"Why Americans are Skeptical of Their Role in Global Warming" (aka Global Climate Disruption)

We now have 6 or 8 different topics started with GW as the main issue, five of them by you. This particular point could have been incorporated into one of them instead now you have pushed some other noteworthy topics to the bottom or even off the first page where they can more easily be overlooked.


Wildkow

 

Not only that, but you just do a blind copy and paste without bothering to trim all the advertising and other non-article crap that comes along with the article.

Plus, frankly, your .sig is VERY annoying.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adam1991 @ Mar 13 2007, 05:59 AM) [snapback]404748[/snapback]</div>

if he is such a big believer in AGW he should keep his computer turned off or at least limit its uses to between the hours of midnight and 6am when electric rates and usage are at a minimum - but he follows that other great champion of AGW algore in do as i say and i will do as i please.

maybe we should recognize an office name change to "gorebal warming"?

 

I think the goal is to hit 1000 posts before the end of march

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Mar 12 2007, 11:50 PM) [snapback]404625[/snapback]</div>

People don't believe in it usually because they are mentally impaired. Sort of like, "Hey, inhaling smoke from this little stick for 40 years doesn't do me any harm, I don't care what the doctors and scientists say."

 

It's always the same 4 or 5 people disagreeing with the Global Warming stuff here as well. I suggest that we don't argue with those people anymore because they are clearly unwilling to consider the possibility.

The rest of us generally take a similar view on the matter. In general, posting about Global Warming on a Prius-related website might be a case of "preaching to the choir."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Mar 13 2007, 05:40 PM) [snapback]405082[/snapback]</div>

That is basically what I said when I mentioned the "10% Leaders 80% Followers and 10% Critics" bit. What we have is a case of a few critics who will never be happy with any amount of data you give them, thus we should not focus too much energy on them.

 

What we really have is a bunch of people which is too happy with too few data, and a very few folks who are willing to display some common sense in the face of a faith-based community.

 

Noteworthy topics??? In Fred's??? You mean like all those one word, two word, three word, etc. threads? Come on, Kow, there are no noteworthy topics in Fred's. AGW is as important a topic as you're ever going to see here, even if the Bible-thumpers want to give the robber barons of industry a green light to pollute this green Earth black.

 

What is ironic is that you are on the wrong side of that schism, you are definately in the former. Common sense is just that, common, it does not make it accurate. Please spare me anymore Roy Spencer or Tim Ball quotes or I'm going to next day air you a set of pom poms :cheer2: so you can be a bit more vivid when you cheer your favorite men.

 

Just curious, how many people have you seen fundamentally change their mind based on a post or exchange on any forum? I have been a member of several with different "themes" (ie, Prius in this case) and I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone concede a point or have an epiphany. You have groups on both sides of every issue, more often than not both sides regurgitate the same arguments "their side" always uses without any new information. Sometimes it gets nasty, but rarely does either side change their thinking at all.

The internet is a great place to get information you don't have. It doesn't seem to have much value as a forum to debate politics, religion, environmental causes or other beliefs IMHO...fools post much more than geniuses (they know better than to "argue with a fool").

 

Actually I find the debates with Tim Bikes often enlightening and/or they force me to re-examine the data I think I know or he brings something to the table I may have missed. So with respect to him and a couple others I actually get something out of these debates. With regards to the "cheerleaders" of our threads I get absolutely nothing out of arguing with them because their arguments are not based on science that is obtainable, they cannot argue the science for themselves so they simply post quotes from whoever their "Champion of the Cause" is and are generally too antagonistic for me to want to have anything to do with them. This can happen on both side of the climate or environmental debate I'm afraid.

I do, however, find it amusing that the claim to not be politically driven yet they have a number of stereotypical traits that belies that claim. #1 The generally live in the Midwest or southern states (highly conservative areas like Texas, and Florida) #2 They are old or older and have not been in college since the 1970s or earlier. #3 Generally use politically-based user names, titles, avatars, signatures, etc.. #4 They usually restrict their posting to volatile subjects like politics, religion, and environmental issues and you rarely see them posting in the tech, help, or introductory forums unless there is a political slant to it, e.g. guns, war, peak oil, etc..

Not everyone fits these stereotypes of course but more often than not if you really look at who you are arguing with will start to observe a reoccurring theme. This stereotyping would work the same way for the uninformed or impressionable "liberal hippy" as well. <shrug>

 

Fundamentally I agree with you, however, I have had my mind changed on numerous occasions as the result of chat board discussions. But they were substantive issues (technical or maintenance issues about the Prius, issues related to diving on a scuba diving board, computer use issues on boards devoted to that) not political or religious arguments.

I had a friend at FPC Yankton who was fond of saying that nobody ever changes their opinions as the result of reason and argument. People form their opinions on emotion. "Big George" said that Pepsi does not release a white paper explaining why you should drink Pepsi instead of Coke. They hire a popular singer to sing about it. (Though he mentioned a singer who much later fell out of popular favor after being accused of pedophilia.)

What these sorts of quarrels do accomplish is give lurkers who are already leaning one way or another the confidence to maintain their position against attack by their peers or family.

 

The short answer is that eight years of Cheney propaganda goes a heck of a long way. It will take some time to reverse this attitude. Do we have that much time? We ARE going to find out.

Do you think that more Americans watch Fox News, or spend their time reviewing scientific data?

... Brad

 

hey----i love, love, love, the office name change to "gorebal warming".......

 

Finding the 180 turn around in a short time is not going to turn up anything. You have to look at the change in tone over a couple of years or more. In that regard, there are detectable changes.

 

As a Bible-thumper myself, I want to say that I appreciated the OP's article, and will probably end up sending it to my pastor, who I discuss such issues with. We're both mild environmentalists who are still learning about the science behind the movement.

 

everyone's just too lazy to take action, not just the americans...

 

Uh, no. Not everyone. Not by a long shot.