Why Some of Us Will Never Agree

[bu villain]

I came across an interesting article today which I think will ring true to most people. It discusses how peoples beliefs are based more on what supports their world view than facts. Of course this doesn't apply to any of us because here on IA we only deal with facts and logic despite how the outcome makes us feel.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124008307&ft=1&f=1007&sc=YahooNews

This article deals mostly with global warming but the group doing the studies looks at all sorts of public policy issues. You can see more about what they do here:

http://www.culturalcognition.net/

I'm hoping to hear some good ideas on how we can get away from this partisan/worldview based dialog that trumps facts so often these days.

[David88vert]

If everyone agreed, we would not be as interesting. While we do not have to have extremist views, it is good to have opposing views.

Look at it this way, a President should look to bring in advisors that have different viewpoints from his own. He laready has his own bias, so what he should have is a balancing view that looks at it from the other side of the coin. I'm not talking about irrational, illogical viewpoints, but rather, people who can point out things that might not have been considered with only one ideology.

As for our current President, I do not think that he has fully done this by any means, but I do believe that he has done a better job of this than the last administration, or the other choice that we had in the last election.

[preferredduck]

global warming, we have got more snow in georgia in the last 2 years than the last 20!!!! 6 inches at my house last year and a good 4-5 this year. it never does that here. the earth goes through natural cycles and nobody will ever agree on anything, that's what makes individuality. but there is alot of misinformation out there these days for sure.

[David88vert]

the earth goes through natural cycles and nobody will ever agree on anything, that's what makes individuality. but there is alot of misinformation out there these days for sure.


On this we agree 100%.:goodjob:

[Total_Blender]

On this we agree 100%.:goodjob:

For the climate change detractors:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100210/hl_time/08599196229400

I have been reading that the winter storms fit the model for climate change. The increased humidity from melting the polar ice caps means winter storms will hold more precipitation. This is still one of the warmest winters ever... it snows one weekend and its 65 or 70 degrees the next, doesn't that seem odd to you all?

[bu villain]

Yes having different view points is a good thing but not when it trumps facts. That was the main point of the article. 99% of people out there judge global warming based on politics, what the effects to the economy would be and even whether or not they like Al Gore. How many people actually read peer reviewed studies before making judgements. If you don't know just say so, but don't pretend to be an expert on something you really haven't studied.

The very fact that people think any amount of snow proves or disproves global warming is rediculous. It just shows a complete ignorance of the basics of global warming and of weather in general.

I actually hoped this wouldn't turn into a global warming debate but rather about using the facts to come to a conclusion even if you don't like the conclusion.

[David88vert]

This is still one of the warmest winters ever... it snows one weekend and its 65 or 70 degrees the next, doesn't that seem odd to you all?

Not at all - if you've lived in GA as long as I have. GA's winters have always been like this - warm one weekend, cold the next. It's not uncommon.

In my parents time, they weren't talking about global warming, they were talking about the impending ice age.

Here is a thought - do you really think that humans are powerful enough to effect such a massive change as a complete warming of the Earth? Look at the data, and it is not clear that humans are causing it. What if the Earth is naturally going through a warming that we are not the cause of? Then we are trying to fight something that probably is bigger than us. That does not mean that we should not try to do something about protecting our environment, but we shouldn't assume that it is something that we can easily change or reverse.

[Total_Blender]

Not at all - if you've lived in GA as long as I have. GA's winters have always been like this - warm one weekend, cold the next. It's not uncommon..

Its not winter in GA until it snows in March. :goodjob:

But climate and weather are different... weather is what is happening next weekend, and climate is the trend that happens over the next decade. A cold spell and a storm in DC does little to offset the long-term warming trend, and is even in congruence with the scientists claims that we will have storms that are greater in intensity.

What peer reviewed studies are you reading that show that global warming is not in fact caused by humans? Everything I have read suggests to the contrary.

[AnthonyF]

Not at all - if you've lived in GA as long as I have. GA's winters have always been like this - warm one weekend, cold the next. It's not uncommon.I agree. I have lived here my whole life and the weather in GA is always in a constant change. That's why I love GA. It is always brings new surprises. But for true Georgians, weather is pretty predictable. We can walk outside and feel if it is going to rain today or late at night or predict any other weather change without the meteorologist. Only exception is snow, that one just comes whenever the hell it wants.


Its not winter in GA until it snows in March. :goodjob:.lol troof.

-Ant.

[David88vert]

Its not winter in GA until it snows in March. :goodjob:

But climate and weather are different... weather is what is happening next weekend, and climate is the trend that happens over the next decade. A cold spell and a storm in DC does little to offset the long-term warming trend, and is even in congruence with the scientists claims that we will have storms that are greater in intensity.

What peer reviewed studies are you reading that show that global warming is not in fact caused by humans? Everything I have read suggests to the contrary.

There are a lot of scientists that do not believe the current administration's position. Here is an article on it:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
You do realize that they are still studying climate change. They do not have all of the facts yet, but it does not mean that we cannot take action early. I'm for environmental protection and emissions control - within reason. I am not for panic-induced legislative reactions personally.

Your favority news agency had some news on global warming just last month, of course, you will not want to consider it because it must be politically biased (even though you believe the media is not biased):
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/28/save-rainforest-climate-change-scandal-chopped-facts/


CBS did a report a little while back that you should remember:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml

But for the sake of a discussion, let's consider that CO2 emissions from humans are the complete source of global warming. Even if all CO2 emissions were stopped today, NOAA reports that it would take 1000 years to revert to earlier levels:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127163403.htm
So, exactly what actions would you suggest we do? Give world power to Al Gore? :screwy:

[Total_Blender]

There are a lot of scientists that do not believe the current administration's position. Here is an article on it:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/


Happer is not a climate scientist, his fields are optics, spectroscopy, and radiation. As I understand it, most of the scientists on that list are not climate scientists... they work in other disciplines.

If anything the fact that it would take 1,000 years for the Earth to revert to it earlier level of Co2 should give us pause and be an indicator that we should work to decrease our output of Co2. Whether it is manmade or not, if its not going anywhere we probably shouldn't push our luck by adding to what occurs naturally. From your article:



Geoengineering to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was not considered in the study. “Ideas about taking the carbon dioxide away after the world puts it in have been proposed, but right now those are very speculative,” said Solomon.

So some sort of engineering feat to remove the carbon may be a recourse in the future, if it really gets that bad. I suppose once we have nanotechnology and such such a thing might be more plausible.

The Fox article I will disregard because they only present the conservative side of the story. They didn't speak to the scientists behind the IPCC study, or anyone at the IPCC. The fact that the numbers came from a study not related to climate change does not necessarily mean that they are wrong, or that they are somehow not relevant to the topics presented in the study.



"up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation" -- highlighting the threat climate change poses to the Earth. The report goes on to say that "it is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems ... such as tropical savannas."

Fox didn't say this was wrong, they just said that it came from a study unrelated to global warming. However, the sharing of data between disciplines is one of the cornerstones of the Scientific Method. Data complied on how forests react to drops in precipitation would be equally useful for studies on the impact of climate change and on the impact of forest fires.

[David88vert]

Happer is not a climate scientist, his fields are optics, spectroscopy, and radiation. As I understand it, most of the scientists on that list are not climate scientists... they work in other disciplines.

If anything the fact that it would take 1,000 years for the Earth to revert to it earlier level of Co2 should give us pause and be an indicator that we should work to decrease our output of Co2. Whether it is manmade or not, if its not going anywhere we probably shouldn't push our luck by adding to what occurs naturally. From your article:



So some sort of engineering feat to remove the carbon may be a recourse in the future, if it really gets that bad. I suppose once we have nanotechnology and such such a thing might be more plausible.

The Fox article I will disregard because they only present the conservative side of the story. They didn't speak to the scientists behind the IPCC study, or anyone at the IPCC. The fact that the numbers came from a study not related to climate change does not necessarily mean that they are wrong, or that they are somehow not relevant to the topics presented in the study.



Fox didn't say this was wrong, they just said that it came from a study unrelated to global warming. However, the sharing of data between disciplines is one of the cornerstones of the Scientific Method. Data complied on how forests react to drops in precipitation would be equally useful for studies on the impact of climate change and on the impact of forest fires.

"Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore, reportedly for his refusal to support Gore’s views on climate change."
"Happer explained that his beliefs about climate change come from his experience at the Department of Energy, at which Happer said he supervised all non-weapons energy research, including climate change research."


There is no current technology to change the current climate - according to NOAA. You are speculating only.


The only reason that you disregard Fox is because it doesn't fit your viewpoint. It's report is valid.
"In the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), issued in 2007 by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/)), scientists wrote that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest in South America was endangered by global warming.
But that assertion was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study by the World Wildlife Federation that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming -- and that was written by a freelance journalist and green activist."
"If it is true that IPCC has indeed faked numbers regarding the Amazon, or used unsubstantiated facts, then it is the third nail in the IPCC coffin in less than three months," Andrew Wheeler, former staff director for the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, told FoxNews.com. "For years, we have been told that the IPCC peer review process is the gold standard in scientific review. It now appears it is more of a fool's gold process."
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC, was quoted in the European press as saying, "I would like to submit that this could increase the credibility of the IPCC, not decrease it. Aren't mistakes human? Even the IPCC is a human institution."

You are right, Fox did not say it was wrong - the IPCC itself did.

You are blinded to the truth, if you truly believe your typings. It's funny how you refuse to recognize data that is contrary to your beliefs, yet it is ok to use data not related to your topic to support your beliefs.

[preferredduck]

i love the videos i saw tonight of so many people ripping on al gore about global warming with 36 in of snow!!! it's damn funny. it's also funny that el nino comes around with dems in office and it's all wet and when bush was in we had la nina and it was dry as a bone, WTF????? lolz

[preferredduck]

it's also funny that gore owns the company who sells carbon credits. WTF again????

[Destineal]

For the climate change detractors:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100210/hl_time/08599196229400

I have been reading that the winter storms fit the model for climate change. The increased humidity from melting the polar ice caps means winter storms will hold more precipitation. This is still one of the warmest winters ever... it snows one weekend and its 65 or 70 degrees the next, doesn't that seem odd to you all?

Seems like normal GA weather to me. Crazy as hell.

[Destineal]

it's also funny that gore owns the company who sells carbon credits. WTF again????

Can't knock his hustle.

[TIGERJC]

I will say this

Anything in excess has consequences and thats my view on global warming and a lot of other stuff.

[bu villain]

Purpose of this thread failed. Oh well, continue debating global warming...

[preferredduck]

Purpose of this thread failed. Oh well, continue debating global warming...

no it did not, it proves we won't agree!!. i know my first comment stated that pretty clearly, it's just a fun topic and keeps the thread going. good starter man.

[bu villain]

yeah i guess I have to expect it on IA. I was just hoping for some discussion on how we can stop our ideologies from trumping facts or perhaps how we can get more people to think critically and independently.

[David88vert]

yeah i guess I have to expect it on IA. I was just hoping for some discussion on how we can stop our ideologies from trumping facts or perhaps how we can get more people to think critically and independently.


Just because people do not share the same viewpoint does not mean that they are not critically and independently.

People will read the same facts and still come to different conclusions.

Perhaps you would prefer to discuss how to get everyone to agree with you?

[preferredduck]

yeah i guess I have to expect it on IA. I was just hoping for some discussion on how we can stop our ideologies from trumping facts or perhaps how we can get more people to think critically and independently.

get them to stop watching MTV and pregnant at 16 etc, ans stop spreading so much dis-information. we will never fully agree but if some people will get the same core principals it may work. but everything is really dilluted nowadays too. i love a good discussion on any topic whether they agree or not agree. it's like some of the videos i post. i can only read into 20% and the rest is open and other posters with good points that may not agree fill me in on facts i don't know. i'm trying to help here but my foot can't agree with my brain on the speed limit. lol

also some facts are not proven facts, like say total blender gets his info from somewhere and his "facts" and "statistics" don't match mine, same concept really. but there really is alot of dis information out there for this very reason. he gets his facts from the puppy doggs, sunshine, and lillopop network!!!!

[bu villain]

Just because people do not share the same viewpoint does not mean that they are not critically and independently.

I never meant to imply that. Sorry if I misrepresented my intent.


People will read the same facts and still come to different conclusions.

I agree, nothing wrong with that...as long as they are taking all the facts into account and not just the ones that support their position.

Take the recent snowstorms. Many pro-global warming people say it's evidence for global warming (increased precipitation) and anti-global warming advocates say its evidence against global warming (global warming = less snow). In actuality, the snowstorms aren't much evidence for either side at all. If you disagree, I'd be glad to listen to your reasoning. But for most, their interpretation is largely based on whether they already believed in global warming or not.


Perhaps you would prefer to discuss how to get everyone to agree with you?

No I wouldn't. I would prefer to discuss issues as free from bias as possible. That's all.

[David88vert]

I never meant to imply that. Sorry if I misrepresented my intent.



I agree, nothing wrong with that...as long as they are taking all the facts into account and not just the ones that support their position.

Take the recent snowstorms. Many pro-global warming people say it's evidence for global warming (increased precipitation) and anti-global warming advocates say its evidence against global warming (global warming = less snow). In actuality, the snowstorms aren't much evidence for either side at all. If you disagree, I'd be glad to listen to your reasoning. But for most, their interpretation is largely based on whether they already believed in global warming or not.



No I wouldn't. I would prefer to discuss issues as free from bias as possible. That's all.

Based upon your answers here, we agree completely - but wait, that is contrary to your topic's title.....:D

[preferredduck]

I never meant to imply that. Sorry if I misrepresented my intent.



I agree, nothing wrong with that...as long as they are taking all the facts into account and not just the ones that support their position.

Take the recent snowstorms. Many pro-global warming people say it's evidence for global warming (increased precipitation) and anti-global warming advocates say its evidence against global warming (global warming = less snow). In actuality, the snowstorms aren't much evidence for either side at all. If you disagree, I'd be glad to listen to your reasoning. But for most, their interpretation is largely based on whether they already believed in global warming or not.



No I wouldn't. I would prefer to discuss issues as free from bias as possible. That's all.


ok let me explain, in the last 2 years we have seen more snow in winder since the turn of the century, they blame this on el-nino. well here is an interesting fact. the last time i head of el-nino clinton was in office(a democrat) and gore was there and global warming was just coming around and the planet was soaking wet. then when bush get's in office everything dries up completely, fish die, lake lanier(the original gainesville can be seen) and we are in la nina where it is dry. now after 9 years of drought we have el nino again and a democrat is inn office. WTF!!!! now that is some strange conspiracy theory shit but in the 90's i don't remember this much snow fall across the northeast. makes me wonder if H>A>A>R>P> is really real and depending on who is in power depends on the weather we get. bastards!!!!

[bu villain]

Based upon your answers here, we agree completely - but wait, that is contrary to your topic's title.....:D

The title was meant to reflect the article's idea that people often start with a conclusion and then try to fit the facts into that conclusion rather than vice versa. Of course we will never agree on everything but we could probably agree on a lot more if we looked at things more objectively. America is so politically polarized these days that very little gets done and when it does, half the country is pissed off about it.

[preferredduck]

The title was meant to reflect the article's idea that people often start with a conclusion and then try to fit the facts into that conclusion rather than vice versa. Of course we will never agree on everything but we could probably agree on a lot more if we looked at things more objectively. America is so politically polarized these days that very little gets done and when it does, half the country is pissed off about it.

because too many people are worried about next week's desperate houswives of the fate of jack bauer!!!lolz