My approach when talking about climate warming with those who call it a hoax, etc., is as follows.1) ok, we know 99% of the worlds top scientists that agree 100% that global warming is a man made event and getting worse and worse. So, your ok with a 100-1 shot response? Lets say it was 75%, say that.2) So, are you willing to take a 4-1 chance that your right and the top minds with excelent equipment are wrong. 2012 is named the drought of the century and July 2012 was just named hottest month ever.3) So, we can keep playing this number game. For example, you have a pistol with 1 round and 5 empty chambers and you can win a million dollars by surviving one try or your head gets blown off as they are using dummie rounds that are outlawed. Most people would pass on that 1-6 shot in their favor, but many of you have no problem standing behind 99.9%-1 odds that will blow our planet away. 4) ok, so we have 99% top scientists in aggreement that we are in a very serious situation with rising temps. Let's say that they are half right, should we listen or blow them off? You listen you get less pollution, green energy, solar, wind, etc. So, even if later they were proven wrong, you still had used very clean energy and created jobs, not to shabby. However, you ignore them and they are proven right = you shi* and sat in it/game over. 5)lastly, many of us have auto insurance, home insurance, accident insurance, life insurance, etc. These policies, in most cases get covered in dust, yet we must pay for the 350-1 shot flood and you get the idea. But, we all do it because you never know??? Highly unlikely but we must be protected. However, when we have 99.9% of the top minds in science with state of the art equipment and millions of years of data telling us we are soon DOOMED can be easily ignored by many people as "not happening" and why respond with solutions, heck there is a good 1000-1 chance that I am right.
Wrong approach and poor logical thinking.
I don't have a problem with being proactive on climate change. But if you want to make a real difference, you should try posting on a board in China or India. They're lack of emission standards from the coal fired plants going on line almost daily, dwarf any pollution in this country.
Not to confuse you with some actual facts but-
Top 10 annual energy-related CO2 emitters by percentage of total-
China 23.6%US 17.9%India 5.5%Russia 5.3%Japan 3.8%
Germany 2.6%Iran 1.8%Canada 1.8%Korea 1.8%Britain 1.6%
Source: International Energy Agency (IEA) 2011 report at annual conference in Paris, France.
While I consider myself a skeptic for reasons I'm not going to get involved with here, this statement:
Let's say that they are half right, should we listen or blow them off? You listen you get less pollution, green energy, solar, wind, etc
I still support. I'm all for minimizing pollution (even though CO2 itself is not pollution), using cleaner energy (I'm having solar panels installed on my house this spring) and reducing our dependency on foreign oil.
"They like to reference historical periods to find political cover. They ain't gone find one for July 2012."
How long is it, that you believe, humans have been recording daily temps? Just curious.
>>It's only going to be 78 in Chicago today in AUGUST! Global cooling! Oh no!
I heard locally where i live about a week ago that July was the hottest month on record. It barely beat out the previous record for July which was back in 1921.
I'm sure if they were recording temps back in 1700 they would find a few hotter July's as well.
People just like to take this stuff to the extremes. Just like with a movie i watched the other day 'forks over knives' that basically tried making the point if you stop eating meat/dairy you absolutely will not get cancer or other bad diseases, but if you eat meat/dairy you almost certainly will.
"How long is it, that you believe, humans have been recording daily temps? Just curious."
Well let's see (hehe) the record books say the data for the month of July is in excess of 1400 recorded months. I know this might be a little tough to understand , but that translates to 1400 years hehe...
>>Well let's see (hehe) the record books say the data for the month of July is in excess of 1400 recorded months. I know this might be a little tough to understand , but that translates to 1400 years hehe...
1895 is the correct answer
"I'm sure if they were recording temps back in 1700 they would find a few hotter July's as well."
Speculation nothing more, that means you are SURE about speculation, not a very good argument