Drexel University study on AGW deniers

[flacaltenn]

Here is a larget piece of what Kerry said
<SNIP>

and here is what you said.

Kerry made a speech in Indo last week and tipped the plan. He asked "what's the harm if we are wrong on the science"?? And then launched into all the wondrous results if "the plan" we to be FORCED on the world even without adequate scientific validation and understanding. The political groups keeping this plan on life support dont' give a ratzazz about the performance of the models or the over-zealous claims made for the studies. They have their eyes on the prize..

[emphases mine]

I'm impressed that you would post Kerry's actual comments. What they show is that you lied about what the man actually said. Perhaps I'm being too harsh. Perhaps you were simply mistaken. But seeing that you have now provided us the text of his comments and have NOT withdrawn this accusation, it has become a lie.

Clearly, iive already suffered thru this diatribe and you hadnt. Now that YOU read it and corrected YOUR misunderstanding of it --- thers no more reason for you to lie from ignorance of what was said. You were clearly wrong and technically since the lie was from ignorance, you are excused. NOW - Your issue with ME seems to come down to the use of the word FORCED. Since his statement implied we all just DO these things without REQUIRING ample evidence of consequences -- just because its the "right thing to do" --- I defend the use of the word FORCED because he is asking us to suspend judgement on the facts and just accept his desired plan.. I dont withdraw the use of the term FORCED under the terms John Fraud proposed.

 

[Abraham3]

Kerry spoke not a single word bearing the slightest connotation of "forced". Therefore, you choose to lie.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This has been posted before, but I just came across a new CNN discussion of the study and thought it might bring some new insights.

Opinion: Why are we still debating climate change? - CNN.com
***********************
(CNN) -- There is no debate.

Climate change is real. And, yes, we are, in part, to blame.

There is a 97% consensus among scientific experts that humans are causing global warming. Ninety-seven percent!

Yet some very vocal Americans continue to debate what is surely fact.

The question is, why?

Trust certainly plays a part.

According to Gordon Gauchat, an associate professor of sociology from the University of Wisconsin, just 42% of adults in the U.S. have a great deal of confidence (PDF) in the scientific community.

It's easy to understand why. Most Americans can't even name a living scientist. I suspect the closest many Americans get to a living, breathing scientist is the fictional Dr. Sheldon Cooper from CBS's sitcom "The Big Bang Theory." Sheldon is brilliant, condescending and narcissistic. Whose trust would he inspire?

But trust isn't the only factor in why many Americans doubt climate change.

I asked Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. His group has been studying the "why" question for more than a decade.

"We've found there are six very (specific) categories that respond to this issue in different ways," he said.

He calls these categories "Global Warming's Six Americas."

The first group, "The Alarmed," is made up 16% of the public. They believe climate change is an urgent problem but have no clear idea of how to fix it.

The second group (27%) is "The Concerned." They believe climate change is a problem but think it's more about polar bears and tiny islands than a problem that directly affects them.

The third group, "The Cautious" (23%), are people on the fence. They haven't made up their minds whether global warming is real or if it's a man-made problem.

The fourth group, "The Disengaged" (5%), doesn't know anything about climate change.

The fifth group, "The Doubtful" (12%), do not think climate change is man-made. They think it's natural and poses no long-term risk.

Leiserowitz says it's the sixth group, "The Dismissives," that is the most problematic, even though it comprises just 15% of the public.

"They say it's a hoax, scientists are making up data, it's a U.N. conspiracy (or) Al Gore and his friends want to get rich." Leiserowitz goes on to say, "It's a really loud 15%. ... (It's a) pretty well-organized 15%." [Dismissives. I'm going to start using that one --Abe]

And thanks to the media and the political stage, that vocal minority is mighty.

Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum told Glenn Beck on Fox News in 2011, "There is no such thing as global warming." Santorum went on to tell Rush Limbaugh, "It's just an excuse for more government control of your life, and I've never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative."

And just last week, tea party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz told CNN's Dana Bash, "Climate change, as they have defined it, can never be disproved, because whether it gets hotter or whether it gets colder, whatever happens, they'll say, well, it's changing, so it proves our theory."

Meanwhile, the climate change "counter movement" has been helped along by an infusion of cash from, among others, some in the powerful fossil fuel industry.

A recent study by Drexel University found that conservative foundations and others have bankrolled climate denial to the tune of $558 million between 2003 and 2010.

"Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square. Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise public doubts about the roots and remedies of this massive global threat," writes environmental scientist Robert J. Brulle, the study's author.

The good news is, those uninformed minority voices are being quieted by nature and by those who have powerful voices.

Extreme weather is forcing people to at least think about how global warming affects them directly. And, perhaps more important, many religious leaders, including evangelicals, are now "green." They concur with the scientific community and take it a step farther. They say we have a moral obligation to save the planet.

Even the enormously popular Pope Francis may soon speak out on global warming. The Vatican press office says Francis is working on draft text on ecology. That text could turn into an encyclical, or a letter to bishops around the world, instructing that the "faithful must respect the environment."

Here is a link to a press release about the funding study

Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort | Now | Drexel University


And here is a link to the study itself:

http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing Delay - Climatic Change.ashx

Study: Global Warming Will Cause 180,000 More Rapes by 2099 | Mother Jones

 

[Abraham3]

What's your point?

 

[Kosh]

God are you stupid.

Oh my more self reflection from this AGW cultist.

 

[Kosh]

What's your point?

That you are a liar and the whole piece you posted is done so through far left AGW cultist hack sites based on their interpretation of the AGW bible.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGWCult Spokesperson

"There is no debate!"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's what real scientists have to say

Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: &#8220;Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts&#8221; Warming Postponed &#8220;Hundreds Of Years&#8221;
By P Gosselin on 26. Mai 2013
Now that global temperatures have not risen in 15 years, a number of scientists find themselves having great difficulty coming to terms with that new reality

- See more at: Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: ?Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts? Warming Postponed ?Hundreds Of Years?

 

[Abraham3]

This has been tried before. That is NOT what the Max Planck Institute article states. The review of it at the NoTrickZone is a complete crock of shit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This has been tried before. That is NOT what the Max Planck Institute article states. The review of it at the NoTrickZone is a complete crock of shit.

From the unread Max Planck article

"It is the final temperature increase that comes from a doubling of CO2 concentration, and will probably occur first after a few hundred years.&#8221;

- See more at: Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: ?Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts? Warming Postponed ?Hundreds Of Years?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

When you have to attempt to discredit your opposition because you can't win your case based on facts, you are done whether you know it or not.

Exactly.

We go from junk science to junk psychology, as reported by the warmers at CNN.

I do believe we have progressed to the death rattle stage.

 

[mamooth]

Morphine adminstered to the dying denialist cult will ease those death rattles.

Denialists literally have nothing now except cult conspiracy mantras and deliberate fabrications. Most of them now lovingly tongue the rectums of paid professional liars. However, that's fine by them, since they consider their integrity and pride to be a small price to pay in exchange for the emotional security blanket that their cult membership provides them.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Morphine adminstered to the dying denialist cult will ease those death rattles.

I'm certain we can get a doctor to prescribe a drip for you.

 

[bripat9643]

Morphine adminstered to the dying denialist cult will ease those death rattles.

Denialists literally have nothing now except cult conspiracy mantras and deliberate fabrications. Most of them now lovingly tongue the rectums of paid professional liars. However, that's fine by them, since they consider their integrity and pride to be a small price to pay in exchange for the emotional security blanket that their cult membership provides them.

Low Temperature in Toronto yesterday: 3 degrees F.

 

[Abraham3]

Half the northern hemisphere is colder than usual. The other half is warmer than usual. Why do you folks have such a problem holding on to that point?

 

[flacaltenn]

This has been tried before. That is NOT what the Max Planck Institute article states. The review of it at the NoTrickZone is a complete crock of shit.

Its not a crock of shit exactly Bullwinkle.. Its what Ole FlaCcalTenn has been trying to tell you now for years.. And you scoffed because your "authorities" had yet to recognize the obvious science right in front of them. They didnt NEED to think or learn,, because their models were making news and changing public policy.. It was only when Science observations WHACKED their models to hell, that the observations on the climate system that I nailed, have become their convienient excuses.. DID YA GET WHAT THIS STUDY ACTUALLY SAID????

Because the climate has a very high thermal inertia and the oceans warm up only very slowly, it&#8217;s going to take some time before the effects of the greenhouse gases completely take hold. A warming from the greenhouse effect will be amplified by numerous feedbacks, and weakened by a few processes. Only when this complicated interaction quiets down will the climate come to a stable condition. This long-term reaction by the climate is called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ESC) and is calculated by climate scientists. It is the final temperature increase that comes from a doubling of CO2* concentration, and will probably occur first after a few hundred years.&#8221; - See more at: Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: ?Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts? Warming Postponed ?Hundreds Of Years?

So all those times that i told you that a massive thermal system like the earth doesnt warm in a just a few years from an impulse of power, or that output curves of temperature are NEVERREQUIRED to look exactly like the input stimuli because of storage or delays, or when I proposed that the solar increase of over a watt per m2 since 1750 could STILL be driving temperature today -------- ALL OF THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOW VERIFIED BY Max Planck Inst. I nailed it..

And NOW the consensus on future warming is sounding a lot more like the CO2 warming that ole FlaCalTenn has been conceeding.. As in -------

Using these values, the scientists calculate with 90% certainty that the near-surface atmosphere will warm 0.9°C &#8211; 2.0°C with at doubling of CO2 content; most probable is a temperature increase of 1.3°C.&#8221; - See more at: Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: ?Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts? Warming Postponed ?Hundreds Of Years?

Helena is absolutely correct.. Prof Feynmann and science is winning the day. And you are seeing the last gasps of the heretics who led the attempted coup.

 

[flacaltenn]

"""Because the climate has a very high thermal inertia...."""

Anyone who accused me of making shit up want to acknowledge your error??????
Any one claiming that only climate inputs that completely match the observed shape of the temperatures should be considered as possible causes of GW --- DO YOU want to refine your thinking now before the train runs you over??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Half the northern hemisphere is colder than usual. The other half is warmer than usual. Why do you folks have such a problem holding on to that point?

So, there's no "Global in global warming?

 

[Abraham3]

God are you stupid

 

[gnarlylove]

It's not so much that Frank is fucking stupid, he just doesn't give a flying fuck about anything that doesn't already confirm his harebrained ideas. Avoiding Frank's style of thought is crucial if one wishes to participate in de facto dialogue; otherwise it's a monologue disguised as stupid discussion. Let me offer probably the billionth clear demonstration of anthropogenic climate disruption that even people like Frank can understand:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwqd19gjOD0#t=1108]Truthout Interviews with Dahr Jamail on Climate Disruption - YouTube[/ame]
Truthout Interviews Dahr Jamail on Climate Disruption