Remember me
▼ Content

Why humans are so bad at thinking about climate change?


Why humans are so bad at thinking about climate change?17-11-2019 17:58
eddy15
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
The University of California is a pioneer on climate research, renewable energy and environmental sustainability. UC is dedicated to providing scalable solutions to help the world bend the curve on climate change. UC research is also paving the way for the university to meet its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2025. Read more about our commitment at https://dausel.co/w6liCm
17-11-2019 21:25
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
How come UC hasn't figured out how to control wildfires yet? It's been a huge problem in California, before climate change, and there doesn't seem to be any preventive, or mitigating practices, yet. Should they focus on deadly local problems, before working on global issues? What's the carbon footprint, for every acre burned? Wouldn't the wildfires be part of being carbon neutral in California? Can't make your 2025 goal, with out fixing a historical huge problem, that gets worse each year...
17-11-2019 22:29
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
HarveyH55 wrote:
How come UC hasn't figured out how to control wildfires yet? It's been a huge problem in California, before climate change, and there doesn't seem to be any preventive, or mitigating practices, yet. Should they focus on deadly local problems, before working on global issues? What's the carbon footprint, for every acre burned? Wouldn't the wildfires be part of being carbon neutral in California? Can't make your 2025 goal, with out fixing a historical huge problem, that gets worse each year...



There's a difference between wildfires and forest fires. Forest fires are good for the environment and ecosystems. At the same time they are essentially carbon neutral.
This is why a 2 party system like Republicans vs Democrats doesn't work. Common sense has become the enemy.
18-11-2019 00:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
eddy15 wrote:
The University of California is a pioneer on climate research,

What's to research? A desert climate is always a desert climate. A marine climate is always a marine climate.
eddy15 wrote:
renewable energy

You mean oil, natural gas, wind, and solar energy?
eddy15 wrote:
and environmental sustainability.

You just said that.
eddy15 wrote:
UC is dedicated to providing scalable solutions to help the world bend the curve on climate change.

'Climate change' has a curve? What is the formula for this 'curve'? Define 'climate change'.
eddy15 wrote:
UC research is also paving the way for the university to meet its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2025.

So, you are tearing the whole place down by 2025? What are you going to do with the carbon compounds in the walls and bricks? What are you going to do with all the people? Kill them?
eddy15 wrote:
Read more about our commitment at https://dausel.co/w6liCm

I don't bother recording the paradoxes of people that are not here.

Keep your irrational advertisements to yourself, or make the case for your religions yourself.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-11-2019 10:42
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How come UC hasn't figured out how to control wildfires yet? It's been a huge problem in California, before climate change, and there doesn't seem to be any preventive, or mitigating practices, yet. Should they focus on deadly local problems, before working on global issues? What's the carbon footprint, for every acre burned? Wouldn't the wildfires be part of being carbon neutral in California? Can't make your 2025 goal, with out fixing a historical huge problem, that gets worse each year...



There's a difference between wildfires and forest fires. Forest fires are good for the environment and ecosystems. At the same time they are essentially carbon neutral.
This is why a 2 party system like Republicans vs Democrats doesn't work. Common sense has become the enemy.


Carbon neutral? 100,000 acres burn in a week, more or less, releasing a considerable quantity of CO2. It take years for all those acres to recover, and recapture the same CO2. It's not the same areas burning every year...
20-11-2019 02:04
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How come UC hasn't figured out how to control wildfires yet? It's been a huge problem in California, before climate change, and there doesn't seem to be any preventive, or mitigating practices, yet. Should they focus on deadly local problems, before working on global issues? What's the carbon footprint, for every acre burned? Wouldn't the wildfires be part of being carbon neutral in California? Can't make your 2025 goal, with out fixing a historical huge problem, that gets worse each year...



There's a difference between wildfires and forest fires. Forest fires are good for the environment and ecosystems. At the same time they are essentially carbon neutral.
This is why a 2 party system like Republicans vs Democrats doesn't work. Common sense has become the enemy.


Carbon neutral? 100,000 acres burn in a week, more or less, releasing a considerable quantity of CO2. It take years for all those acres to recover, and recapture the same CO2. It's not the same areas burning every year...



And it's created jobs in the southeast US. It is official policy in the EU while they say it might actually take a few decades for it to be carbon neutral. This agrees with the IPCC saying we need record levels of CO2 to save the ozone layer. Otherwise why is that not an issue like CO2 emissions are?
23-11-2019 11:27
Volker Siegel
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
Carbon neutral? 100,000 acres burn in a week, more or less, releasing a considerable quantity of CO2. It take years for all those acres to recover, and recapture the same CO2. It's not the same areas burning every year...

Yes, it takes years, maybe a decade. But over some time it is neutral. There are no really old trees currently, and it will burn more often. Preventing trees from burning in California is what created the problem.
23-11-2019 18:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How come UC hasn't figured out how to control wildfires yet? It's been a huge problem in California, before climate change, and there doesn't seem to be any preventive, or mitigating practices, yet. Should they focus on deadly local problems, before working on global issues? What's the carbon footprint, for every acre burned? Wouldn't the wildfires be part of being carbon neutral in California? Can't make your 2025 goal, with out fixing a historical huge problem, that gets worse each year...



There's a difference between wildfires and forest fires. Forest fires are good for the environment and ecosystems. At the same time they are essentially carbon neutral.
This is why a 2 party system like Republicans vs Democrats doesn't work. Common sense has become the enemy.


Carbon neutral? 100,000 acres burn in a week, more or less, releasing a considerable quantity of CO2. It take years for all those acres to recover, and recapture the same CO2. It's not the same areas burning every year...



And it's created jobs in the southeast US. It is official policy in the EU while they say it might actually take a few decades for it to be carbon neutral. This agrees with the IPCC saying we need record levels of CO2 to save the ozone layer. Otherwise why is that not an issue like CO2 emissions are?

CO2 has no effect on O3 or the ozone layer.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-03-2020 21:50
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1036)
Do smart people , lets say iq over 120, also fall for the global warming scam? I see a lot of politicians in my country who speak that we should go carbon neutral as soon as possible. Or maybe they play along with this scam and profit from it? I had a conversation with a woman who has been a chemist teacher all her life and when I told her that global warming is scam then she started to explain me the greenhouse effect and how it causes warming. How come smart people like teachers, politicians and scientist fall for this scam?
03-03-2020 23:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Xadoman wrote:
Do smart people , lets say iq over 120, also fall for the global warming scam?

Define 'smart people'.
Xadoman wrote:
I see a lot of politicians in my country who speak that we should go carbon neutral as soon as possible.

Quite a few politicians have trouble tying their own shoes.
Xadoman wrote:
Or maybe they play along with this scam and profit from it?

Many do.
Xadoman wrote:
I had a conversation with a woman who has been a chemist teacher all her life and when I told her that global warming is scam then she started to explain me the greenhouse effect and how it causes warming.

She is denying physics, specifically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. She doesn't sound very smart to me.
Xadoman wrote:
How come smart people like teachers, politicians and scientist fall for this scam?

A credential or an election does not make someone smart. Teachers work for the government. So do most scientists. They must conform to the government agenda or they don't get paid.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 03-03-2020 23:27
04-03-2020 00:03
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1036)
Define 'smart people'.


As I said, iq over 120. They should quite independently figure out the global warming scam if they get basic physic in the school.


A credential or an election does not make someone smart. Teachers work for the government. So do most scientists. They must conform to the government agenda or they don't get
paid


Those people are lying. They should be in jail.
04-03-2020 00:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Xadoman wrote:
Define 'smart people'.


As I said, iq over 120.

IQ is a meaningless number. It does not indicate that someone is smart.
Xadoman wrote:
They should quite independently figure out the global warming scam if they get basic physic in the school.

They don't teach basic physics in school, at least in the U.S.
Xadoman wrote:

A credential or an election does not make someone smart. Teachers work for the government. So do most scientists. They must conform to the government agenda or they don't get
paid


Those people are lying. They should be in jail.

For what crime?

There is no law against a religion. The Church of Global Warming is a religion.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-03-2020 01:13
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1036)
IQ is a meaningless number. It does not indicate that someone is smart.


Yes it does.Iq over 120 should quite quickly independently figure out the global warming scam if they get basic physics in the school. Iq over 140 could probably figure it out even if they have not studied physics at all.

They don't teach basic physics in school, at least in the U.S.


I do not belive it.

For what crime?

There is no law against a religion. The Church of Global Warming is a religion.


It is a corruption. They use tax payers money to fund useless solar cell and windmills scam and profit from it pumping money into their pockets.
04-03-2020 02:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Xadoman wrote:
IQ is a meaningless number. It does not indicate that someone is smart.


Yes it does.Iq over 120 should quite quickly independently figure out the global warming scam if they get basic physics in the school. Iq over 140 could probably figure it out even if they have not studied physics at all.

Nope. Completely meaningless number.
Xadoman wrote:
They don't teach basic physics in school, at least in the U.S.


I do not belive it.

Believe it. Kids consistently come out as high school graduates and have never heard of F=mA.

Xadoman wrote:
For what crime?

There is no law against a religion. The Church of Global Warming is a religion.


It is a corruption. They use tax payers money to fund useless solar cell and windmills scam and profit from it pumping money into their pockets.

Guess you'll have to lock up practically every member of Congress then!



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 04-03-2020 02:03
04-03-2020 02:58
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
Xadoman wrote:
IQ is a meaningless number. It does not indicate that someone is smart.


Yes it does.Iq over 120 should quite quickly independently figure out the global warming scam if they get basic physics in the school. Iq over 140 could probably figure it out even if they have not studied physics at all.

They don't teach basic physics in school, at least in the U.S.


I do not belive it.

For what crime?

There is no law against a religion. The Church of Global Warming is a religion.


It is a corruption. They use tax payers money to fund useless solar cell and windmills scam and profit from it pumping money into their pockets.


Having a high IQ, doesn't really make much difference. Being gullible. naive, trusting, have nothing to do with intelligence. What you learn from books, doesn't translate into practical experience. Not much od an education, if you learn from the wrong books. Faith, is not a function of intelligence either.

High IQ would only apply, if the individual is given only accurate, factual, and reliable information. It's not possible for one to know about all things, in great detail. Nobody lives long enough to redo everything learned and discovered, to independently verify. There is always the need for some level of trust, faith, that what you are being told, isn't a lie or deception.
04-03-2020 14:43
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1036)
Having a high IQ, doesn't really make much difference. Being gullible. naive, trusting, have nothing to do with intelligence. What you learn from books, doesn't translate into practical experience. Not much od an education, if you learn from the wrong books. Faith, is not a function of intelligence either.

High IQ would only apply, if the individual is given only accurate, factual, and reliable information. It's not possible for one to know about all things, in great detail. Nobody lives long enough to redo everything learned and discovered, to independently verify. There is always the need for some level of trust, faith, that what you are being told, isn't a lie or deception.


Maybe you are right. I did some googling to find out what ultra high Iq geniuses think about global warming.

For example Rick Rosner - Iq 190+ thinks as follows:

Rosner: Well one thing is becoming increasingly clear; that is if you are still denying climate change, you are more and more of an idiot. There is some point in history where you might have been able to make reasonable arguments that climate change was not a big deal. But that point was maybe ten years ago, and the window for not being an idiot has closed. If you are still arguing that it doesn't exist and that there is no reason to get so worked up over it... then yeah, you are a stone schmuck.



Chris Langan 200+ Iq somewhat dodges the question about gobal warming here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9arr5g4Aeg

He is concerned about overpopulation and he said that he has some models that predict climate change but he does not know yet which way the climate changes. Basically he says that he knows nothing.

Marylin vos Savant, iq 228, post in Twitter in 2017:
How are we going to halt global warming when we can't even get rid of smog?


It seems that she belives in global warming.


It amazes me that those super high Iq people have not studies basic physics. In his interview Langan says that he has a mathematical proof of God s existance. How come such highly gifted people are so blind in some areas. Imagine how easy is to fool ordinary people.
04-03-2020 16:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
Xadoman wrote: Maybe you are right. I did some googling to find out what ultra high Iq geniuses think about global warming.

I'm not sure about any correlation between being smart and understanding science. All the omniscient people seem to believe fervently in violations of physics.


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-02-2024 00:15
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
Humans are dreadful at thinking about climate change for a combination of reasons.
1. The Cult has been lying to them and fabricating false panics for decades, starting with coming ice ages reported in numerous large publications. Almost all of these have been wildly wrong, but the press continues to print *scientific* bad news predictions to sell newspapers and magazines.
2. People are gullible at all IQ levels. Look at the genius Unabomber. He was both an atheist and a climate fanatic who murdered and maimed those he hated with package bombs while living in a rathole cabin in the woods to "save" the environment.
He didn't care about the tens of millions of tax dollars and untold fossil fuel spent to find, catch, prosecute and house him for his cowardice and insanity.
3. The claim of *science* has been the overused trope of atheists for decades and climate change panickers have picked it up along with their *97%* false statistic.
4. If you don't want to be called "stupid" and are a sheep, just bleat along with the other sheep. It's easier that way, right?

To conclude, I would like to point out that there could not possibly be hundreds or thousands of scientists dissenting from the Climate Change Panic if it were "fact, fact, fact." (Darwinian evolution talk) These scientists have shown profound evidence of the falsity of the Panic and its tremendous and destructive costs worldwide.

________________________________________

Why Scientists Disagree

About Global Warming

The NIPCC Report

on Scientific Consensus

Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer

NIPCC

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

(110 Pages Book)

xix

Key Findings

Key findings of this book include the following:

No Consensus

# The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that

scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion

of fossil fuels on the global climate.

# The articles and surveys most commonly cited as showing support for

a "scientific consensus" in favor of the catastrophic man-made global

warming hypothesis are without exception methodologically flawed

and often deliberately misleading.

# There is no survey or study showing "consensus" on the most important

scientific issues in the climate change debate.

# Extensive survey data show deep disagreement among scientists on

scientific issues that must be resolved before the man-made global

warming hypothesis can be validated. Many prominent experts and

probably most working scientists disagree with the claims made by the

United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Why Scientists Disagree

# Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many

fields of study. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or

two of these disciplines.

# Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational

evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the

parameters of models.



xix



xx WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
# IPCC, created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact
on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a
political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt.
# Climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias
include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias.
Scientific Method vs. Political Science
# The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly
stated, is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from
human-related greenhouse gas emissions.
# The null hypothesis is that currently observed changes in global climate
indices and the physical environment, as well as current changes in
animal and plant characteristics, are the result of natural variability.
# In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit
hypothesis is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and
make plausible arguments in the hypothesis's favor.
Flawed Projections
# IPCC and virtually all the governments of the world depend on global
climate models (GCMs) to forecast the effects of human-related
greenhouse gas emissions on the climate.
# GCMs systematically over-estimate the sensitivity of climate to carbon
dioxide (CO2), many known forcings and feedbacks are poorly
modeled, and modelers exclude forcings and feedbacks that run counter
to their mission to find a human influence on climate.
# NIPCC estimates a doubling of CO 2 from pre-industrial levels (from
280 to 560 ppm) would likely produce a temperature forcing of 3.7
Wm-2 in the lower atmosphere, for about ~1°C of prima facie warming.
# Four specific forecasts made by GCMs have been falsified by
real-world data from a wide variety of sources. In particular, there has
been no global warming for some 18 years.



xxi

KEY FINDINGS

False Postulates
# Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century
surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability.
# The late twentieth century warm peak was of no greater magnitude than
previous peaks caused entirely by natural forcings and feedbacks.
# Historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 followed increases in
temperature, they did not precede them. Therefore, CO2 levels could not
have forced temperatures to rise.
# Solar forcings are not too small to explain twentieth century warming.
In fact, their effect could be equal to or greater than the effect of CO2
in the atmosphere.
# A warming of 2°C or more during the twenty-first century would
probably not be harmful, on balance, because many areas of the world
would benefit from or adjust to climate change.


Unreliable Circumstantial Evidence
# Melting of Arctic sea ice and polar icecaps is not occurring at
"unnatural" rates and does not constitute evidence of a human impact
on the climate.
# Best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. Local and
regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability – in
some places rising and in others falling.
# The link between warming and drought is weak, and by some measures
drought decreased over the twentieth century. Changes in the
hydrosphere of this type are regionally highly variable and show a
closer correlation with multidecadal climate rhythmicity than they do
with global temperature.
# No convincing relationship has been established between warming over
the past 100 years and increases in extreme weather events.



xxii WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

Meteorological science suggests just the opposite: A warmer world will

see milder weather patterns.

# No evidence exists that current changes in Arctic permafrost are other

than natural or are likely to cause a climate catastrophe by releasing

methane into the atmosphere.

Policy Implications

# Rather than rely exclusively on IPCC for scientific advice,

policymakers should seek out advice from independent, nongovernment

organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political

conflicts of interest.

# Individual nations should take charge of setting their own climate

policies based upon the hazards that apply to their particular geography,

geology, weather, and culture.

# Rather than invest scarce world resources in a quixotic campaign based

on politicized and unreliable science, world leaders would do well to

turn their attention to the real problems their people and their planet face.


Nov 27, 2023


John Clauser, is a theoretical and experimental physicist who cheerfully calls himself a "climate change denialist." A graduate of Cal Tech and Columbia University, in 2022 he received the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Over 1800 Scientists Have Signed the Declaration There is No Climate Emergency

https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
18-02-2024 00:25
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
Just minutes ago, I posted the preceding message and presumed it would be presented in the same format I cut and pasted the large body from. How wrong was I. Alas I cannot edit and clean it up because this website is ghastly primitive. The owners are to blame.
They also say:
This site is a neutral meeting place where everyone is invited to have their say on one of the most important discussions of our time.

In making that rash claim, "one of the most important discussions of our time," they are concurring with the Panickers that this is serious and real. That is not neutral. The climate change panic is costly and frightening (to many millions, especially children) lie.
18-02-2024 23:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
RenaissanceMan wrote:The climate change panic is costly and frightening (to many millions, especially children) lie.

FEAR and panic are the messages of the Climate family of religions, which includes Global Warming.
19-02-2024 00:23
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
IBdaMann wrote:
RenaissanceMan wrote:The climate change panic is costly and frightening (to many millions, especially children) lie.

FEAR and panic are the messages of the Climate family of religions, which includes Global Warming.


You Are DaMann!
19-02-2024 00:26
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
IBdaMann wrote:
RenaissanceMan wrote:The climate change panic is costly and frightening (to many millions, especially children) lie.

FEAR and panic are the messages of the Climate family of religions, which includes Global Warming.


You Are DaMann!




Join the debate Why humans are so bad at thinking about climate change?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Would You Join A New Secret Society Help Humans Live To At Least 200 Years And More ?203-01-2024 20:18
Why exactly is strip mining for coal bad, yet strip mining for Lithium is good923-12-2023 00:11
Tom Brady lost $30 million after FTX crypto collapse. Too bad307-09-2023 15:54
Is homework good or bad for students?626-11-2022 05:12
UN weather report: Climate woes bad and getting worse faster108-11-2022 18:24
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact