real' or possibly so. Yes, it's a scam by some people. No matter what happens, some people will find a way to make money off it. Yes, a lot of the money involved in the carbon credit system is just foreign aid in disguise, or people profiteering. Yes, the temperature have always changed on earth - it has never been static. Yes, a lot of scientists have an interest in securing their jobs so they want to find evidence that support their jobs being important. Yes, some scientists have falsified evidence, etc etc. Anything anyone brings up like that, just say 'sure'.
You can't be attacked for agreeing with them.
But it allows you to control the debate.
Because then you have one irrefutable argument.
2) However, there is no argument, no chance of this being false. It's an indisputable fact. And that, my friend, is the Keeling curve combined with the fact that the temperature is now rising.
Using carbon dating, they have found pockets of air in the ice on the south / north pole which has made it possible to get historical data for what the co2 concentration in the earth's atmopshere have been in the recent times (recent few thousand years).
Those levels, have coincided with every warm period of time known historically - like the warming period in the middle ages.
Currently, it's higher than it has ever been. And we know - 100% sure - that this is because of us burning oil, gas, coal, and other gasses.
So what you should read up on, is that argument, the science behind it, and the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that climate change is in fact happening, and it's at least partly man-made.
... you don't have to support the stupid policies in place, or every scientist ever known to argue in favor of climate change. Keep it simple. Stay with this argument, and if someone tries to argue that it's disputed - it's not. It's fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
So argue that argument. And stay away from whichever direction they want to take the argument (temperature measurement? heat island effect? whatever. Just say: this shit doesn't matter at all whether or not it's argued well or not, fact is ... return to your argument ).
Otherwise known as: how to win an argument. Know one thing really well, and always return to that point, because then people can't dispute you because you know that inside and out and any criticism they give, you can refute.
However, if you have a teacher that believes in creationism ... I just feel sorry for you. You can't argue with morons ... as I am sure you know, they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
|
On February 17 2012 05:30 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 05:12 HaXXspetten wrote:On February 17 2012 05:02 Shiragaku wrote:Hey guys...I am not exaggerating or trying to put on the zombie apocalypse mentality here, but we are suppose to debate whether climate change caused by man is real or not in meteorology. I am the only one in the class who believes climate change is caused by human activity and the others believe it is a scam...I have read up a lot on climate change, even listened to Noam Chomsky interviews on how it turned into a "liberal scam" and I have no idea what to say to the class. + Show Spoiler +What bugs me the most is that the teacher says "The media promotes the scam" (she is not even trying to hiding her opinion)...should I just shut up or try to debate? Seriously? Wow, I'd hate to be in your class. How can people argue against all the pollution caused by mankind? Or do they merely believe that pollution and climate change aren't connected? Either way, I think you should try to debate for it. I know you're right, and more importantly: you know you're right. Unless your teacher is one of those people who punishes people for disagreeing with them, I think you should go for it and stand up for your opinion. The sort of class I am in scares me... Thing is, I took the class to learn about climate change and I was the only one who wanted to take the class whereas the other kids were dumped there because they are expected to drop out or they do not care so whenever I try to say anything, they tell me to shut up. And the teacher lost respect for me when I said to her "Rather than debating whether climate change is real, why not debate how is it caused exactly? It is like evolution, everyone knows evolution happened, but how it happened exactly is another story." Oops. She did not respond well to the evolution part. And to add salt on the wound, that is the last place I would want to come out gay because the homophobia is in the air... And the teacher is not only a creationist scientist (da fak) but she is lazy. She does not enjoy teaching and she is very easily steered into talking about pop culture, American Idol, her relationships, football (Tim Teebow fangirl) so I am definitely going to study like hell from WirelessWaffle's posts, but I will not debate because I am only going to make a fool out of myself and from experience, people will simply keep their opinions.
You live in a country where only 40% believe in evolution, less than that believe in human contributed climate change (even though the only respected climate change deniers make a career on what degree humans have on it, not whether we do) and about half of the American public are suspicious about vaccinations because they believe it lacks grounding. There appears to be a science divide in the United States from what I'm citing above but there is progression on it.
You're up against a wall, a majority wall at that but don't let it dishearten you. You can move forward while the rest stay stuck or even try to go back.
|
Righto, I will be sure to take all of your guy's advice into consideration.
And here is the Noam Chomsky interview
|
On February 17 2012 08:35 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 21:29 LeibSaiLeib wrote:
Isnt it weird, that we talk about predictions for decades, when we cant get reliable weather proadcast for more then 5 days. Thats the reality, Climate change is real, if it wasnt real, we still yould have 50 000 ppm (Archean age) co2 in atmosphare. How has humans affected climate? Noone knows (exept for obvious stuff, taking down forest, stoping transpiration, thus destroying water cycle and it turns to desert). Sadly, global warming is one of the smallest threats to mankind, but still geting most attention (compared to turning west into totalitarian countries, lack of recources, massive pollution and waste etc). The hell? Did you even look at the graph posted above you, there are no predictions in that graph, only statistics. You don't even need to be a scientist to predict what will happen in a decade. Just look at the graph lol.
EDIT: Was stupid enuff to not fallow the read only dont post rule. Deleted post, since like most (all) TL threads its not going to go anywhere anyways.
|
On February 17 2012 05:12 HaXXspetten wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 05:02 Shiragaku wrote:
Hey guys...I am not exaggerating or trying to put on the zombie apocalypse mentality here, but we are suppose to debate whether climate change caused by man is real or not in meteorology. I am the only one in the class who believes climate change is caused by human activity and the others believe it is a scam...I have read up a lot on climate change, even listened to Noam Chomsky interviews on how it turned into a "liberal scam" and I have no idea what to say to the class.
What bugs me the most is that the teacher says "The media promotes the scam" (she is not even trying to hiding her opinion)...should I just shut up or try to debate? Seriously? Wow, I'd hate to be in your class. How can people argue against all the pollution caused by mankind? Or do they merely believe that pollution and climate change aren't connected? Either way, I think you should try to debate for it. I know you're right, and more importantly: you know you're right. Unless your teacher is one of those people who punishes people for disagreeing with them, I think you should go for it and stand up for your opinion.
There's such a huge difference between pollution and climate change. They're 2 things completely apart. There's no sane person that would deny the pollution mankind causes. Climate change is alot of controversy over though.
|
On February 17 2012 08:42 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 05:02 Shiragaku wrote:
Hey guys...I am not exaggerating or trying to put on the zombie apocalypse mentality here, but we are suppose to debate whether climate change caused by man is real or not in meteorology. I am the only one in the class who believes climate change is caused by human activity and the others believe it is a scam...I have read up a lot on climate change, even listened to Noam Chomsky interviews on how it turned into a "liberal scam" and I have no idea what to say to the class.
What bugs me the most is that the teacher says "The media promotes the scam" (she is not even trying to hiding her opinion)...should I just shut up or try to debate? I'd like to see this Noam Chomsky interview. Hes a philosopher I like listening to, but its gonna be a long stretch to try and prove with logic its a "scam". If he fails I have lost all respect for him. The most anyone can convince me is that global warming is not anthropological, any further than that and you are digging your own grave, everyone knows nerds of any field innately care more about respect among their community than money. Also the newspaper article I posted showed that there has been a lot of money being pumped into schools to become "climate sceptic". And that there is an institutional movement, very much like the movement of teaching intelligent design and creationism in science. Of course we all know its a bunch of crap.
Shiragaku phrased it poorly. Chomsky is talking about how the perception that climate change is a scam was created, not about how it actually is a scam. He believes in it.
|
Felnarion February 17 2012 03:45. Posts 54
Ha ha that is a verry interesting correlation you seem to have found here.
It looks like co2 emissions correlate strongly with our global gdp (extraploating usa figures now wich i think is justified)
The higher co2 emissions, the higher our gdp (or is it the other way around?)
This is not realy suprising but it is a thing manny people dont realise i think.
|
On February 19 2012 04:53 Rassy wrote:
Felnarion February 17 2012 03:45. Posts 54
Ha ha that is a verry interesting correlation you seem to have found here.
It looks like co2 emissions correlate strongly with our global gdp (extraploating usa figures now wich i think is justified)
The higher co2 emissions, the higher our gdp (or is it the other way around?)
This is not realy suprising but it is a thing manny people dont realise i think.
It is actually fairly well-known and one of the reasons the republicans might have a point in being very sceptic about measures against climate change! There has been talk about how to "break the correlation" in many political meetings. The economic crisis from 2010 and later has put a damper on those talks for now, but as an argument it is probably the best there is against the current political strategy of CO2-quota and taxation.
Be aware that it is a very legitimate political reason and not a scientific reason for denying climate change.
|
On February 19 2012 03:59 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 08:42 sluggaslamoo wrote:On February 17 2012 05:02 Shiragaku wrote:
Hey guys...I am not exaggerating or trying to put on the zombie apocalypse mentality here, but we are suppose to debate whether climate change caused by man is real or not in meteorology. I am the only one in the class who believes climate change is caused by human activity and the others believe it is a scam...I have read up a lot on climate change, even listened to Noam Chomsky interviews on how it turned into a "liberal scam" and I have no idea what to say to the class.
What bugs me the most is that the teacher says "The media promotes the scam" (she is not even trying to hiding her opinion)...should I just shut up or try to debate? I'd like to see this Noam Chomsky interview. Hes a philosopher I like listening to, but its gonna be a long stretch to try and prove with logic its a "scam". If he fails I have lost all respect for him. The most anyone can convince me is that global warming is not anthropological, any further than that and you are digging your own grave, everyone knows nerds of any field innately care more about respect among their community than money. Also the newspaper article I posted showed that there has been a lot of money being pumped into schools to become "climate sceptic". And that there is an institutional movement, very much like the movement of teaching intelligent design and creationism in science. Of course we all know its a bunch of crap. Shiragaku phrased it poorly. Chomsky is talking about how the perception that climate change is a scam was created, not about how it actually is a scam. He believes in it.
Ah ok thanks for the clarification. I will watch the video anyway out of interest ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
