mspohr
Well-Known Member
There’s stupid then there’s the sort of stupid that endangers the gene pool.
LOL
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
LOL
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Climate change: There is more CO2 in the atmosphere today than any point since the evolution of humans - CNN
This is the first time in human history our planet's atmosphere has had more than 415ppm CO2.
Not just in recorded history, not just since the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago. Since before modern humans existed millions of years ago.
We don't know a planet like this.
This is the first time in human history our planet's atmosphere has had more than 415ppm CO2.
Not just in recorded history, not just since the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago. Since before modern humans existed millions of years ago.
We don't know a planet like this.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
True, but the comparison is not apt because humanity has not been standing still either. Now there is a civilization in the flood plain.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Kilotango74
Active Member
You are either clueless or very dishonest. The global cooling scare was being actively peddled by the scientists of the day and the governments of the world, including the CIA and NASA here. If you want to believe the one bogus "study" by the rabid alarmist who was kicked off of wikipedia for dishonest moderating and censorship practices then be my guest. Here is a real study that shows what was actually going on in the scientific community at the time:
Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’
You cannot assume that. We must prove our foundation, or everything on top of it will collapse when you say, “well I never believed the adjustments anyway.” Join me on a public, live broadcast of each step of the science. You seem scared of that. I am not.
Are you daft? How many times do I need to tell you that I am willing to assume for the sake of argument that the largely fake temperature record you love so much is correct. Now prove that it shows that humans have had any material affect on your temperature record. Now proceed from there. You know you can't but I will check back later to watch you sidestep some more.
One of us is definitely daft. Show me how daft I am publicly when we go through the temperature record. You state we are cooling so it should be simple. You won’t look like a total fool at all.
Sidestepping is moving the goalposts and running away from a public discussion. One person here is doing that.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I'm listening to the wisdom of children.
You're clearly not listening to anyone.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Perhaps this simple explanation will help you understand.
Jarvis Johnson on Twitter
Jarvis Johnson on Twitter
Jarvis Johnson on Twitter
mspohr
Well-Known Member
We've run out of elections to waste – this is the last chance to make a difference on climate change
We've run out of elections to waste – this is the last chance to make a difference on climate change | Bill McKibben
Global warming, after all, is a math problem: how quickly can we reverse the flow of carbon into the atmosphere? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its report last year, said that unless a fundamental transformation was fully underway by 2030, we stood no chance of meeting the targets the world set in the Paris climate accords. No matter what country you’re in, “fundamental transformations” don’t come overnight; if you want to dramatically trim carbon emissions in 2030, it means you better start in 2020.
We've run out of elections to waste – this is the last chance to make a difference on climate change | Bill McKibben
Global warming, after all, is a math problem: how quickly can we reverse the flow of carbon into the atmosphere? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its report last year, said that unless a fundamental transformation was fully underway by 2030, we stood no chance of meeting the targets the world set in the Paris climate accords. No matter what country you’re in, “fundamental transformations” don’t come overnight; if you want to dramatically trim carbon emissions in 2030, it means you better start in 2020.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Here's a clue.
There have definitely been studies that have looked at different brain profiles associated with ideology. People who are very conservative seem to have a much larger volume and a much more sensitive amygdala – the area of the brain that is involved in perceptions of fear. People who are more liberal seem to have a greater weighting on the region of the brain that is engaged in future planning and more collaborative partnerships. They don’t seem sensitive to immediate threats; instead, they are looking to the future. What we see in propaganda through the centuries is that if you heighten someone’s fear response using environmental manipulation, you are more likely to make them vote in a rightwing way.
So what does neuroscience tell us about how you might go about changing someone’s mind or winning an argument?
It’s very difficult. Once you have built up a perception of the world, you will ignore any information to the contrary. Your brain is already taking up about 20% of your energy, so changing the way that you think is going to be quite cognitively costly. And it might be quite socially costly too.
Neuroscientist Dr Hannah Critchlow: ‘Changing the way that you think is cognitively costly’
Neuroscientist Dr Hannah Critchlow: ‘Changing the way that you think is cognitively costly’
There have definitely been studies that have looked at different brain profiles associated with ideology. People who are very conservative seem to have a much larger volume and a much more sensitive amygdala – the area of the brain that is involved in perceptions of fear. People who are more liberal seem to have a greater weighting on the region of the brain that is engaged in future planning and more collaborative partnerships. They don’t seem sensitive to immediate threats; instead, they are looking to the future. What we see in propaganda through the centuries is that if you heighten someone’s fear response using environmental manipulation, you are more likely to make them vote in a rightwing way.
So what does neuroscience tell us about how you might go about changing someone’s mind or winning an argument?
It’s very difficult. Once you have built up a perception of the world, you will ignore any information to the contrary. Your brain is already taking up about 20% of your energy, so changing the way that you think is going to be quite cognitively costly. And it might be quite socially costly too.
Neuroscientist Dr Hannah Critchlow: ‘Changing the way that you think is cognitively costly’
Neuroscientist Dr Hannah Critchlow: ‘Changing the way that you think is cognitively costly’
Similar threads
