Why does logical thinking scare Anthropogenic Global Warming believers?

Question

Bob, Do you think I don't believe that we are experiencing a global climate change? I know we are, but I feel humans don't effect it one way or the other. And we can't do anything to change it. We can however clean up our enviroment and breath cleaner air, which isn't a bad thing.

The thing is the change can't happen over night, since there's a lot of poor people in the world. I'm an advocate for them, trying to be the voice of reason, and to get people to stop knocking people over the head with what ultimately is a non-issue. Since it's something we can't do anything about.

I also love people that state the only people fighting against AGW are people that have an interest in Oil Companies. Which is another false statement.

Answer 1

I couldn't agree with you more. They have their theories and the skeptics have theirs. But when a skeptic post his/her theory, the theory gets blasted stating it was bad stats and they cherry picked their plots (blah blah blah). There is good science out there on both sides pro and skeptic alike. I don't bash the Pro theory b/c who am I to say it is wrong. But what I can say is that it is a theory and nothing more. Just like the cosmic ray flux theory by Nir J. Shaviv. It is every bit as sound as the Co2 theory. Also as if Mann's hockey stick curve wasn't poor stats. It's been proven over and over it was bad stats and that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than today with a less Co2 concentration than today.

Answer 2

To be fairly marvelous, the actual threat isn't international warming; that's international climate replace. we are affecting the climate and destabilizing it and whenever you have very rapid adjustments like those that have been going on because of the fact the commercial revolution it messes up the entire gadget and that ought to effectively replace the climates of many places. the situation is that if we don't take measures to stay away from what have been doing agriculture that at the instant feeds everywhere from 40 to 60 p.c. of the international's inhabitants must be affected and as supplies replace into scarce wars ought to start over land and user-friendly supplies which incorporate nutrition and water. yet another situation is that the destabilizing of the climate will warmth our oceans inflicting Methane hydrate bonds frozen deep below the oceans to interrupt and launch lots of Methane that's a much greater valuable gas than Carbon Dioxide by using a value of 200 to a million or some thing comparable. because of the fact the Methane heats us up and makes each little thing greater chaotic greater of those bonds would be broken and without notice we will have us an excellent situation on our palms because of the fact such heating can greater impression our nutrition grant and soften the ice caps which might conceal countries in water preferable to substantial losses the two financial and of existence. apart from, the oceans which at the instant soak up any the place from 80-ninety gigatons of , i've got self assurance, of Carbon Dioxide will replace into much less effective in soaking up the excess Carbon Dioxide because of the fact the organisms which help in this technique die off because of the heating of the oceans and this ends up in greater heating and destabilizing which may make maximum of our planet inhospitable. The worst case concern that's probable to ensue in accordance to our maximum credible scientific supplies ends up in an volatile climate besides as grave social and financial issues. i'm hoping that clears up your fake impact on the situation and that i wish you the proper. Peace and satisfied Days.

Answer 3

It doesn't. Quite the opposite, in fact. Why do you think it does? Here's some simple logical thinking for you:

The greenhouse effect is what keeps our planet from being a freezing hellscape.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

Humans are emitting carbon that has been trapped in fossil fuels for millions of years.

These carbon emissions are more than the natural carbon cycle can absorb, so they accumulate in the atmosphere.

This increased CO2 level increases the greenhouse effect.

An increased greenhouse effect causes global warming.

Is that logical enough for you? Can you make a logical argument to tell me where this is wrong?

Answer 4

I have to agree with Linda. It's the hype and elitism I object to--- now I am an amature astronomer ------ its been my hobby for a long time ------- I "think" I am quite versed in the scientific method, peer review, and so forth. What I see happening with this issue is two fold:

First, usually when scientists disagree they keep searching for a better answer------- string theory is an example. DECADES of heated discussion- and no one calling anyone skeptics or deniers! Climatology is a very YOUNG subject---- and a very complex subject------- I see a BIG RUSH to do something without a good understanding of the climate system- complicated by a new political system of money exchange.

Second, the political and economic aspects alone of this debate calls for increased vigilance from the scientific community ------- not "this is a consensus decision" or "the discussion is over".

What I personally see is competing theories ------- the truth is probably somewhere in the middle------ and will be DISCOVERED in the not to distant future.

Answer 5

It doesn't--lobical thinking based on the evidence shows that anthropogenic global warming is a proven fact.

And--FYI--every sinngle one of the fake "objections" that crackpots keep coming up with contain logical errors, innaccuracies--or outright lies. Which is why no one takes these kooks seriously, or is going to help them bolster their egos by pretending there is anything to "debate." There isn't--facts are facts. They need to go get some counselling and get over it.

Answer 6

FWIW, "anthropogenous" isn't in Oxford or Merriam-Webster as a formal word in the english language and doesn't show up in online searches except as a word specific to horticulture. On the other hand, "anthropogenic" is in Oxford and Merriam-Webster. I find that kind of amusing given the rest of that response.

Answer 7

When Bob quotes the IPCC website (a site that only exists IF Global Warming exists, and only gets funding so long as it exists) you have to wonder about the "unbiased" nature of the information.

"So...20 million dollars from Energy Companies skeptical of Global Warming corrupts, but Billions and Billions of Government Funding reliant on Global Warming doesn't?"

Answer 8

Logical thinking does not scare anthropogenic global warming believers.

If you have any further questions, feel free to let me know.

Answer 9

because logic is moot when people make up words with no generally agreed upon definition and therefore neither party know what the heck the other is talking about.

Answer 10

Global warming is a Religion you have to have a lot of faith to believe in that crap. Wasn't it global cooling 20 years ago? GLOBAL WARMING IS HUMANITIES GREATEST LIE!!!

Most of the socalled scientest that signed the UN report, did not agree that man made global warming is real, but there names were added anyway. This includes the Chairman of the IAEA. Global warming is an industry. say you support it and get funding say you dont NO funding go figure