Why do so many people deny climate change

[flacaltenn]

Oops, dupe.

yes u r...

 

[PMZ]

The thread title does not end with a question mark but I assume it is, nevertheless, an enquiry.

Many 'deny' AGW because they are immune to hysterical propaganda. Some - me for example - have a world view based on science and are revolted by its perversion. Many more are worldly wise and can recognise charlatans on the make.

Warmists 'computer models' and false data have comprehensively demolished . Only defenders of the faith, impervious to evidence or reason, remain.

Let's see. We have a global organization with unfettered access to the best climate science in the world vs Fox News bought and paid for by those heavily profiting from the status quo.

You're hooked on the Fox News story because they agree with what you wish was true.

That’s a pretty easy and obvious choice for me. And the reason why you spend so much time trashing science.

Science always trumps politics.

 

[PMZ]

This is the AGW thread.

I noticed that.

This is about science.

I thought you said this is the AGW thread?

Make up your mind.

This is about the search for truth, not about your politics or religon.

You fucknut cultists are little more than primitive Apes.

{It seems the uptick in the 20th century is not real, being nothing more than an artifact of shoddy procedures where the dates on the proxy samples were changed for some strange reason.}

McIntyre finds the Marcott ?trick? ? How long before Science has to retract Marcott et al? | Watts Up With That?

Ooooppps...

You Shamans caught with their dick in the dog, yet again...

Your cult is a fraud, you simpering moron.

People like you are made to be ignored.

 

[PMZ]

When you have been lied to the first time about the climate becoming an ice age in the 70's then changed to warming you tend not to believe them.

They also are not addressing why so many planets in our solar system climates are changing also.

It seems to be tied to something that is happening to our Solar System not mankind's pollution.

It was the global warming deniers, who you now believe, who lied to you about a coming Ice Age. The vast majority of scientists were predicting global warming in the 70s.

And the planetary canard has been addressed! Some planets and moons are warming, but other planets and moons are cooling, so it is obviously related to conditions in each location rather than a solar system related cause.

Imagine that... All the articles I've listed below --- and YET --- I ME get blamed for misinformation.. And of course --- ALL these articles were prompted by some small handful of cultish denier scientists..

1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book, 1976)
1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book, 1977)
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of – TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, May 1978)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

It's all pre-internet -- but I've checked out 5 or 6 successfully.. Sorry -- that turd don't fly.

(you can pretty much check out the Time links, the books and CSMonitor references in a couple minutes)

The moral of this message -- don't trust the LA Times, the NY Times, or the Chicago Tribune for your climate news...

Trust big oil on Fox News.

 

[westwall]

Warmists 'computer models' and false data have comprehensively demolished . Only defenders of the faith, impervious to evidence or reason, remain.

Your only say that because your retard political cult deems it PC to spout such idiot conspiracy theories. Like every other denialist here, you're dogshit-ignorant of the actual science. All you'll ever be capable of doing is parroting your cult's retard propaganda. Like you just did.

You want to impress us? Talk about the science, instead of just chanting your mantras. Think you're capable of it? I don't. I'm guessing that all you'll be able to do is scream that all the data is fraudulent, and that a great worldwide socialist conspiracy is afoot. You know, like all the other 'tards here do.

Poor admiral....stuck your dick in it and now it's going to get cut off!

This paper shows the models are up to 100% off...great record there dipshit...

"Abstract. Aerosol–cloud interaction effects are a major source of uncertainty in climate models so it is important to quantify the sources of uncertainty and thereby direct research efforts. However, the computational expense of global aerosol models has prevented a full statistical analysis of their outputs. Here we perform a variance-based analysis of a global 3-D aerosol microphysics model to quantify the magnitude and leading causes of parametric uncertainty in model-estimated present-day concentrations of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Twenty-eight model parameters covering essentially all important aerosol processes, emissions and representation of aerosol size distributions were defined based on expert elicitation. An uncertainty analysis was then performed based on a Monte Carlo-type sampling of an emulator built for each model grid cell. The standard deviation around the mean CCN varies globally between about ±30% over some marine regions to ±40–100% over most land areas and high latitudes, implying that aerosol processes and emissions are likely to be a significant source of uncertainty in model simulations of aerosol–cloud effects on climate. Among the most important contributors to CCN uncertainty are the sizes of emitted primary particles, including carbonaceous combustion particles from wildfires, biomass burning and fossil fuel use, as well as sulfate particles formed on sub-grid scales. Emissions of carbonaceous combustion particles affect CCN uncertainty more than sulfur emissions. Aerosol emission-related parameters dominate the uncertainty close to sources, while uncertainty in aerosol microphysical processes becomes increasingly important in remote regions, being dominated by deposition and aerosol sulfate formation during cloud-processing. The results lead to several recommendations for research that would result in improved modelling of cloud–active aerosol on a global scale."

ACP - Abstract - The magnitude and causes of uncertainty in global model simulations of cloud condensation nuclei


"This study presents the dependency of the simulation results from a global atmospheric numerical model on machines with different hardware and software systems. The global model program (GMP) of the Global/Regional Integrated Model system (GRIMs) is tested on 10 different computer systems having different central processing unit (CPU) architectures or compilers. There exist differences in the results for different compilers, parallel libraries, and optimization levels, primarily due to the treatment of rounding errors by the different software systems. The system dependency, which is the standard deviation of the 500-hPa geopotential height averaged over the globe, increases with time. However, its fractional tendency, which is the change of the standard deviation relative to the value itself, remains nearly zero with time. In a seasonal prediction framework, the ensemble spread due to the differences in software system is comparable to the ensemble spread due to the differences in initial conditions that is used for the traditional ensemble forecasting."

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[westwall]

The thread title does not end with a question mark but I assume it is, nevertheless, an enquiry.

Many 'deny' AGW because they are immune to hysterical propaganda. Some - me for example - have a world view based on science and are revolted by its perversion. Many more are worldly wise and can recognise charlatans on the make.

Warmists 'computer models' and false data have comprehensively demolished . Only defenders of the faith, impervious to evidence or reason, remain.

Let's see. We have a global organization with unfettered access to the best climate science in the world vs Fox News bought and paid for by those heavily profiting from the status quo.

You're hooked on the Fox News story because they agree with what you wish was true.

That’s a pretty easy and obvious choice for me. And the reason why you spend so much time trashing science.

Science always trumps politics.

Annnd their accuracy rate is 0.00%. GREAT JOB! A well known charlatan is at least able to guess 75% of the time! You asshats can't even do that well!

 

[Abraham3]

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.

It appears that you failed to read what I wrote. Why don't you try that one more time.

 

[Abraham3]

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.

But it made NO DIFFERENCE to his conclusion. So... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

 

[Abraham3]

I think that this is revealing rhetoric about the anti science crowd. A primitive cult and culture out to impose what they wish was true on the rest of the world.

I think it is as well - and I'm glad that you acknowledge that you New Age Gaea Cultists are indeed "anti-science."

You fear that legitimate research will be conducted, for when it is, we find:

{Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates. The validity of Marcott-Shakun re-dating will be discussed below, but first, to show that the re-dating “matters” (TM-climate science), here is a graph showing reconstructions using alkenones (31 of 73 proxies) in Marcott style, comparing the results with published dates (red) to results with Marcott-Shakun dates (black). As you see, there is a persistent decline in the alkenone reconstruction in the 20th century using published dates, but a 20th century increase using Marcott-Shakun dates. (It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.)}

Hey, your religion needs fraud - science refutes it...

McIntyre finds the Marcott ?trick? ? How long before Science has to retract Marcott et al? | Watts Up With That?

Oh, and you mindless fucktards try to pretend that what you have isn't a religion....

{And the thing is that these are externalities that everyone can see. You can deny global warming (and may you be punished in the afterlife for doing so — this kind of denial for petty personal or political reasons is an almost inconceivable sin)} - Paul Krugman - a fraud in his own right - in my field of specialty.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/everyday-externalities/?_r=0

Wait a minute - is it SCIENCE demanding the heretics burn in hell?

ROFL

You fucking apes and your stupid religion...

Your vocabulary is really impressive.

Here, try this:

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

From which we find:

Technical Questions and Answers:

Q. Why did you revise the age models of many of the published records that were used in your study?

A. The majority of the published records used in our study (93%) based their ages on radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon is a naturally occurring isotope that is produced mainly in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. This form of carbon is then distributed around the world and incorporated into living things. Dating is based on the amount of this carbon left after radioactive decay. It has been known for several decades that radiocarbon years differ from true “calendar” years because the amount of radiocarbon produced in the atmosphere changes over time, as does the rate that carbon is exchanged between the ocean, atmosphere, and biosphere. This yields a bias in radiocarbon dates that must be corrected. Scientists have been able to determine the correction between radiocarbon years and true calendar year by dating samples of known age (such as tree samples dated by counting annual rings) and comparing the apparent radiocarbon age to the true age. Through many careful measurements of this sort, they have demonstrated that, in general, radiocarbon years become progressively “younger” than calendar years as one goes back through time. For example, the ring of a tree known to have grown 5700 years ago will have a radiocarbon age of ~5000 years, whereas one known to have grown 12,800 years ago will have a radiocarbon age of ~11,000 years.

For our paleotemperature study, all radiocarbon ages needed to be converted (or calibrated) to calendar ages in a consistent manner. Calibration methods have been improved and refined over the past few decades. Because our compilation included data published many years ago, some of the original publications used radiocarbon calibration systems that are now obsolete. To provide a consistent chronology based on the best current information, we thus recalibrated all published radiocarbon ages with Calib 6.0.1 software (using the databases INTCAL09 for land samples or MARINE09 for ocean samples) and its state-of-the-art protocol for site-specific locations and materials. This software is freely available for online use at CALIB 14C Calibration Program.

By convention, radiocarbon dates are recorded as years before present (BP). BP is universally defined as years before 1950 CE, because after that time the Earth’s atmosphere became contaminated with artificial radiocarbon produced as a bi-product of nuclear bomb tests. As a result, radiocarbon dates on intervals younger than 1950 are not useful for providing chronologic control in our study.

After recalibrating all radiocarbon control points to make them internally consistent and in compliance with the scientific state-of-the-art understanding, we constructed age models for each sediment core based on the depth of each of the calibrated radiocarbon ages, assuming linear interpolation between dated levels in the core, and statistical analysis that quantifies the uncertainty of ages between the dated levels. In geologic studies it is quite common that the youngest surface of a sediment core is not dated by radiocarbon, either because the top is disturbed by living organisms or during the coring process. Moreover, within the past hundred years before 1950 CE, radiocarbon dates are not very precise chronometers, because changes in radiocarbon production rate have by coincidence roughly compensated for fixed decay rates. For these reasons, and unless otherwise indicated, we followed the common practice of assuming an age of 0 BP for the marine core tops.

 

[westwall]

Real Climate..........

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear LOA:
My question remains:
If more people AGREE on issues of reducing and preventing pollution,
conserving and restoring endangered wilderness and wildlife,
and that pursuing these ends would have the SAME EFFECT as
addressing environmental issues of conservation that "global warming" addresses

THEN WHY ARGUE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

Why not focus on similar or related points of AGREEMENT that solve the same problems?

Could it be
A. that politicians and media BENEFIT FROM CONTROVERSY AND CONFLICT
so instead of promoting existing solutions that ALL SIDES AGREE ON
these parties focus deliberately on issue of conflict to use as bait to get votes or ratings?

B. connections between politicians and politicized groups with corporate interests
have SOLD OUT the true green/environmental movement for things that make MONEY
1. carbon credits
2. contracts with "environmental" R&D such as the whole Solyndra scandal
3. whitewashing media and govt with PR $$$ from corporations such as BP
WITHOUT solving the problems as long as the right money exchanges with the right hands

could it be that THESE FACTORS have HURT the credibility of the REAL
environmental preservationists and anti-pollution movements?

And THAT BAD REPUTATION is why no one believes the global warming push?

???

 

[bripat9643]

The thread title does not end with a question mark but I assume it is, nevertheless, an enquiry.

Many 'deny' AGW because they are immune to hysterical propaganda. Some - me for example - have a world view based on science and are revolted by its perversion. Many more are worldly wise and can recognise charlatans on the make.

Warmists 'computer models' and false data have comprehensively demolished . Only defenders of the faith, impervious to evidence or reason, remain.

Let's see. We have a global organization with unfettered access to the best climate science in the world vs Fox News bought and paid for by those heavily profiting from the status quo.

You're hooked on the Fox News story because they agree with what you wish was true.

That’s a pretty easy and obvious choice for me. And the reason why you spend so much time trashing science.

Science always trumps politics.

Annnd their accuracy rate is 0.00%. GREAT JOB! A well known charlatan is at least able to guess 75% of the time! You asshats can't even do that well!

Live by the sword. Die by the sword. Abraham and PMZ's slavish devotion to the IPCC means they will go down with the ship when they IPCC is finally laughed off the world stage.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

But it made NO DIFFERENCE to his conclusion. So... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

True, Mann continue to perpetrate his fraudulent results. Like a lot of warmist cult members, Mann is totally shameless.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your vocabulary is really impressive.

Here, try this:

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

From which we find:

Technical Questions and Answers:

Q. Why did you revise the age models of many of the published records that were used in your study?

ROFL

They got caught balls deep in the pooch, the protestation that they aren't fucking the dog rings just a tad hollow....

 

[Abraham3]

[MENTION][/MENTION]

Real Climate..........

Are you doubting that the quoted text (and the rest of the article) was written by Marcott and Shakun?

 

[Abraham3]

Your vocabulary is really impressive.

Here, try this:

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

From which we find:

Technical Questions and Answers:

Q. Why did you revise the age models of many of the published records that were used in your study?

ROFL

They got caught balls deep in the pooch, the protestation that they aren't fucking the dog rings just a tad hollow....

What brilliant repartee.

You didn't read their explanation, did you. How come? What was the problem? What prevented you?

 

[bripat9643]

[MENTION][/MENTION]

Real Climate..........

Are you doubting that the quoted text (and the rest of the article) was written by Marcott and Shakun?

I'm perfectly willing to believe they are a couple of hacks responsible for maintaining their propaganda vehicle.

 

[SSDD]

Live by the sword. Die by the sword. Abraham and PMZ's slavish devotion to the IPCC means they will go down with the ship when they IPCC is finally laughed off the world stage.

That day is coming fast. Some warmers are saying that this latest IPCC release will be the death knell for the IPCC itself. No credibility left.

 

[PMZ]

Warmists 'computer models' and false data have comprehensively demolished . Only defenders of the faith, impervious to evidence or reason, remain.

Your only say that because your retard political cult deems it PC to spout such idiot conspiracy theories. Like every other denialist here, you're dogshit-ignorant of the actual science. All you'll ever be capable of doing is parroting your cult's retard propaganda. Like you just did.

You want to impress us? Talk about the science, instead of just chanting your mantras. Think you're capable of it? I don't. I'm guessing that all you'll be able to do is scream that all the data is fraudulent, and that a great worldwide socialist conspiracy is afoot. You know, like all the other 'tards here do.

Poor admiral....stuck your dick in it and now it's going to get cut off!

This paper shows the models are up to 100% off...great record there dipshit...

"Abstract. Aerosol–cloud interaction effects are a major source of uncertainty in climate models so it is important to quantify the sources of uncertainty and thereby direct research efforts. However, the computational expense of global aerosol models has prevented a full statistical analysis of their outputs. Here we perform a variance-based analysis of a global 3-D aerosol microphysics model to quantify the magnitude and leading causes of parametric uncertainty in model-estimated present-day concentrations of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Twenty-eight model parameters covering essentially all important aerosol processes, emissions and representation of aerosol size distributions were defined based on expert elicitation. An uncertainty analysis was then performed based on a Monte Carlo-type sampling of an emulator built for each model grid cell. The standard deviation around the mean CCN varies globally between about ±30% over some marine regions to ±40–100% over most land areas and high latitudes, implying that aerosol processes and emissions are likely to be a significant source of uncertainty in model simulations of aerosol–cloud effects on climate. Among the most important contributors to CCN uncertainty are the sizes of emitted primary particles, including carbonaceous combustion particles from wildfires, biomass burning and fossil fuel use, as well as sulfate particles formed on sub-grid scales. Emissions of carbonaceous combustion particles affect CCN uncertainty more than sulfur emissions. Aerosol emission-related parameters dominate the uncertainty close to sources, while uncertainty in aerosol microphysical processes becomes increasingly important in remote regions, being dominated by deposition and aerosol sulfate formation during cloud-processing. The results lead to several recommendations for research that would result in improved modelling of cloud–active aerosol on a global scale."

ACP - Abstract - The magnitude and causes of uncertainty in global model simulations of cloud condensation nuclei


"This study presents the dependency of the simulation results from a global atmospheric numerical model on machines with different hardware and software systems. The global model program (GMP) of the Global/Regional Integrated Model system (GRIMs) is tested on 10 different computer systems having different central processing unit (CPU) architectures or compilers. There exist differences in the results for different compilers, parallel libraries, and optimization levels, primarily due to the treatment of rounding errors by the different software systems. The system dependency, which is the standard deviation of the 500-hPa geopotential height averaged over the globe, increases with time. However, its fractional tendency, which is the change of the standard deviation relative to the value itself, remains nearly zero with time. In a seasonal prediction framework, the ensemble spread due to the differences in software system is comparable to the ensemble spread due to the differences in initial conditions that is used for the traditional ensemble forecasting."

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

I'm pretty sure that you don't read your copy and pastes. I'm positive you don't understand them. The reason that climate science is the most rapidly growing field of science is that there are so many scientists working on perfecting it. Papers like this offering advice to advance the science come out every day. The IPCC has the responsibility to evaluate which ones are a step forward and which head backward.

Did you hear your name in that loop? There's a good reason why not. You don't even have credibility here much less globally.

Educated people laugh at your bumbling attempts to kill science with politics.

We know how much you want what you want to be true. It simply isn't. Science has proof that it isn't.

You can beat your head against that wall all day. There's almost no risk of getting dumber from doing that. And even smaller odds of getting smarter.

 

[PMZ]

The thread title does not end with a question mark but I assume it is, nevertheless, an enquiry.

Many 'deny' AGW because they are immune to hysterical propaganda. Some - me for example - have a world view based on science and are revolted by its perversion. Many more are worldly wise and can recognise charlatans on the make.

Warmists 'computer models' and false data have comprehensively demolished . Only defenders of the faith, impervious to evidence or reason, remain.

Let's see. We have a global organization with unfettered access to the best climate science in the world vs Fox News bought and paid for by those heavily profiting from the status quo.

You're hooked on the Fox News story because they agree with what you wish was true.

That’s a pretty easy and obvious choice for me. And the reason why you spend so much time trashing science.

Science always trumps politics.

Annnd their accuracy rate is 0.00%. GREAT JOB! A well known charlatan is at least able to guess 75% of the time! You asshats can't even do that well!

What's the accuracy rate of your science? Oh, wait a minute. You have none.

OK then what's the success rate of your politics?

Ooooppps, sorry. Didn't mean to embarrass you.