Why do so many people deny climate change

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers are done, stick a hockey stick in 'em

 

[Uncensored2008]

Conservatives sure do hate people more educated than they. Which is most everyone.

Who are you more educated than?

Seriously?

High school freshmen -- by two years.

ROFL


Unfortunately....

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to daveman again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why is the IPCC denying the horrific effects of manmade CO2?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

McInyre also showed Mann's latest version of the Hockey stick is still a fraud. That's why the MWP bump is smaller than current temperatures.

 

[Uncensored2008]

People don't earn PhDs by parroting back their professor's words. It requires original research defended in front of a board.

Yes and no. The "research" must comply with dogma. Since the only value of a Phd. is securing a position in academia, it is vital that the process ensure that candidates faithfully ape the doctrines of academia. Review boards know that the candidate will wind up working with them, the last thing they want are independent thinkers who will question established dogma. The PhD. process is carefully designed to weed out any who might question the status quo.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This should be interesting.

In what way is it a fraud?

In the same way the shroud of Turin is a fraud - but religious nut jobs cling to their idiotic superstitions in defiance of fact, sparky.

Now trot along and say your prayers to Gaea, or sacrifice a goat, or whatever the fuck you New Age fucktards do...

 

[bripat9643]

This should be interesting.

In what way is it a fraud?

In the same way the shroud of Turin is a fraud - but religious nut jobs cling to their idiotic superstitions in defiance of fact, sparky.

Now trot along and say your prayers to Gaea, or sacrifice a goat, or whatever the fuck you New Age fucktards do...

The warmist nutburgers are so sure Mann's work is valid and that McIntyre's criticism is bogus, but none of the have ever even read the later. I gave them a link to McIntyre's paper, but here they are asking me how the Hockey Stick is a fraud.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Well said. They are taught daily by their political entertainer propaganda moguls that government is the source of all evil. Why? Because government is the only force to limit businesses one rule. Every corporation make more money regardless of the cost to others. And business owns the media.

They are good little sheep.

 

[PMZ]

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.

How else can it be decided if he was slandered?

 

[Uncensored2008]

There are many uneducated but intelligent. They don't know science but can do a good job solving ordinary problems. There are many unintelligent and uneducated. There are only a few unintelligent and educated. The can do lab work but not original research. There are a few intelligent and educated. In the field of climate science, they're the ones involved with the IPCC.

ROFLMAO

Right corky....

Whilst I earned my MBA, I figured out that there were many who just rode the wave. They met the basic requirements, but in discussions you could tell they were dolts, on teams they were dead weight. There were more of them, than there were of us, the smart people.

The ratio of stupid to smart amongst the educated is roughly the same as the ratio among the uneducated. Want a Masters or PhD.? Pay the money - that is the main thing. Then, regurgitate what your professors say, keep independent thought to a minimum, and do your assignments - on time.

 

[Uncensored2008]

70 percent of Americans older than 29. Much more in the field of science.

What is it that makes you more educated? Where is this demonstrated?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Mann is a fraud.

That you have his dick in your mouth is evidence that you have no relationship with the scientific method.

You're driven by your stupid-fuck religion. Mann is an adherent and promoter of the New Age idiocy you follow, so you mindlessly support the fraud.

 

[PMZ]

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.



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?

I leave climate science up to those experts, the IPCC, and civil justice up to those experts, the civil courts. I'm not an expert in either field and neither are you. Your involvement is merely a control freak thing.

 

[PMZ]

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?

Because the case against him comes from people like you who have earned zero credibility in the field of climate science.

 

[PMZ]

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".

But still, doing the nothing that you wish was the best answer, is the most expensive one.

Mankind is not entitled to ''home free''. Even conservatives aren't.

 

[Uncensored2008]

are we talking science or religon here?

AGW is a religion, it has nothing to do with science. The Gaea cultists are the most anti-science cadre since the Inquisition of Galileo. Michael Mann is to science as the Pope was to a heliocentric solar system.

 

[PMZ]

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"

This would be funded by the conservative cult's ''Stamp Out Knowledge'' outreach program.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Because the case against him comes from people like you who have earned zero credibility in the field of climate science.

Does the National Academy of Sciences have credibility in the field of climate science? They admitted that McIntyre's criticism of Mann's Hockey Stick graph were legitimate and accurate.

 

[JoeNormal]

People don't earn PhDs by parroting back their professor's words. It requires original research defended in front of a board.

Yes and no. The "research" must comply with dogma. Since the only value of a Phd. is securing a position in academia, it is vital that the process ensure that candidates faithfully ape the doctrines of academia. Review boards know that the candidate will wind up working with them, the last thing they want are independent thinkers who will question established dogma. The PhD. process is carefully designed to weed out any who might question the status quo.

Wow, what's it like to be that ignorant? This sounds like the mantra of a support group for uneducated dumbshits. Does it make you feel better?

I work with some PhDs (in addition to knowing a whole bunch of them when I was in college) and I can tell you from personal experience that I've never known a group of people who are as creative, meticulous or who have higher integrity than they do.

 

[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.

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

I don't care anything about you. I do care about the objective, open minded, cognitively functional people who might mistake what you want to be true for what is true.