Why do so many people deny climate change

[PMZ]

You deny that AGW can be disproved. Most on your side do.

If you're not lying, you'll be able to specifically point to these people and where they said such a crazy thing. But I'm guessing you'll just respond with that usual vague handwaving thing where you declare how you magically know what all the dirty liberals _really_ think.

Look, I really don't think I can teach you logical thinking in one post, but let's see what happens.

Anyone who declares the science is settled, the debate is over -- they're denying that AGW can be disproved.

Get it now, or is you skull too full of unmerited arrogance to allow any logic in?

AGW is disproven if the world starts cooling. That would be the whole world, which would include the oceans. It would also be disproven if the heat balance wasn't a net positive. There are more, but the point is there are specific measurable conditions which could disprove AGW theory.

That's not science. It's dogma.

Denialism, on the other hand, is undisprovable pseudoscience. The earth warms? Just scream "Natural cycles!". Heat balance positive? Yell "Cosmic rays are changing the clouds!". And so on. Every sign of warming has a convenient excuse to be handwaved away.

Feel free to prove me incorrect. Simply list some things could disprove denialism. Be specific and realistic.

How about science? How about proving that the AGW cult has NOT proved their case?

Naturally, you won't accept anything like that, will you?

I've presented enough studies the past few days to give a reasonable person something to think about.

But since most AGW cultists are not reasonable, nor do they think, what I've presented has no effect.

Thank you for illustrating this so excellently.

What nobody has ever given here is what could possibly prevent GHGs from absorbing long wave from Earth, then immediately re-radiating it in all directions thus preventing half of the outgoing emmissions from Earth, and requiring AGW to rebalance outgoing with incoming radiation.

To prove any other result you would have to prove that CO2 is not a GHG.

 

[PMZ]

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Falsifiability or refutability is the trait of a statement, hypothesis, or theory whereby it could be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Science must be falsifiable. The scientific method can not be implemented without the theoretical possibilities of both disproof and verification.​

You deny that AGW can be disproved. Most on your side do.

That's not science. It's dogma.

You have been completely unable to offer any evidence, any science, that demonstrates even the possibility that atmospheric GHGs do not cause global warming.

Oooh, great job, Captain Strawman!

Probably because I've never claimed that. I really DO wish you'd stop lying about what I've said.

You've never denied AGW? That is the most bizarre thing that I 'very heard.

 

[PMZ]

It is more a questioning of whether or not mankind is responsible or can control/alter climate change. Not climate change itself.
You did a piss-poor job of claiming something exists where it does not. Very unscientific of you when you attempt to create a scientific post.

Fail.

Who denies that we can stop making it worse?

What proves that we are making it worse?

I find it almost hysterical that your post title claims that people deny climate change when that really isn't the slightest bit of truth. As I said, it is more a questioning of whether mankind is responsible or can control it.
I'm kinda leaning towards the "no, we can't". Sorta like we can't stop climate altering volcanoes like this or this

Burning fossil fuels always adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is always a GHG.

The rise in atmospheric GHG concentrations in the last 150 years correlates with the fossil fuel use since we have been using them.

What other possibility than AGW follows that evidence?

 

[PMZ]

What proves that we are making it worse?

I find it almost hysterical that your post title claims that people deny climate change when that really isn't the slightest bit of truth. As I said, it is more a questioning of whether mankind is responsible or can control it.
I'm kinda leaning towards the "no, we can't". Sorta like we can't stop climate altering volcanoes like this or this

A few things Alan:

The close correlation between rising CO2 levels and increasing temperatures since 1870

The isotopic analysis that shows 100% of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the combustion of fossil fuels.

The fact that no climate model that ignores AGW can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years.

The simple bookkeeping summation of fossil fuels burned and the simple chemical calculation of how much CO2 they would produce.

The calculation from first principles of the radiative forcing factor created by adding 130 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere over a 150 year period.

And, uhhh.. Alan, are you one of those folks that think volcanos are the dominant source of GHGs?

The fact that no climate model that ignores AGW can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years.

Which models that assume AGW can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years?

Simple energy balance calculations.

 

[PMZ]

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Falsifiability or refutability is the trait of a statement, hypothesis, or theory whereby it could be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Science must be falsifiable. The scientific method can not be implemented without the theoretical possibilities of both disproof and verification.​

You deny that AGW can be disproved. Most on your side do.

That's not science. It's dogma.

No. We deny that anyone has shown any evidence that increased GHG concentration will not lead to AGW.

You betray your ignorance yet again.

It's up to the people making the claim that more GHG will lead to AGW to prove it.

So far, they haven't.

They have. You are denying science. But offering no other explanation for the data.

 

[Mr. H.]

Tell that to Exxon Mobil. They won't agree.

You don't know shit, so shut the fuck up troll.

I love it when someone posts things that send the message,

''Look over here! I'm a conservative. Look at what an ass I am.''

No, that one is from my "look over here, I've spent the last 36 years of my life in the petroleum industry".

Walk in my boots or lick my boots, you fuck.

 

[whitehall]

I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph. After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.

Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:

One is that many people who deny global warming do not have a science background. Therefore, they find themselves in a bind when dealing with the materials explaining the issue.

Additionally, climate change discussion has become so politicized and misinformation so regularly injected by those with incentive to do so that the conversation is overwhelming for many people to sort through.

And last but not least, I think the prospect of declining living standards creates an emotional response in people that in many ways shares the stages of grief. People are emotionally attached to lifestyles and it is VERY difficult to accept data that may point toward new behaviors.

K.

Yeah sure, climate changes. That's why they call it climate. It changed back in Lincoln's time just like it changes today. Lately the slick climate extortionists have been leaving out the words "man-made" from climate change. In 1919 it was a year without summer. In 1888 the US experienced the worst winter in history and it wasn't caused by gas guzzling cars. The radical extortionists have the argument surrounded. If it's cold it's really warming and if it's nice out the radicals hate it.

 

[PMZ]

You don't know shit, so shut the fuck up troll.

I love it when someone posts things that send the message,

''Look over here! I'm a conservative. Look at what an ass I am.''

No, that one is from my "look over here, I've spent the last 36 years of my life in the petroleum industry".

Walk in my boots or lick my boots, you fuck.

This is as bizarre an argument as I've ever seen. You worked in the petroleum business for 36 years, therefore we have to consider you an expert in climate science.

Now if you said that you've been studying in a climate science education program for 36 years and have a PhD, that might rate a little credibility.

But, pumping gas is really not a qualification.

Dumb fuck.

 

[PMZ]

I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph. After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.

Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:

One is that many people who deny global warming do not have a science background. Therefore, they find themselves in a bind when dealing with the materials explaining the issue.

Additionally, climate change discussion has become so politicized and misinformation so regularly injected by those with incentive to do so that the conversation is overwhelming for many people to sort through.

And last but not least, I think the prospect of declining living standards creates an emotional response in people that in many ways shares the stages of grief. People are emotionally attached to lifestyles and it is VERY difficult to accept data that may point toward new behaviors.

K.

Yeah sure, climate changes. That's why they call it climate. It changed back in Lincoln's time just like it changes today. Lately the slick climate extortionists have been leaving out the words "man-made" from climate change. In 1919 it was a year without summer. In 1888 the US experienced the worst winter in history and it wasn't caused by gas guzzling cars. The radical extortionists have the argument surrounded. If it's cold it's really warming and if it's nice out the radicals hate it.

You need to learn the difference between climate and weather. Also the difference between variability that's random and variability from assignable cause.

 

[bripat9643]

I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph. After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.

Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:

One is that many people who deny global warming do not have a science background. Therefore, they find themselves in a bind when dealing with the materials explaining the issue.

Additionally, climate change discussion has become so politicized and misinformation so regularly injected by those with incentive to do so that the conversation is overwhelming for many people to sort through.

And last but not least, I think the prospect of declining living standards creates an emotional response in people that in many ways shares the stages of grief. People are emotionally attached to lifestyles and it is VERY difficult to accept data that may point toward new behaviors.

K.

Yeah sure, climate changes. That's why they call it climate. It changed back in Lincoln's time just like it changes today. Lately the slick climate extortionists have been leaving out the words "man-made" from climate change. In 1919 it was a year without summer. In 1888 the US experienced the worst winter in history and it wasn't caused by gas guzzling cars. The radical extortionists have the argument surrounded. If it's cold it's really warming and if it's nice out the radicals hate it.

You need to learn the difference between climate and weather. Also the difference between variability that's random and variability from assignable cause.

So is the flooding in Colorado an example of climate or weather?

 

[Mr. H.]

I love it when someone posts things that send the message,

''Look over here! I'm a conservative. Look at what an ass I am.''

No, that one is from my "look over here, I've spent the last 36 years of my life in the petroleum industry".

Walk in my boots or lick my boots, you fuck.

This is as bizarre an argument as I've ever seen. You worked in the petroleum business for 36 years, therefore we have to consider you an expert in climate science.

Now if you said that you've been studying in a climate science education program for 36 years and have a PhD, that might rate a little credibility.

But, pumping gas is really not a qualification.

Dumb fuck.

At least I don't live in my parent's basement, you fucking loser.

Go pop some more pimples and suck on your sugar sticks. It'll make you feel better.

 

[PMZ]

No, that one is from my "look over here, I've spent the last 36 years of my life in the petroleum industry".

Walk in my boots or lick my boots, you fuck.

This is as bizarre an argument as I've ever seen. You worked in the petroleum business for 36 years, therefore we have to consider you an expert in climate science.

Now if you said that you've been studying in a climate science education program for 36 years and have a PhD, that might rate a little credibility.

But, pumping gas is really not a qualification.

Dumb fuck.

At least I don't live in my parent's basement, you fucking loser.

Go pop some more pimples and suck on your sugar sticks. It'll make you feel better.

I love it when conservatives show us what they're made of.

 

[PMZ]

Deniers, supply some scientific explanation denying at least one of the following.

The major products of combustion from fossil fuels are water and CO2.

CO2 is a GHG.

The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased since mankind has been burning fossil fuels, and at a rate of increase that closely tracks the rate of consumption of fossil fuels.

GHGs are defined as gasses that absorb and re-emit long wave emissions from Earth.

The action of atmospheric GHGs prevents half of the radiation that they absorb from leaving our atmosphere.

For all passive heavenly bodies energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation is stable. If in is greater than out warming will occur. If in is less than out, cooling will occur.

For AGW to not occur, one of those statements must be proven false.

Have at it.

 

[westwall]

A few things Alan:

The close correlation between rising CO2 levels and increasing temperatures since 1870

The isotopic analysis that shows 100% of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the combustion of fossil fuels.

The fact that no climate model that ignores AGW can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years.

The simple bookkeeping summation of fossil fuels burned and the simple chemical calculation of how much CO2 they would produce.

The calculation from first principles of the radiative forcing factor created by adding 130 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere over a 150 year period.

And, uhhh.. Alan, are you one of those folks that think volcanos are the dominant source of GHGs?

The fact that no climate model that ignores AGW can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years.

Which models that assume AGW can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years?

Simple energy balance calculations.

Simple huh? Show them to us....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fact that no climate model that ignores AGW can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years.

Which models that assume AGW can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years?

Simple energy balance calculations.

Simple huh? Show them to us....

This should be good.

 

[westwall]

Simple energy balance calculations.

Simple huh? Show them to us....

This should be good.

I'm sure not holding my breath.....

 

[Abraham3]

I'm sure not holding my breath.

That is a shame.

See the little blue snippet at the extreme left end of the Gaussian curve? That's like the 'evidence' supporting your side of the argument.

 

[daveman]

What nobody has ever given here is what could possibly prevent GHGs from absorbing long wave from Earth, then immediately re-radiating it in all directions thus preventing half of the outgoing emmissions from Earth, and requiring AGW to rebalance outgoing with incoming radiation.

To prove any other result you would have to prove that CO2 is not a GHG.

One more time for the progressivism-impaired:

We don't have to prove AGW is false. YOU have to prove it's REAL.

And no, stamping your feet and shouting is not a compelling argument.

 

[daveman]

You have been completely unable to offer any evidence, any science, that demonstrates even the possibility that atmospheric GHGs do not cause global warming.

Oooh, great job, Captain Strawman!

Probably because I've never claimed that. I really DO wish you'd stop lying about what I've said.

You've never denied AGW? That is the most bizarre thing that I 'very heard.

What are you, stupid?

Rhetorical question. Don't bother answering.

I've never claimed that greenhouse gases cause global warming.

I dispute the claim that man's small amount of greenhouse gases are responsible for any appreciable warming, and that there will be catastrophic consequences.

 

[daveman]

No. We deny that anyone has shown any evidence that increased GHG concentration will not lead to AGW.

You betray your ignorance yet again.

It's up to the people making the claim that more GHG will lead to AGW to prove it.

So far, they haven't.

They have. You are denying science. But offering no other explanation for the data.

Your "data" is manipulated, skewed, distorted, and invented.

That's because you morons started off with your conclusion, then massaged the data to fit it.

That's simply bad science. Stop it.