Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the OP doesn't understand what most sensible people realize about climate change; it has always changed, always will change and we can't stop it.
It isn't about "changing" anyone's mind about climate change. The argument starts with the approaches to it, the fact that the climate has constantly changed throughout the Earth's history and how much should be done.
The same question can be asked in reverse; has anyone ever succeeded in changing a liberal's mind about climate change?
Excellent question. I expect the answer is somewhat similar, but perhaps for different reasons.
Climate alarmism (aka Anthropogenic Global Climate change) is a giant hoax.
Yes, climate changes, all the time.
No, a trace gas (CO2) is not driving the change, especially when the "hockey stick" graph plainly shows the "cause" following the change.
Or that the "heat trapping atmosphere" cools the planet by at least 116 degrees F, compared to bodies outside the atmosphere (ISS & the moon).
Or that the so-called greenhouse gases have a higher emissivity, meaning that they cool the planet more.
Or that "rising averages" is a scam, since there are three ways to compute averages and each computes to a different value (mean, median, and mode) - plus this past June, Antarctica registered a record LOW temperature. Good trick, eh?
Or that the purported remedies are ridiculous (sequestering carbon and selling carbon credits).
Climate is what we expect - weather is what we get.
Ascribing every weather anomaly to "climate change" is proof that it's mindless alarmism.
And if you think scientists can't be "bought" consider that the Sugar industry bought off scientists to blame FAT for heart disease, and ignore sugar and carbohydrates.
[R]esearchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine, that the sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to downplay links between sugar and heart disease, and instead play up the emerging science about saturated fat as a more likely contributor to heart disease problems than sugar.
I am a conservative. Here's my view of what needs to happen.
a. Stop the hysterical ranting. It simply turns off 90% of conservatives from listening any further.
b. Don't try to force beliefs or claim that the government must force the non believers to do anything. Taking away individual freedoms is not going to get you anywhere.
c. Stop assuming that because you don't happen to do something/need something/want something, then everyone one else should do/want/need exactly the same thing. To use the example already given, a sedan doesn't meet my needs. But I bet I spend less on gas each year than many small car drivers. I don't waste gas or time on extra unneeded driving, but will drive what I need when I need it.
d. Stop trying to force electric cars on everyone. They're expensive, have hidden environmental costs, and don't meet most people's needs. Most conservatives aren't against electric cars as a concept. But the current technology doesn't meet our needs. If one comes out that meets my needs and is affordable, it will be in the list. Until then however, stop trying to shove it down our throats.
e. Define the specific problem(s) and then talk in practical, workable solutions. The over-the-top rhetoric shuts down conversation.
f. Use real facts and real data. Please don't quote talking points and sound bites. Don't use terms like "trust the science." The issue isn't trusting science, but trusting politicians that abuse science for their political goals. BTW, for the record, I am a scientist. Spent my life working as a scientist for the Federal Government. So please don't try to use magical terms about how 90% of scientists, etc. I know how both science and government work.
g. Stop treating conservatives like idiots. Talking down to conservatives will shut down the conversation before it starts.
h. Be rational, reasonable, realistic, and willing to listen.
I used to work with a guy who was a very nice person and was a good friend, but who was a liberal. We had many lunch conversations on these topics and his view eventually always came around to some version of "this is how I live and everyone else should live the same way and if they don't then the government will have to force them." That attitude won't win any arguments.
^^^ Well, this right here about covers it all TNFF!!!! well done!
Hey guys. Just wondering if anyone ever succeeded in changing a conservative's mind about the effects of climate change - be it in personal conversation or online? If so, would love to hear how that went down and which arguments did you find to be the most persuasive?
Good question, EnergyOverlord. I like your nom de guerre. It implies that you either want to lord it over people, or like lording it over people. It certainly fits the implication that you are a Climate Hysteric.
My question would be: Anyone ever change a Climate Hysteric's mind about climate change? I mean, that Laurentide ice sheet that melted in place around 12,000 years ago might be coming back!
I need to know so that I can get some colleagues to get down off the bridge railing from which they want to jump. MILLIONS WILL DIE DUE TO RISING SEA LEVELS. Well, sure, sea levels could rise. But it could take hundreds if not thousands of years to be significant and I suspect most people are capable of ambulating uphill if they see that the water is slowly starting to rise.
My view, and most of the folks I worked with, we have insufficient understanding to extract a signal from the noise regarding man-made climate change. That is, the climate is changing, but has changed often over the history of our planet naturally. That's not to say we shouldn't dig deeper into understanding; we need to proceed thoughtfully.
Exactly.
For example, I read a study about longwave radiation. It is extremely difficult to model due to the complex mathematics involved in modelling cloud cover (i.e., underdetermined system). The paper indicated that an error range of +16 to -16 degrees of global temperature change was possible based upon best estimates. So a predicted +1.5 degree rise in global temperature is a very small signal in a +16 or -16 degree noise of change in global temps.
Of course humans impact their environment. So do dogs, and worms, and birds. Improving human health standards globally is likely to have a greater and longer impact than the stupid ideas put out by the Climate Hysterics. If and when that happens, then Greta can go back to school and get an education.
Hey guys. Just wondering if anyone ever succeeded in changing a conservative's mind about the effects of climate change - be it in personal conversation or online? If so, would love to hear how that went down and which arguments did you find to be the most persuasive?
It is hard to change minds unless you see people who trying to convince you of something change their lifestyle first to “solve” the problem.
Diana Feinstein - one of the anti-conservatives just died: she had like 7-8 huge properties - living alone: a house in DC, in CO, HI, a few in CA
When the public see that the people advocating for changes start moving to smaller houses, building smaller homes, switching to public vs private jets planes and so forth - then some people may consider letting the government manage their ceiling fans and cooking appliances without ire and annoyance
Hypocrisy is a very American thing…
Wonder what the cooks use in the White House kitchen? Induction?
Have the WH managed to reduce its consumption of energy in the last 3 years?? How much?
Inquiring minds want to know..
Why bother is my thought? We are being overcome by storms, fire, floods, hurricanes in odd places and a host of disasters which are inexorably changing our world. Is it entirely man made? Probably not, but we have chosen not to do anything about it either and seem willing to live as we wish until the end.
At this late date trying to convince anyone of anything is irrelevant. The change is here, gets worse every day, and eventually will kill us off as a specie. How many people can survive weeks of 120 degrees. Or rebuild a town which is destroyed by fire? More importantly, as the events, such as the end of fresh water supply encroach on people, where are they going to go?
They're going to perish. That is the answer. Maybe then people will be willing to be persuaded...but it will be too late, won't it?
Why bother is my thought? We are being overcome by storms, fire, floods, hurricanes in odd places and a host of disasters which are inexorably changing our world. Is it entirely man made? Probably not, but we have chosen not to do anything about it either and seem willing to live as we wish until the end.
At this late date trying to convince anyone of anything is irrelevant. The change is here, gets worse every day, and eventually will kill us off as a specie. How many people can survive weeks of 120 degrees. Or rebuild a town which is destroyed by fire? More importantly, as the events, such as the end of fresh water supply encroach on people, where are they going to go?
They're going to perish. That is the answer. Maybe then people will be willing to be persuaded...but it will be too late, won't it?
"Odd places" ? Do you really believe that?
Have you checked the past 2000 year history for natural disasters in "odd places"?
They occur.
What the "Alarmists" tend to ignore is that large fusion reactor, eight light minutes away, that has been having an UNUSUAL SUNSPOT cycle and plenty of CME hitting the atmosphere, as demonstrated by abnormally LARGE Auroras, extending far beyond the polar regions.
Now, what do you think has a larger effect on the atmosphere:
A trace gas (around 400 parts per million), or
An impact of solar storms that trigger a light show extending hundreds of kilometers beyond the arctic circle?
Want a real reason to be alarmed?
Cosmic rays are a surprisingly "down to Earth" form of space weather. They can alter the chemistry of the atmosphere, trigger lightning, and penetrate commercial airplanes. According to a study from the Harvard T.H. Chan school of public health, crews of aircraft have higher rates of cancer than the general population.
CMEs are capable of reaching and colliding with Earth's magnetosphere, where they can cause geomagnetic storms, aurorae, and in rare cases damage to electrical power grids. The largest recorded geomagnetic perturbation, resulting presumably from a CME, was the solar storm of 1859. Also known as the Carrington Event, it disabled parts of the newly created United States telegraph network, starting fires and shocking some telegraph operators.
Solar emissions caused weather extremes? Perish the thought! [/sarcasm]
: : : :
- - - TEMPERATURE DATA - - -
● Earth max : 56.85°C (134.33°F)
● Space station max : 121°C (250°F)
● Lunar surface max : 116.8°C (242.33°F)
Zero atmosphere = higher maximum temperature
How does a “heat trapping” atmosphere stay colder?
How do you have RISING AVERAGES when the peak recorded temperature has not been exceeded?
(Which average ? Mean, median, or mode? Did the well paid scientists cherry pick which value fit the narrative?)
A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combustion engines, airplane flights, diesel tractors — has virtually no measurable impact on the temperature of the planet.
... “A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.”
WAIT - the Earth with atmosphere is at least 110°C cooler than the Moon without an atmosphere.
(LUNAR MAX : 116.8°C minus EARTH MAX : 56.85°C = 110°C)
But they’re saying the greenhouse gases are keeping us 30°C warmer so we should be 140° C cooler without the “greenhouse” gases.
Are these people SERIOUS?
What a giant HOAX.
That’s a recipe for an Ice Age... not to mention the death of all plant life.
Last edited by jetgraphics; 09-30-2023 at 03:23 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
