4 ms·

Did you live through people claiming the ozone layer was disappearing? And the ensuing global action to remedy it? At the current rate and compliance with the

Did you live through people claiming the ozone layer was disappearing? And the ensuing global action to remedy it? At the current rate and compliance with the Montreal protocol we should be back to pre-CFC levels in 30 years or so

innocentoldguy 10y ago
Yes, I did. How does this even remotely refute what I wrote? The parent poster said, "I have a hard time imagining how anyone who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global warming." To answer his/her question, I provided multiple reasons why people, in fact, do reject climate change. I think your response, and the knee-jerk responses of those who down-voted me, are perfect examples of why I don't watch the news anymore. None of you bothered to read and understand what I said, or why I was saying it. You just assumed that my views on climate change differ from yours, and down-voted me based on your emotional views. Instead of leaping to irrational conclusions, regarding my post, I invite you to read it and understand why I wrote it and what I was responding to. I believe it will give you a great insight into the matter at hand, and the challenges you must overcome in reaching those who refuse to accept climate change as an issue. Or, you could just polarize the issue, down-vote those you assume don't agree with you, and keep things at the status quo.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  It doesn't make any sense that your comments here were down voted. You haven't said anything out of line.
  - bubblesocks 10y ago
    I think people mistakenly felt that he was kicking their religion in the balls or something. It doesn't make any sense to me either.
bubblesocks 10y ago
That is a logical fallacy, coldfire. You cannot conclude that because the ozone layer was a legitimate issue that anything else is. All things must stand on their own merit. In addition, the legitimacy of of climate change wasn't his point. He was answering the original posters question, as to how anybody could not believe in climate change. In this, his points were factual. Those are the exact reasons that naysayers give.

innocentoldguy 10y ago

Yes, I did. How does this even remotely refute what I wrote? The parent poster said, "I have a hard time imagining how anyone who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global warming." To answer his/her question, I provided multiple reasons why people, in fact, do reject climate change. I think your response, and the knee-jerk responses of those who down-voted me, are perfect examples of why I don't watch the news anymore. None of you bothered to read and understand what I said, or why I was saying it. You just assumed that my views on climate change differ from yours, and down-voted me based on your emotional views. Instead of leaping to irrational conclusions, regarding my post, I invite you to read it and understand why I wrote it and what I was responding to. I believe it will give you a great insight into the matter at hand, and the challenges you must overcome in reaching those who refuse to accept climate change as an issue. Or, you could just polarize the issue, down-vote those you assume don't agree with you, and keep things at the status quo.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
It doesn't make any sense that your comments here were down voted. You haven't said anything out of line.
- bubblesocks 10y ago
  I think people mistakenly felt that he was kicking their religion in the balls or something. It doesn't make any sense to me either.

bubblesocks 10y ago

That is a logical fallacy, coldfire. You cannot conclude that because the ozone layer was a legitimate issue that anything else is. All things must stand on their own merit. In addition, the legitimacy of of climate change wasn't his point. He was answering the original posters question, as to how anybody could not believe in climate change. In this, his points were factual. Those are the exact reasons that naysayers give.