Barbara Honegger is reported as the source for the original CIA, William Casey quote:
This whole business is, of course, wider spread than America, and yet there is the crowd effect: repeating the position because one does not know enough on the subject: the authoritarian delivery makes going against it difficult.
Yes, if you know the subject matter the irrationality sticks out like a sore thumb - I tried this too the other day and learned something (not that it is not the general basis of why people don't understand).
Here is what happened:
The subject of AGW climate change - respective of the global crowds now assembled; recently hyped by Greta and co., begets the rational conversation that indeed "we need to do more on matters of pollution, toxins, chemicals." No disagreement, a global alignment of normal people would agree as a general rule with those three points. However the conversation in the AGW main is about a molecule, an evil one. So, when asked about this focus being equated to the persons previous response, there was pause, confusion - grasping for some type of term of reference. So I asked, okay, what is the C02 threshold for plant life?
You can see in the photo that below 150ppm's it is close to plant demise. So, the question is, why would there be a policy to reduce CO2 if it results in the death of plants - to what acceptable level?
They (individually) have no answer. In this case, the person (no child and well read) confessed to not understanding the role of C02 in the AGW conversation; somewhat apologetically. So, this is likely the source of the wider matter, yet people inflate the C02 'cause' (fossil fuel et al.) to all these other things they do know (which makes sense i.e. pollution/toxins/chemicals), thus C02 fits in because they are told over and over again that it is the alleged problem coming out of either the smokestack or tailpipe (or cow's derrière for that matter).
I said no more, and kept it light ("gently") and it clicked that it's the inability to focus down on the one molecule as opposed to conflating what they do understand with what environmentalism traditionally focused on - pollution, toxins and chemicals (and war in the case of people like ex-Greenpeace Patrick Moore).
Anyway, as luc said, it is worth the approach, yet my sense is that people can't (or they don't want to) somehow try and figure out what these molecules really mean in ppm's and their vital importance. All this leaves cosmic influences out of the conversation, which is another hard one for people to talk about, let alone volcanic and other previously locked in C02 sources that are now opening up.
As has also been well pointed out by others, rising C02 ppm's proceeds the return to ice age.
Note: the photo seems to still tie into pre/post industry without all the other influences that see ppm rise. It should also be noted that PPM's (for C02) were not officially measured until Charles Keeling designed the device used (starting in 1956).
Here is his curve:
Yet as an oscillation (wave form), it starts in 1958 at the bottom of a graph, and where do we see climate scientists today playing with graphs (Temps/C02 et cetera) while stating at the bottom of an oscillation to show the rise - continuously.
Fig. 2 Representative plants of Abutilon theophrasti (C3) grown at glacial through future [CO2]. All plants were 14 d of age and were grown under similar water, light, and nutrient conditions. These plants were photographed during a study by Dippery et al. (1995). (Photograph is courtesy of Anne Hartley, Florida Gulf Coast University.)
This whole business is, of course, wider spread than America, and yet there is the crowd effect: repeating the position because one does not know enough on the subject: the authoritarian delivery makes going against it difficult.
Yes, if you know the subject matter the irrationality sticks out like a sore thumb - I tried this too the other day and learned something (not that it is not the general basis of why people don't understand).
Here is what happened:
The subject of AGW climate change - respective of the global crowds now assembled; recently hyped by Greta and co., begets the rational conversation that indeed "we need to do more on matters of pollution, toxins, chemicals." No disagreement, a global alignment of normal people would agree as a general rule with those three points. However the conversation in the AGW main is about a molecule, an evil one. So, when asked about this focus being equated to the persons previous response, there was pause, confusion - grasping for some type of term of reference. So I asked, okay, what is the C02 threshold for plant life?
You can see in the photo that below 150ppm's it is close to plant demise. So, the question is, why would there be a policy to reduce CO2 if it results in the death of plants - to what acceptable level?
They (individually) have no answer. In this case, the person (no child and well read) confessed to not understanding the role of C02 in the AGW conversation; somewhat apologetically. So, this is likely the source of the wider matter, yet people inflate the C02 'cause' (fossil fuel et al.) to all these other things they do know (which makes sense i.e. pollution/toxins/chemicals), thus C02 fits in because they are told over and over again that it is the alleged problem coming out of either the smokestack or tailpipe (or cow's derrière for that matter).
I said no more, and kept it light ("gently") and it clicked that it's the inability to focus down on the one molecule as opposed to conflating what they do understand with what environmentalism traditionally focused on - pollution, toxins and chemicals (and war in the case of people like ex-Greenpeace Patrick Moore).
Anyway, as luc said, it is worth the approach, yet my sense is that people can't (or they don't want to) somehow try and figure out what these molecules really mean in ppm's and their vital importance. All this leaves cosmic influences out of the conversation, which is another hard one for people to talk about, let alone volcanic and other previously locked in C02 sources that are now opening up.
As has also been well pointed out by others, rising C02 ppm's proceeds the return to ice age.
Note: the photo seems to still tie into pre/post industry without all the other influences that see ppm rise. It should also be noted that PPM's (for C02) were not officially measured until Charles Keeling designed the device used (starting in 1956).
Here is his curve:
Yet as an oscillation (wave form), it starts in 1958 at the bottom of a graph, and where do we see climate scientists today playing with graphs (Temps/C02 et cetera) while stating at the bottom of an oscillation to show the rise - continuously.
Fig. 2 Representative plants of Abutilon theophrasti (C3) grown at glacial through future [CO2]. All plants were 14 d of age and were grown under similar water, light, and nutrient conditions. These plants were photographed during a study by Dippery et al. (1995). (Photograph is courtesy of Anne Hartley, Florida Gulf Coast University.)
