Why do people deny science?

[Saigon]

smearing of anyone and everyone who dares to tell you go fly a kite.

Grow the fuck up, boy.

You to laugh, don't you?

 

[Truthmatters]

they will ONLY be;lieve in science when rush the lush and other radio fools tell them to.

No facts permeate their braincases

 

[Nosmo King]

What she's asking for is the conservative analog to EarthFirst!, ELF and other leftist kook quasi-terrorist groups, you dunce.

Hint: There aren't any.

How about the conservative radicals who actually KILL human beings, fish and foul spewing carcinogens, toxins, poisons and other deadly chemicals into our air, lakes and streams?

CO2 is neither a carcinogen, toxin, deadly chemical nor poison.....That's why howling moonbats like you need to resort to your demonetization, hyperbole, outlandish claims and smearing of anyone and everyone who dares to tell you go fly a kite.

Grow the fuck up, boy.

Anything in greater than normal concentrations can become hazardous. If you change the composition of the atmosphere by pumping in more of any gas, the consequences can be disastrous. If oxygen content exceeds 24% it doesn't mean that we have a better atmosphere because of the extra oxygen. It means we are coming close to an explosive situation. We need water to live, but ask the Titanic passengers if too much water is a good thing.

Just because something is not a carcinogen or even a toxin does not make it benign.

 

[Oddball]

smearing of anyone and everyone who dares to tell you go fly a kite.

Grow the fuck up, boy.

You to laugh, don't you?

I know who I'm dealing with, asshole.....A boy.

Now who is it that can't stick to the subject, tovarich?

 

[Oddball]

How about the conservative radicals who actually KILL human beings, fish and foul spewing carcinogens, toxins, poisons and other deadly chemicals into our air, lakes and streams?

CO2 is neither a carcinogen, toxin, deadly chemical nor poison.....That's why howling moonbats like you need to resort to your demonetization, hyperbole, outlandish claims and smearing of anyone and everyone who dares to tell you go fly a kite.

Grow the fuck up, boy.

Anything in greater than normal concentrations can become hazardous. If you change the composition of the atmosphere by pumping in more of any gas, the consequences can be disastrous. If oxygen content exceeds 24% it doesn't mean that we have a better atmosphere because of the extra oxygen. It means we are coming close to an explosive situation. We need water to live, but ask the Titanic passengers if too much water is a good thing.

Just because something is not a carcinogen or even a toxin does not make it benign.

Apples and atom bombs.

Even with the "soaring" CO2 levels (the bulk of which is from natural sources) it still will remain a trace gas.....The worst case scenarios only have it changing by infinitesimal fractions, viz. PPM concentrations....Hardly anywhere near harmful, let alone catastrophic.

 

[Cuyo]

Most of the world doesn't view this as a debate at all. There is a debate as two what our best course of action is, and a debate as to the balance of economic growth and human benefit of the same activities that cause GW; But not a debate one whether or not it's happening. That's largely settled and has been for decades.

There's only two groups in this narrative; 1. "Some American Republicans," and 2. "The rest of the planet."

Some American Republicans (SAR) are as content with studies conducted by "Economic climatologists," as they are with the "It snowed today! So much for global warming!" argument, as they are with labeling the overwhelming preponderance of the worldwide scientific community "Warmers" or "Hoaxsters" or "Cultists."

This "Debate" is not an exercise in science; it's a microcosm of how futile it is for the world to try to argue with SAR. It's sad really. But understand what it is, and while you are of course entitled to whatever preposterous opinion you have on the matter, please do realize how ridiculous you look to any educated person, let alone a scientist.

 

[Katzndogz]

Extreme weather, like all weather is cyclical. The extreme weather we have today is no different than the extreme weather we had in the 50s and 60s. What is different is the amount of damage that extreme weather does. That is an effect of population density, not the strength of the storms.

Can you present the opinion of a SINGLE trained physicist who agrees with you?

No, you can't.

There are more than 1,300 scientists who know that global warming is a hoax. 130 German scientists named global warming as a pseudo religion.

Many of those scientists are named here.

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims ? Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot

Global warming has been spread by lobbying efforts from scientists that were getting paid a lot of money to prove global warming. It's not surprising that they did. All 52 of them.

The report itself is here.

http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around
the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President
Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the
2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism
about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over
1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists,
who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic
increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the
last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global
warming summit in being held in Cancun.
The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months
ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out
publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN
scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

 

[Nosmo King]

CO2 is neither a carcinogen, toxin, deadly chemical nor poison.....That's why howling moonbats like you need to resort to your demonetization, hyperbole, outlandish claims and smearing of anyone and everyone who dares to tell you go fly a kite.

Grow the fuck up, boy.

Anything in greater than normal concentrations can become hazardous. If you change the composition of the atmosphere by pumping in more of any gas, the consequences can be disastrous. If oxygen content exceeds 24% it doesn't mean that we have a better atmosphere because of the extra oxygen. It means we are coming close to an explosive situation. We need water to live, but ask the Titanic passengers if too much water is a good thing.

Just because something is not a carcinogen or even a toxin does not make it benign.

Apples and atom bombs.

Even with the "soaring" CO2 levels (the bulk of which is from natural sources) it still will remain a trace gas.....The worst case scenarios only have it changing by infinitesimal fractions, viz. PPM concentrations....Hardly anywhere near harmful, let alone catastrophic.

Parts per million is how atmospheric gases are measured. The difference between .07 ppm of benzene and .7 ppm is the difference between measuring it and walking away after measuring it.

Where do you think the harmful level of CO2 is? And when does that level become catastrophic?

 

[Bfgrn]

What she's asking for is the conservative analog to EarthFirst!, ELF and other leftist kook quasi-terrorist groups, you dunce.

Hint: There aren't any.

How about the conservative radicals who actually KILL human beings, fish and foul spewing carcinogens, toxins, poisons and other deadly chemicals into our air, lakes and streams?

CO2 is neither a carcinogen, toxin, deadly chemical nor poison.....That's why howling moonbats like you need to resort to your demonetization, hyperbole, outlandish claims and smearing of anyone and everyone who dares to tell you go fly a kite.

Grow the fuck up, boy.

Name ONE plant, factory or facility that emits ONLY CO2? There is ALWAYS carcinogens, toxins, deadly chemicals and poisons emitted WITH CO2. And CO2 may not be a carcinogen, toxin, deadly chemical nor poison to human, fish or foul, but it is deadly to the atmosphere's ability to regulate temperature and climate.

 

[Oddball]

Anything in greater than normal concentrations can become hazardous. If you change the composition of the atmosphere by pumping in more of any gas, the consequences can be disastrous. If oxygen content exceeds 24% it doesn't mean that we have a better atmosphere because of the extra oxygen. It means we are coming close to an explosive situation. We need water to live, but ask the Titanic passengers if too much water is a good thing.

Just because something is not a carcinogen or even a toxin does not make it benign.

Apples and atom bombs.

Even with the "soaring" CO2 levels (the bulk of which is from natural sources) it still will remain a trace gas.....The worst case scenarios only have it changing by infinitesimal fractions, viz. PPM concentrations....Hardly anywhere near harmful, let alone catastrophic.

Parts per million is how atmospheric gases are measured. The difference between .07 ppm of benzene and .7 ppm is the difference between measuring it and walking away after measuring it.

Where do you think the harmful level of CO2 is? And when does that level become catastrophic?

1) Benzine is neither necessary and beneficial to flora nor a necessary trigger for breathing of fauna...You did know that CO2 is necessary to trigger the breathing reflex, didn't you?

2) Even the worst of the worst case scenarios don't have CO2 concentrations rising from the current .039% to .39%, ergo that part of the question is entirely invalid.

3) Nobody -but nobody- can say for certain what the results of an increase of a scant few PPM of CO2 will or won't be....It's only the alarmist warmerist cranks who are predicting utter and total catastrophe....That should tell you something.

Try again.

 

[Nosmo King]

Apples and atom bombs.

Even with the "soaring" CO2 levels (the bulk of which is from natural sources) it still will remain a trace gas.....The worst case scenarios only have it changing by infinitesimal fractions, viz. PPM concentrations....Hardly anywhere near harmful, let alone catastrophic.

Parts per million is how atmospheric gases are measured. The difference between .07 ppm of benzene and .7 ppm is the difference between measuring it and walking away after measuring it.

Where do you think the harmful level of CO2 is? And when does that level become catastrophic?

1) Benzine is neither necessary and beneficial to flora nor a necessary trigger for breathing of fauna...You did know that CO2 is necessary to trigger the breathing reflex, didn't you?

2) Even the worst of the worst case scenarios don't have CO2 concentrations rising from the current .039% to .39%, ergo that part of the question is entirely invalid.

3) Nobody -but nobody- can say for certain what the results of an increase of a scant few PPM of CO2 will or won't be....It's only the alarmist warmerist cranks who are predicting utter and total catastrophe....That should tell you something.

Try again.

I used benzene measurements as an example of the incremental and "infinitesimal fractions" you seem all to quickly to dismiss. And rather than examine the science, you further dismiss it as coming from alarmist warmerist (sic) cranks.

The 'science' coming from the very industries pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is the only 'science' that refutes the vast body of evidence to the contrary. What does that tell you?

 

[westwall]

sceince means nothing to these people.

they make up the world they want to live in and then pretend its real.


how America created this pack of fools will be written about for generations

And look who comes along to give support to the most pathological liar on the board saggy and truthiness, a pact made in hell!

 

[westwall]

Extreme weather, like all weather is cyclical. The extreme weather we have today is no different than the extreme weather we had in the 50s and 60s. What is different is the amount of damage that extreme weather does. That is an effect of population density, not the strength of the storms.

Can you present the opinion of a SINGLE trained physicist who agrees with you?

No, you can't.

Happer, Feynman, Dyson....to name a few.

 

[westwall]

Oddball -

Science isn't open to polling or a vote..

Given you hold a position backed by 0.7% of published and peer-reviewed scientific papers, that is fortunate for you!

However, I do think there is a good reason public opinion went with the 90% and not the 0.7%.

cigarettes don't cause cancer.

The voice of modern scientific opinion speaks!

That's too funny. That same paper has now been shown to have mischaracterized at least 6 papers as supporting AGW when the authors themselves say no way. AND, there were fewer that supported AGW than our side BEFORE they screwed with the numbers.

Lies, lies and more lies is what you asshats do.

 

[kwc57]

From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com

The clouds of a thunderstorm roll over neighborhoods heavily damaged in a tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, May 23, 2013. (Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson)

Excerpted from "Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind"

The potent combination of our powerful intelligence with our massive reality denial has led to a dangerous world. Less obvious, but in the long term more dangerous, are threats resulting directly or indirectly from technological developments that have permitted us to increase our numbers well beyond the carrying capacity of the natural world. More efficient agriculture and the invention of artificial fertilizers permitted humans to produce food sufficient to support numbers that would be unthinkable for other animals of our physical size. Public health measures, vaccinations, antibiotics, and other medical advances also permitted population numbers to explode. The world is overpopulated already and is becoming more so at an alarming rate. And although we pay lip service to the resulting problems, we do relatively little to address their root causes. Indeed, some religions continue to promote the unrestrained propagation of their flocks. Planet Earth is sick, with a bad case of “infection by humans.”...

... Why is it that ordinary citizens do not sit up and take notice of the danger? Unfortunately, the focus remains mostly on “global warming” instead of on the bigger concern—that we are disrupting the planet’s climate in completely unpredictable ways.

The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet.

Puddly Pillowbite, you want to know the science of tornados in the plains? It's when colder dry air drops from the north to meet warm moist air rising from the south being forced to the east by the rockies on the west. When the conditions are right, tornados happen. They've been happening for untold millenia. That people warming the earth a degree or so have intensified this condition is a pretty big fairytale. I know real science is hard to understand and all and it's easier to blame man for what nature does, but do try.

 

[kwc57]

sceince means nothing to these people.

they make up the world they want to live in and then pretend its real.


how America created this pack of fools will be written about for generations

You are speaking of the liberal global warming hoaxsters, correct?

 

[Katzndogz]

Extreme weather, like all weather is cyclical. The extreme weather we have today is no different than the extreme weather we had in the 50s and 60s. What is different is the amount of damage that extreme weather does. That is an effect of population density, not the strength of the storms.

Can you present the opinion of a SINGLE trained physicist who agrees with you?

No, you can't.

Happer, Feynman, Dyson....to name a few.

A few of the 1,300 that is.

Global warming hoaxters depend on this to prove them right.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-louder-people-simply-assume-youre-right.html

Being confident and loud is the best way to win an argument - even if you are wrong, a new study suggests.

 

[westwall]

How about the conservative radicals who actually KILL human beings, fish and foul spewing carcinogens, toxins, poisons and other deadly chemicals into our air, lakes and streams?

CO2 is neither a carcinogen, toxin, deadly chemical nor poison.....That's why howling moonbats like you need to resort to your demonetization, hyperbole, outlandish claims and smearing of anyone and everyone who dares to tell you go fly a kite.

Grow the fuck up, boy.

Anything in greater than normal concentrations can become hazardous. If you change the composition of the atmosphere by pumping in more of any gas, the consequences can be disastrous. If oxygen content exceeds 24% it doesn't mean that we have a better atmosphere because of the extra oxygen. It means we are coming close to an explosive situation. We need water to live, but ask the Titanic passengers if too much water is a good thing.

Just because something is not a carcinogen or even a toxin does not make it benign.

It is impossible (other than in a lab setting) to generate enough CO2 to become toxic. It would be easier to die of water poisoning than to die of CO2 poisoning. A lot easier.

You'll have to try harder there mr. I'm so reasonable. I do find it amusing that nearly all of you AGW revisionists claim that it is the religious right who are against your theory when the official position of the Catholic Church is yours.

So...who are the religious nutters?

Yep....it's YOU!

 

[westwall]

How about the conservative radicals who actually KILL human beings, fish and foul spewing carcinogens, toxins, poisons and other deadly chemicals into our air, lakes and streams?

CO2 is neither a carcinogen, toxin, deadly chemical nor poison.....That's why howling moonbats like you need to resort to your demonetization, hyperbole, outlandish claims and smearing of anyone and everyone who dares to tell you go fly a kite.

Grow the fuck up, boy.

Name ONE plant, factory or facility that emits ONLY CO2? There is ALWAYS carcinogens, toxins, deadly chemicals and poisons emitted WITH CO2. And CO2 may not be a carcinogen, toxin, deadly chemical nor poison to human, fish or foul, but it is deadly to the atmosphere's ability to regulate temperature and climate.

Never once proven save in the addled minds of the computer modeler's. And now, based on real observed data shown finally, to be absolute horsecrap.

 

[Nosmo King]

CO2 is neither a carcinogen, toxin, deadly chemical nor poison.....That's why howling moonbats like you need to resort to your demonetization, hyperbole, outlandish claims and smearing of anyone and everyone who dares to tell you go fly a kite.

Grow the fuck up, boy.

Anything in greater than normal concentrations can become hazardous. If you change the composition of the atmosphere by pumping in more of any gas, the consequences can be disastrous. If oxygen content exceeds 24% it doesn't mean that we have a better atmosphere because of the extra oxygen. It means we are coming close to an explosive situation. We need water to live, but ask the Titanic passengers if too much water is a good thing.

Just because something is not a carcinogen or even a toxin does not make it benign.

It is impossible (other than in a lab setting) to generate enough CO2 to become toxic. It would be easier to die of water poisoning than to die of CO2 poisoning. A lot easier.

You'll have to try harder there mr. I'm so reasonable. I do find it amusing that nearly all of you AGW revisionists claim that it is the religious right who are against your theory when the official position of the Catholic Church is yours.

So...who are the religious nutters?

Yep....it's YOU!

Toxicity is not the impending problem. Altering the composition of the atmosphere and thus effecting the climate is the problem. No one worries that CO2 will effect the respiratory health of living beings. It's the composition of the atmosphere that is the question.

And only those grasping at straws and lacking real knowledge bring in the utterly ridiculous strawman of faith into the scientific argument.