Why you cannot convince some of GW.

[Sauwan]

Read this section quickly. It's good for a laugh. I'll make my point afterwards.

The Dangers of Bread A recent Cincinnati Enquirer headline read, "Smell of baked bread may be health hazard." The article went on to describe the dangers of the smell of baking bread. The main danger, apparently, is that the organic components of this aroma may break down ozone (I'm not making this stuff up).
I was horrified. When are we going to do something about bread- induced global warming? Sure, we attack tobacco companies, but when is the government going to go after Big Bread?
Well, I've done a little research, and what I've discovered should make anyone think twice....

1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread eaters.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever and influenza ravaged whole nations.
4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!
6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low occurrence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and osteoporosis.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after only two days.
8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter and even cold cuts.
9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

In light of these frightening statistics, we propose the following bread restrictions:

1. No sale of bread to minors.
2. No advertising of bread within 1000 feet of a school.
3. A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread.
4. No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
5. A $4.2 zillion fine on the three biggest bread manufacturers. Please send this e-mail on to everyone you know who cares about this crucial issue.

If I told you bread was good for you, and you wanted to disagree, this site would be fantastic for you.

Now - I UNDERSTAND THIS CAN GO BOTH WAYS for the global warming debate. That said, all I see from the global warming skeptics is stuff like this. Most of their attempts to "disprove" GW are like this. Statistics and figures that are misleading and do not actually prove the point they are trying to make.

For anyone who has not throughly evaluated both sides (I was a GW skeptic until about 6 months ago or so) with an open mind, ANY data presented will be convincing much like the dangers of bread.

The problem with this debate is that hardly anyone truly considers the opposing sides POV. I see tons of people who already have the conclusion (mainly due to the dems vs repubs) and then evaluate facts based on their conclusion. (I usually vote libertarian, which may explain why I initially didn't believe we are causing GW)

Personally, I consider this to be a near perfect match with the smoking debate from years ago. People didn't want to believe smoking was bad for you, so they found the data that supported their preconceived conclusion. People who currently don't want to change their lifestyles, don't want to see more government intervention, or don't want to admit Gore is right can find evidence to the contrary. There are TONS of people in just these 3 categories; (and there are surely plenty more than just 3) so there is inevitably plenty of "evidence" to the contrary.

I ask you now to consider the other side of view regardless of which side you are on. Evaluate if you have a preconceived conclusion that is motivating your ability to accept the opponents position.

 

[WI Crippler]

I understand your post completly. I am on the fence about GW. Not about the fact it is happening ( I believe it is ), but I have serious doubts to the validity of these doomsday clocks, and how devastating it is going to be in just 10 years, or some such nonsense. And I don't know how much of the scientific opinon is skewed in either direction to either downplay, or overstate our contribution to GW.
If our scientists can't be accurate with the weather 3 days from now, how in the hell can they be accurate 10 years from now??

 

[jfuh]

I understand your post completly. I am on the fence about GW. Not about the fact it is happening ( I believe it is ), but I have serious doubts to the validity of these doomsday clocks, and how devastating it is going to be in just 10 years, or some such nonsense. And I don't know how much of the scientific opinon is skewed in either direction to either downplay, or overstate our contribution to GW.
If our scientists can't be accurate with the weather 3 days from now, how in the hell can they be accurate 10 years from now??

You and I have gone back and forth about this before. But to answer your question, GW is not about daily weather forecasts, it's about climate forecasts. In other words. I can bet you a million bucks that in the northern hemisphere it gets warm in around June ~ August and gets cold December ~ Feb. That generally it snows during the cold months and we could get hurricanes in some parts during the hot months. That's what global warming states, that the climate is changing and here are somethings that will happen because of this climate change.

 

[saggyjones]

:rofl great post!

I understand your post completly. I am on the fence about GW. Not about the fact it is happening ( I believe it is ), but I have serious doubts to the validity of these doomsday clocks, and how devastating it is going to be in just 10 years, or some such nonsense. And I don't know how much of the scientific opinon is skewed in either direction to either downplay, or overstate our contribution to GW.

Well most scientists wouldn't say that in 10 years from now the climate will be that much different. However temperatures are rising as I'm sure you know and even in a few years that can make an impact, though not a large one until later. Unless we move away from fossil fuels it very well could be 10 years until we get so far into global warming that there's no way to reverse it.

If our scientists can't be accurate with the weather 3 days from now, how in the hell can they be accurate 10 years from now??

Climate and weather are different, as shown by this quote:

Weather is the current atmospheric conditions, including temperature, rainfall, wind, and humidity at a given place.

Climate, on the other hand, is the general weather conditions over a long period of time.

Introduction to Climate: Background Material

Scientists can look at long trends of weather and see patterns to determine what the climate will do. Weather is unpredictable because it varies day to day. However you know that it will be cold in December in Alaska because that's how the climate has been there for a long time and weather trends show it's not changing at a very rapid rate.

 

[hereyago]

it can't go both ways for GW.

it's happening.

we have to do something about it

 

[tryreading]

Read this section quickly. It's good for a laugh. I'll make my point afterwards.


If I told you bread was good for you, and you wanted to disagree, this site would be fantastic for you.

Now - I UNDERSTAND THIS CAN GO BOTH WAYS for the global warming debate. That said, all I see from the global warming skeptics is stuff like this. Most of their attempts to "disprove" GW are like this. Statistics and figures that are misleading and do not actually prove the point they are trying to make.

For anyone who has not throughly evaluated both sides (I was a GW skeptic until about 6 months ago or so) with an open mind, ANY data presented will be convincing much like the dangers of bread.

The problem with this debate is that hardly anyone truly considers the opposing sides POV. I see tons of people who already have the conclusion (mainly due to the dems vs repubs) and then evaluate facts based on their conclusion. (I usually vote libertarian, which may explain why I initially didn't believe we are causing GW)

Personally, I consider this to be a near perfect match with the smoking debate from years ago. People didn't want to believe smoking was bad for you, so they found the data that supported their preconceived conclusion. People who currently don't want to change their lifestyles, don't want to see more government intervention, or don't want to admit Gore is right can find evidence to the contrary. There are TONS of people in just these 3 categories; (and there are surely plenty more than just 3) so there is inevitably plenty of "evidence" to the contrary.

I ask you now to consider the other side of view regardless of which side you are on. Evaluate if you have a preconceived conclusion that is motivating your ability to accept the opponents position.

I believe that there is a global warming trend, but have not made any decisions based on my political leanings. And I refused to attribute any of the problems to our actions until there was a preponderance of evidence from peer reviewed research. Looks like that evidence is piling up now. There is a chance that the science could be wrong, but we can't risk that. There are a lot of good reasons to pollute less and to begin weaning our country off petroleum products besides the possible global warming threat. We could breathe clean air, quit crapping where we live, start showing the oil producers what fear is...

Anyway, a lot of the people who don't believe the issue is real have decided so politically and capitalistically. I've posted the following to show folks in that group that its okay now for Republicans and capitalists to open their minds to the possibility, but haven't gotten any response from them on it. Maybe on your thread an anti-GW person will address it:



"These technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change," Bush said in proposing a series of measures to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years.

Many industry leaders have come to realize that such measures may be more an opportunity than a hindrance. The day before Bush's speech the chief executives of 10 corporations, including Alcoa Inc., BP America Inc., DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co. and Duke Energy Corp., called for mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

And a week before the State of the Union address a dozen evangelicals called action against global warming a "moral imperative" in a joint statement with scientists from the Centers for Disease Control, NASA, Harvard and other institutions.

PeoplePC - News

 

[Iriemon]

Read this section quickly. It's good for a laugh. I'll make my point afterwards.
...

Don't mean to hijack your thread on global warming, but I thought this was leading to a end prohibition type thread.

This is the exact line of reasoning used to justify prohibition of marajuana and other drugs.