Why do so many people deny climate change

[kiwina]

Is that why you thought plutonium was for bombs, not reactors,
because of your education?

Plutonium is used in bombs and power plants. What does that have to do with your denying science?

Excellent! I'm glad I could dispel just a tiny bit of your ignorance.

are we talking science or religon here?

 

[PMZ]

The fact of AGW is a simple calculation. The dynamics are not, nor is predicting the future behavior of mankind.

Really? A simple calculation that can not be demonstrated in any real world experiment. My but you are gullible.

fact of ice and snow melting is certainly observable. Where and when it will stop, nobody knows, but could be the difference between an affordable and an unaffordable adaptation by mankind.

Melting ice and snow is evidence of warming, and certain other weather related phenomena...it is in no way evidence that our activites bear any responsibility. There isn't the first bit of hard evidence to prove that man is driving the global climate.

Most people don't require lab proof of simple calculations. They've learned to trust even things at the edge of your education like long division.

 

[PMZ]

Ithought you used the IPCC reports as a bible? Where did you get 3-12C from? AR5 is back to 1.5-4.5C isn't it?

Neither you nor I have seen AR5.

However, I'll have to see if I erred. As I think about it now, it might be 3-12 degrees Fahrenheit.

Doesn't nine degrees strike you as a large spread for a simple calculation?

I think that it's remarkably small considering that it takes a multi year weather forecast to define the dynamics.

As I said and you ignored, the fact of AGW is easy to demonstrate, the dynamics of the change are extremely complex.

 

[bripat9643]

Once Mann gets the political assassins in court the truth will be known. Not before.

Mann doesn't have the slightest chance of winning his suit. This case is an obvious SLAPP suit. You can look that up if you don't know what it means.

Mann will win. Scientific evidence for his graph;

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?


Hockey stick is broken
“In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the chart and finally debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from "collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects" -- substantially affecting the temperature index.” (John McLaughlin)

What the science says...

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

Wrong. They either don't confirm the hockey stick conclusion, or the suffer from severe methodological errors . At his site ClimateAudit.com MxIntyre has investigated all these reconstructions and pointed out the flaws in their methodology.

The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.

Mann relied entirely on tree ring records for temperature proxies. His results are as bogus as a three dollar bill.

 

[PMZ]

If AR5 doesn't acknowledge the pause in warming, it'll be good only for wrapping fish.

There has been no pause in warming. There's been a pause in the growth of surface temperatures. No surprise.

ROFL! For 20 years now the priesthood of the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been saying the two are one and the same. It has only been since it became obvious to everyone that global temperatures have not been increasing that this theory of disappearing heat was contrived.

I'm sure that you can provide some evidence of '' For 20 years now the priesthood of the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been saying the two are one and the same.''

Right?

 

[PMZ]

Once Mann gets the political assassins in court the truth will be known. Not before.

Mann doesn't have the slightest chance of winning his suit. This case is an obvious SLAPP suit. You can look that up if you don't know what it means.

Mann will win. Scientific evidence for his graph;

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?


Hockey stick is broken
“In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the chart and finally debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from "collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects" -- substantially affecting the temperature index.” (John McLaughlin)

What the science says...

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.


The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.

This is why we have civil courts. So decisions get made based on evidence rather than politics.

How great is that!

 

[PMZ]

Plutonium is used in bombs and power plants. What does that have to do with your denying science?

Excellent! I'm glad I could dispel just a tiny bit of your ignorance.

are we talking science or religon here?

Most of us, science. Some of us, politics. Conservatives, have no idea.

 

[PMZ]

Mann doesn't have the slightest chance of winning his suit. This case is an obvious SLAPP suit. You can look that up if you don't know what it means.

Mann will win. Scientific evidence for his graph;

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?


Hockey stick is broken
“In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the chart and finally debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from "collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects" -- substantially affecting the temperature index.” (John McLaughlin)

What the science says...

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

Wrong. They either don't confirm the hockey stick conclusion, or the suffer from severe methodological errors . At his site ClimateAudit.com MxIntyre has investigated all these reconstructions and pointed out the flaws in their methodology.

The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.

Mann relied entirely on tree ring records for temperature proxies. His results are as bogus as a three dollar bill.

The evidence is........??????

What you want to be true.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Plutonium is used in bombs and power plants. What does that have to do with your denying science?

Excellent! I'm glad I could dispel just a tiny bit of your ignorance.

are we talking science or religon here?

I'm only interested in his scientific ignorance.

 

[PMZ]

​

Excellent! I'm glad I could dispel just a tiny bit of your ignorance.

are we talking science or religon here?

I'm only interested in his scientific ignorance.

Why?

 

[westwall]

There has been no pause in warming. There's been a pause in the growth of surface temperatures. No surprise.

ROFL! For 20 years now the priesthood of the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been saying the two are one and the same. It has only been since it became obvious to everyone that global temperatures have not been increasing that this theory of disappearing heat was contrived.

I'm sure that you can provide some evidence of '' For 20 years now the priesthood of the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been saying the two are one and the same.''

Right?

It's already begun silly boy!

Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong
Leaked report reveals the world is warming at half the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007

Scientists accept their computers 'may have exaggerated'


Read more: Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Apocalypse Later



THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought.

The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain's The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

 

[PMZ]

ROFL! For 20 years now the priesthood of the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been saying the two are one and the same. It has only been since it became obvious to everyone that global temperatures have not been increasing that this theory of disappearing heat was contrived.

I'm sure that you can provide some evidence of '' For 20 years now the priesthood of the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been saying the two are one and the same.''

Right?

It's already begun silly boy!

Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong
Leaked report reveals the world is warming at half the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007

Scientists accept their computers 'may have exaggerated'


Read more: Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Apocalypse Later



THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought.

The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain's The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Oh, you lose. You think that your scientific limitations are everyones. Not true.

Real scientists always knew that, while AGW's existence is indisputable, the dynamics of how the climate changes dynamically, is a tough question. That it will warm is a given. How it will warm requires long term weather forecasts which are probably years away.

It will continue to warm for several years based on the current CO2 load. We will add even more CO2 because we don't know yet how to not to.

But, we are learning our choices from the IPCC.

Let's choose the minimum cost one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why do so many people deny climate change

For conservatives, it pushes almost every delusional, paranoid rightwing button.

Among the right’s unfounded, irrational fears concerning addressing climate change:

It will lead to a ‘one world government’

You’ll be forced to give up your car

It will cause higher fuel prices

You’ll be forced to give up your air conditioning

You’ll be forced to live in a cramped, multi-family dwelling

It will cause unemployment

In essence, as with most everything else, conservative opposition to addressing climate change is predicated on fear, ignorance, and greed.

 

[bripat9643]

Mann doesn't have the slightest chance of winning his suit. This case is an obvious SLAPP suit. You can look that up if you don't know what it means.

Mann will win. Scientific evidence for his graph;

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?


Hockey stick is broken
“In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the chart and finally debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from "collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects" -- substantially affecting the temperature index.” (John McLaughlin)

What the science says...

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.


The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.

This is why we have civil courts. So decisions get made based on evidence rather than politics.

How great is that!

The function of courts is not to determine what scientific ideas are valid and which ideas are invalid, and that is exactly what Mann is attempting to have the courts do by filing this lawsuit.

 

[bripat9643]

Mann will win. Scientific evidence for his graph;

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?


Hockey stick is broken
“In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the chart and finally debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from "collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects" -- substantially affecting the temperature index.” (John McLaughlin)

What the science says...

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

Wrong. They either don't confirm the hockey stick conclusion, or the suffer from severe methodological errors . At his site ClimateAudit.com MxIntyre has investigated all these reconstructions and pointed out the flaws in their methodology.

The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.

Mann relied entirely on tree ring records for temperature proxies. His results are as bogus as a three dollar bill.

The evidence is........??????

What you want to be true.

You aren't familiar with Mann's work at all, are you?

 

[SSDD]

It's irrelevant, as has been pointed out numerous times.

The fact that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph is a fraud is irrelevant?

This should be interesting.

In what way is it a fraud?

One doesn't even need to go into mann's shoddy technique or questionable data to prove his work is a fraud...the preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. Man disappeared the MWP but there are literally hundreds of peer reviewed, published papers which indicate that the MWP was warmer than the present and global. Here are links to some of the more recent published papers:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Chile

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the tropical Pacific

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in England

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Atlantic Ocean

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tibet; temperatures during the Little Ice Age warmer than in 2000

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Siberia; temperatures 'not unprecedented'

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Pacific Ocean; cooling over past 7,000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Sweden

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in South China Sea

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Mediterranean Sea

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in China

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Bolivia

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Arctic Siberia

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Peru

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-paper-finds-another-non-hockey_22.html

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-paper-finds-another-non-hockey_28.html

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Iceland, 12C decrease in temperature over past 8,000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tibet

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds tree-ring proxy temperature data is 'seriously compromised'

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tasmania

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Chile

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in China

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Antarctica, temperature decline over past 2000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Alps, late 20th century temperatures were low to normal in comparison to past 9000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Iceland

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Sweden, cooling over past 7000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Patagonia

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another day, another non-hockey-stick

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another day, another non-hockey-stick

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another day, another non-hockey-stick

And this is only some of the most recent peer reviewed papers published in respected journals and they represent only a small fraction of the hundreds of papers published that find that the MWP was both warmer than the present and was global in stark contrast to mann's paper which claims that it did not exist.

The question for you is why, considering the overwhelming body of peer reviewed published work stating unequivocally that mann's work is in error which have not been called into question, do you continue to believe a single paper by one man using methodology which has been called into question by numerous sources?

 

[SSDD]

Why do so many people deny climate change

For conservatives, it pushes almost every delusional, paranoid rightwing button.

Among the right’s unfounded, irrational fears concerning addressing climate change:

It will lead to a ‘one world government’

You’ll be forced to give up your car

It will cause higher fuel prices

You’ll be forced to give up your air conditioning

You’ll be forced to live in a cramped, multi-family dwelling

It will cause unemployment

In essence, as with most everything else, conservative opposition to addressing climate change is predicated on fear, ignorance, and greed.

Actually, about half of your "delusional paranoid buttons" have already come to pass.

There is no doubt that regulation aimed at climate change has caused increased fuel prices.

The great "die off" a few years back in france over a minor heat wave was due to people in an industrial nation not being able to afford air conditioning due to very high energy taxes

It has caused unemployment

High fuel prices will inevetably lead to the less well to do having to move closer to where they work....result, crowding.

And while we haven't had to give up our cars so far, there is no doubt that regulation aimed at climate change has made cars less safe.

So to those of us who are paying attention, it seems that there is nothing paranoid or delusional about your so called "buttons".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I fully support federally funded deprogramming of AGWCult members

If they refuse deprogramming they can receive a one way ticket to anyplace with a zero "carbon footprint"

 

[PredFan]

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.

Oh, I'm sorry. You have me mistaken for someone who cares about your opinion of me.

 

[Abraham3]

The fact that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph is a fraud is irrelevant?

This should be interesting.

In what way is it a fraud?

One doesn't even need to go into mann's shoddy technique or questionable data to prove his work is a fraud...the preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. Man disappeared the MWP but there are literally hundreds of peer reviewed, published papers which indicate that the MWP was warmer than the present and global. Here are links to some of the more recent published papers:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Chile

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the tropical Pacific

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in England

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Atlantic Ocean

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tibet; temperatures during the Little Ice Age warmer than in 2000

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Siberia; temperatures 'not unprecedented'

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Pacific Ocean; cooling over past 7,000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Sweden

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in South China Sea

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Mediterranean Sea

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in China

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Bolivia

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Arctic Siberia

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Peru

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Russian Subarctic

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in China

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Iceland, 12C decrease in temperature over past 8,000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tibet

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds tree-ring proxy temperature data is 'seriously compromised'

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tasmania

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Chile

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in China

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Antarctica, temperature decline over past 2000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Alps, late 20th century temperatures were low to normal in comparison to past 9000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Iceland

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Sweden, cooling over past 7000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Patagonia

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another day, another non-hockey-stick

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another day, another non-hockey-stick

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another day, another non-hockey-stick

And this is only some of the most recent peer reviewed papers published in respected journals and they represent only a small fraction of the hundreds of papers published that find that the MWP was both warmer than the present and was global in stark contrast to mann's paper which claims that it did not exist.

The question for you is why, considering the overwhelming body of peer reviewed published work stating unequivocally that mann's work is in error which have not been called into question, do you continue to believe a single paper by one man using methodology which has been called into question by numerous sources?

No one in the general public thinks Mann's reconstruction looks like a hockey stick because its MWP bump is smaller than others. They think it looks like a hockey stick because of the unprecedentedly fast temperature rise of the 20th century.

The current rise and the MWP do NOT have common causes. The MWP is irrelevant to a discussion of the current warming. Even if the MWP were to have gotten as warm as the present (and that is quite iffy) the rate at which temperatures have increased during our lifetimes distinguishes the current situation quite clearly from the MWP.

Data showing rapid temperature increases in the 20th century are common because it is what the temperatures did. That's what makes a hockey stick. That you should fall back on the missing MWP only indicates you don't really have a relevant argument.