Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (forastero @ Oct. 06 2011,00:13)|
|Quote (Trubble @ July 15 2011,14:26)|
|Thanks, Louis. My original question has been adequately answered, by several people including yourself. I think the "denier" label is sometimes applied to people who I don't think are denying the reality or seriousness of climate change, only going against the mainstream on some of the details or suggested solutions. I think that tactic is counter-productive. But no one here seems to support it, which is good.|
My "sticking point" now is that I don't appreciate being accused of having some kind of dishonest agenda, or of being a "dumb sumbitch" too lazy or stupid to use Google. I said earlier I'd go back to lurking, because I don't enjoy this kind of exchange ("Jane, you ignorant slut..."), but I guess I've been sucked in now.
Anyway, my main interest is in exploring the disconnect between the scientific consensus and the public policy side. I think there are a lot of reasons why the general public is still skeptical, and some (not all) of those reasons relate to the way the scientific community overall is handling the issue. This is a teaching moment, and when a student isn't getting it, it's the teacher's responsibility to find a way to get through.
My profession is communications, so crafting messages so they'll resonate with a target audience is something I know a little about. Hence my orientation to this.
Trouble...I dont think its so much the warnings over climate change and/or deforestation that makes them skeptical but rather the femicrat’s use of Co2 levels toward population control.
Why do the likes of Bill Gates, Al Gore, the United Nations etc.. always focus blame on African and Latin American populations, deforestations, dust ect…when African and Latin American ecology is way better than United Nation's ecology? Why is that the United Nations allows epidemics like typhus and malaria in Africa and Latin America but wipes them out only in lands that they occupy? Is it because they want this land for themselves? Yeah these radical femicrats also deny good stewardship because their religion tells them that their mother-nature selection will “always” evolve better without mankind. But that idea is now literally going up in smoke. Indigenous agroforesters knew better and were fantastic stewards from British Columbia to Amazonia. Unfortunately, most of this indigenous knowledge was wiped out and/or suppressed by so called progressives and finally forgotten after years of progressive handouts.
I think I speak for everyone when I say...
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.