Why do so many people deny climate change

[daveman]

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.

You're a pimply-faced 17-year-old kid, therefore we have to consider you an expert in climate science?

Oh, and don't forget, you're also an expert in psychology and primatology, too.

Do you know any reason I shouldn't laugh in your pimply face?

Me, neither.

 

[daveman]

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.

Did PMS ASK you for your help or is it just that you see him floundering?

 

[PMZ]

Simple huh? Show them to us....

This should be good.

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

http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif

 

[PMZ]

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.

When is some science going to show up in your denying?

 

[SSDD]

[

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

Actually first, you must prove your assumption that molecules radiate in every direction. Got any observable experiment that proves such a thing or are you working from a mathematical model which you happen to believe.....then you must prove that the warmer object then absorbs the radiation from the cooler object...again, any observable experiment or are you once more operating from an unproven mathematical model?

 

[SSDD]

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?

Then what is (within 1 degree) the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2. If they are simple, then you should be able to provide a sensitivity to within a fraction of a degree, but lets work with whole numbers...

 

[SSDD]

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

According to the scientific method, corelation is not justification to assign a cause....it is a place to start looking, but not reason to assign cause. What observable experiment proves that increasing CO2 by 100 parts per million will result in the warming we have seen in the past 100 years?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

When is some science going to show up in your denying?

Demanding that skeptics prove your Chicken Little theories aren't true is the sign of a scientific ignoramus.

 

[PMZ]

[

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

Actually first, you must prove your assumption that molecules radiate in every direction. Got any observable experiment that proves such a thing or are you working from a mathematical model which you happen to believe.....then you must prove that the warmer object then absorbs the radiation from the cooler object...again, any observable experiment or are you once more operating from an unproven mathematical model?

The answers to all of your questions are known and accepted as standard quantum physics by virtually every qualified scientist on the planet. You chose to reman ignorant of that science. Your choice, but nobody owes you a thing in response to your choices.

Among the many learning opportunities that you've been offered here out of pity for your condition is the series of UChicago lectures recently posted by Joe Normal. All of your questions were answered, but you think by ignoring that, by refusing to learn, the answers can be avoided.

Why conservatives think that if they profess ignorance, their dreams of power will be answered, is beyond me. Out of ignorance only comes more ignorance.

 

[PMZ]

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.

When is some science going to show up in your denying?

Demanding that skeptics prove your Chicken Little theories aren't true is the sign of a scientific ignoramus.

I only demand that chicken little skeptics prove their wannabe theories.

 

[bripat9643]

When is some science going to show up in your denying?

Demanding that skeptics prove your Chicken Little theories aren't true is the sign of a scientific ignoramus.

I only demand that chicken little skeptics prove their wannabe theories.

I have no theories about climate. I simply question the validity of yours. Your demands are the indication of a scientific ignoramus.

 

[PMZ]

Demanding that skeptics prove your Chicken Little theories aren't true is the sign of a scientific ignoramus.

I only demand that chicken little skeptics prove their wannabe theories.

I have no theories about climate. I simply question the validity of yours. Your demands are the indication of a scientific ignoramus.

So did we until it was proven.

 

[bripat9643]

I only demand that chicken little skeptics prove their wannabe theories.

I have no theories about climate. I simply question the validity of yours. Your demands are the indication of a scientific ignoramus.

So did we until it was proven.

Statements like that are the sure sign of a scientific ignoramus.

 

[PMZ]

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?

Then what is (within 1 degree) the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2. If they are simple, then you should be able to provide a sensitivity to within a fraction of a degree, but lets work with whole numbers...

The existence of positive feedbacks, and the fact that we have not agreed to a path forward relative to ongoing use of FFs, makes that answer unknowable with certainty.

The best climate minds in the country have estimated the range of possibilities to be 3 to 12 degrees C.

 

[PredFan]

I deny that man is affecting the climate either way. The reasons I do are many and scientifically and empirically based.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Simple energy balance calculations.

Simple?

Then what is (within 1 degree) the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2. If they are simple, then you should be able to provide a sensitivity to within a fraction of a degree, but lets work with whole numbers...

The existence of positive feedbacks, and the fact that we have not agreed to a path forward relative to ongoing use of FFs, makes that answer unknowable with certainty.

The best climate minds in the country have estimated the range of possibilities to be 3 to 12 degrees C.

The existence of positive feedbacks,

What about the negative feedbacks?

 

[PMZ]

I have no theories about climate. I simply question the validity of yours. Your demands are the indication of a scientific ignoramus.

So did we until it was proven.

Statements like that are the sure sign of a scientific ignoramus.

What I said is that I had an open mind until proof was at hand. What you said is that makes me a scientific ignoramus.

WTF?

 

[PMZ]

Simple?

Then what is (within 1 degree) the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2. If they are simple, then you should be able to provide a sensitivity to within a fraction of a degree, but lets work with whole numbers...

The existence of positive feedbacks, and the fact that we have not agreed to a path forward relative to ongoing use of FFs, makes that answer unknowable with certainty.

The best climate minds in the country have estimated the range of possibilities to be 3 to 12 degrees C.

The existence of positive feedbacks,

What about the negative feedbacks?

Which one do you have in mind?

 

[PMZ]

I deny that man is affecting the climate either way. The reasons I do are many and scientifically and empirically based.

Deny away. You're welcome to your opinion.

However due to your lack of credibility we will not act on your opinion but rather the high credibility of IPCC science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The existence of positive feedbacks, and the fact that we have not agreed to a path forward relative to ongoing use of FFs, makes that answer unknowable with certainty.

The best climate minds in the country have estimated the range of possibilities to be 3 to 12 degrees C.

The existence of positive feedbacks,

What about the negative feedbacks?

Which one do you have in mind?

People who know have answers. People who don't, have only questions PMZ.