Why do so many people deny climate change

[Abraham3]

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

Because they do not produce the same effect as directly addressing global warming. I fully support reducing and preventing pollution, conserving and restoring endangered wilderness and wildlife. Who doesn't? But that doesn't get us anywhere NEAR where we need to be. We need to move transportation and power generation away from fossil fuels. That's is THE most effective manner by which we can reduce our GHG emissions. Doing so will also dramatically reduce pollution and I am glad that is the case. But we need to directly address GHG emissions - not try to sneak it in with a green front.

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

Always a good idea when you can find such a situation.

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?

No. Among climate scientists and the greater part of those with sufficient technical education to understand the issues at play, there is no conflict. This conflict, just like the conflict about evolution and the conflict about tobacco's link to lung cancer, is a complete and utter fraud.

B. connections between politicians and politicized groups with corporate interests
have SOLD OUT the true green/environmental movement for things that make MONEY

If you think money is the root of this problem, why do you pay so little (if any) attention to the oil industry? From Wikipedia's article on it: "The production, distribution, refining, and retailing of petroleum taken as a whole represents the world's largest industry in terms of dollar value." The industry's current gross profits are $240 - $300 billion per year. Is that not enough to motivate folks to exceed their ethical limits?

1. carbon credits

Carbon credits weren't a sell out and they weren't intended to make money. Carbon credits are a paragon of capitalistic social engineering. The intention was to get business and industry to reduce their GHG emissions via the profit motive. It's no different than a tax, save that the tax collector is not with the government, he's another business that's done a better job than you at cleaning up his act. He didn't get to that position for free, though. He had to spend some money first to get into a position that he had credits to sell. And, of course, some folks will look for loopholes and shortcuts. And the statutory infrastructure was a whole new concept. So there were bound to be some rough patches as the system gets rolling and there will be people who successfully, but unethically, make some money off the system's weaknesses. Are there not people who do that with the US tax code, even today? Does that mean taxes don't work at funding the government? No. Carbon credits need work but they are still an excellent means of coercing the world's industries to clean up their acts.

2. contracts with "environmental" R&D such as the whole Solyndra scandal

Solyndra wasn't doing any environmental R&D. They had a very promising idea for a photovoltaics design. They looked to be a very successful player. But then the Chinese got into the picture and were able to make use of several technological innovations that, since they were starting from scratch, required no retooling. They took over the market. It wasn't just Solyndra. Several major US and European PV manufacturers went under at the same time.

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

I'm uncertain to what you refer here. The Deepwater Horizon spill?

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?

If their reputation has been harmed - and I would include anti-warming activists in your clique and I do not disagree with you - it is a success on the part of a disinformation movement founded and funded by several segments of the fossil fuel industry and heartily befriended by a goodly part of the Republican party.

 

[PMZ]

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.

The deniers realized a long time ago that they had been proven completely wrong on all significant AGW issues. And that there is simply no science that refutes the IPCC. None.

That's when they decided that all that was left was their political dirty tricks, one being to never engage in meaningful debate but rather keep all conversations about trivia that could, among the ignorant, create some shred of doubt. Innuendo, personal attacks, mumbo jumbo, anything that people like them would fall for, like they did.

As they say, oldest political trick in the book.

 

[westwall]

[MENTION][/MENTION]

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

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

I could care less what they wrote. Real Climate and all the fraudsters have zero credibility based on the proven falsification of data they have been caught doing. You too have zero credibility...you are just another in a long line of sock puppets spewing your propaganda.

Shakun et al has been proven false just like Mann's BS paper. Anytime you can plug any number into an equation and get the same result you have a problem. Unethical asshats like you and they don't care because scientific enquiry isn't your goal....political power and the theft of wealth is....

 

[PMZ]

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

Westwall..........

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The deniers realized a long time ago that they had been proven completely wrong on all significant AGW issues. And that there is simply no science that refutes the IPCC. None.

That's when they decided that all that was left was their political dirty tricks, one being to never engage in meaningful debate but rather keep all conversations about trivia that could, among the ignorant, create some shred of doubt. Innuendo, personal attacks, mumbo jumbo, anything that people like them would fall for, like they did.

As they say, oldest political trick in the book.

The deniers realized a long time ago that they had been proven completely wrong on all significant AGW issues. And that there is simply no science that refutes the IPCC. None.

Which is why Kyoto and Cap & Trade are laws of the land. LOL!

 

[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.

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?

???

Cleary you are informed, a thinker, and a responsible person. Clearly you prioritize environmental issues as do some of us here.

However, a couple of points.

While there is often very crude debate in forums like this, they are not very representative of the real world. In the real world the scientists and engineers and builders of things and doers and investors and responsible politicians are listening to the science, from the IPCC, and trying to negotiate rough waters in trying times. Why? Well, opportunity for one thing. Necessity for another.

Nobody in a position of responsibility believes that doing nothing is an affordable option. The consequences of that would be not only an environmental disaster, but also a business and political disaster.

Energy is the most pervasive ingredient in progress. Most of the world's population is looking to catch up to where we've been for decades. China and India at this moment are learning the price of dumping fossil fuel wastes into the atmosphere. And realizing that unbreathable air isn't the worst part. Weather patterns different than what man built civilization around will be much more consequential.

Despite what is posted here, there is no real evidence that the IPCC has not been right on track in their evaluation of the threat. Political resistance, which is not at all unexpected, but no contrary science.

The project to move to sustainable energy will be the most ambitious undertaking mankind has ever attempted. It will take in my estimation, and I tend to be optimistic, 100 - 200 years. Long for people who can't sit through half hour TV shows, but the blink of an eye in terms of life on the planet.

There are simply no alternatives.

When WWII was looming, many Americans were dead set against our involvement. But when we were forced to get involved, everyone did what was necessary. We were united as never before or since.

I predict the same will happen for energy.

 

[PMZ]

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.

That giant flushing sound you hear is the entire conservative movement swirling the bowl.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Disagreeing with you is shameful? I look at it as a sacred duty after 8 years of conservative incompetence to be recovered from.

 

[Abraham3]

Anytime you can plug any number into an equation and get the same result you have a problem.

You didn't look at this issue hard enough. I'm not going to tell you what reality might be. You go out and have another look. Get the info from trustworthy OBJECTIVE sources. Find out whether or not this claim of yours is correct. Discover the truth. You owe it to yourself.

 

[PMZ]

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?

Come on. Conservatives are only allowed to read approved Internet material certified to be free from science, math, economics, and truth. For their own good their ''leaders'' tell them. It's just better to avoid learning.

 

[PMZ]

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.

I think that history will judge the IPCC as the leading cause of the death of the conservative movement.

 

[PMZ]

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.

The deniers realized a long time ago that they had been proven completely wrong on all significant AGW issues. And that there is simply no science that refutes the IPCC. None.

That's when they decided that all that was left was their political dirty tricks, one being to never engage in meaningful debate but rather keep all conversations about trivia that could, among the ignorant, create some shred of doubt. Innuendo, personal attacks, mumbo jumbo, anything that people like them would fall for, like they did.

As they say, oldest political trick in the book.

The deniers realized a long time ago that they had been proven completely wrong on all significant AGW issues. And that there is simply no science that refutes the IPCC. None.

Which is why Kyoto and Cap & Trade are laws of the land. LOL!

You make it sound like there's a connection.

 

[PMZ]

[MENTION][/MENTION]

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

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

I could care less what they wrote. Real Climate and all the fraudsters have zero credibility based on the proven falsification of data they have been caught doing. You too have zero credibility...you are just another in a long line of sock puppets spewing your propaganda.

Shakun et al has been proven false just like Mann's BS paper. Anytime you can plug any number into an equation and get the same result you have a problem. Unethical asshats like you and they don't care because scientific enquiry isn't your goal....political power and the theft of wealth is....

The gospel according to Fox. Read today by Westwall. Certified free of independent thought and science but cognitive nutrition by big oil.

You make it so easy to be a conservative media entertainer.

 

[mamooth]

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

Some helpful advice for you: Don't drink and post.

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

Drunk, bitter and fudging is no way to go through life, son. It's why your cult is considered a joke by the whole planet. That really must wear on the ol' sanity, knowing that the entire globe considers you to be a laughingstock.

But then, the whole planet must obviously be in on the vast socialist conspiracy. Good work on ferreting that out, all you little denialist Nancy Drews.

 

[Abraham3]

I could care less what they wrote.

That this is the case doesn't surprise me. That you'd admit it in public does.

Real Climate and all the fraudsters have zero credibility based on the proven falsification of data they have been caught doing.

I'm afraid that's complete bullshit. The truth is that you're afraid of debating the facts of the matter - of putting McIntyre's "analysis" up against Marcott et al's explanations. You're afraid because you know you don't actually have the facts on your side. Marcott's statements regarding carbon isotope dating are verifiably correct. His statement's make sense. McIntyre's requires a cornucopia of dishonesty and a large scale conspiracy. Occam says go with Marcott and Shakun.

You too have zero credibility.

Are you accusing me of lying? If so, put it up here and prove it. Otherwise shove it up your ass and jump.

..you are just another in a long line of sock puppets spewing your propaganda.

Again, whose puppet do you believe I am? I want some names. Is this something else you're actually afraid to get into? Maybe one day you'll learn to stop sticking your neck out like this.

Shakun et al has been proven false just like Mann's BS paper.

Show us some PROOF. Not just some other asshole badmouthing his betters. You said "proven". You're supposed to be a professor. You KNOW what that word means. Let's see it.

Unethical asshats like you and they don't care because scientific enquiry isn't your goal....political power and the theft of wealth is....

My goal is protecting the future in which my CHILDREN and THEIR CHILDREN and THEIR CHILDREN will have to live. I couldn't care less about wealth and power. I view you as a direct threat to their well being. You are threatening my children, you stupid asshole.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The deniers realized a long time ago that they had been proven completely wrong on all significant AGW issues. And that there is simply no science that refutes the IPCC. None.

That's when they decided that all that was left was their political dirty tricks, one being to never engage in meaningful debate but rather keep all conversations about trivia that could, among the ignorant, create some shred of doubt. Innuendo, personal attacks, mumbo jumbo, anything that people like them would fall for, like they did.

As they say, oldest political trick in the book.

The deniers realized a long time ago that they had been proven completely wrong on all significant AGW issues. And that there is simply no science that refutes the IPCC. None.

Which is why Kyoto and Cap & Trade are laws of the land. LOL!

You make it sound like there's a connection.

The warmers have proven their case, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Everyone believes them. That's why we voted to cripple our economy to reduce CO2.

 

[tinydancer]

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.

Considering meteorologists can't give an accurate 5 day forecast, why oh why would I believe that some scientist somewhere can predict a 50 year forecast?

I've already lived thru some of the most dire predictions by scientists that never came to fruition.

What did happen to that ice age? MMMMMM............let's see, the rain forest being cut down would mean the end of civilization as we know it..............that other one that Ted Danson was on about. I think it involved the death of the oceans and everything in it.

There have been so many.

And I'm still alive and kicking and bitching at my weatherman who still can't get it freaking right.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

E tu, IPCC? Then fall Warmers!

Komrades, Warmers, Progressives, lend me your Carbon Footprints. I come to bury the decline, not to hide it. The Warming that Carbon does is oft interred in the ocean

 

[PMZ]

The deniers realized a long time ago that they had been proven completely wrong on all significant AGW issues. And that there is simply no science that refutes the IPCC. None.

Which is why Kyoto and Cap & Trade are laws of the land. LOL!

You make it sound like there's a connection.

The warmers have proven their case, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Everyone believes them. That's why we voted to cripple our economy to reduce CO2.

Nobody ever said that science needs everyone to agree about anything. You have the world's permission to set new ignorance records if that's what floats your boat. The vast majority of science developed in the last few decades is absolutely beyond the average man on the street. Always will be. In fact the delta in terms of understanding between experts in every topic and the average person has been increasing for hundreds of years.

Anthropologists tell us that specialization is the foundation of civilization.

Conservatives will tell us that they are entitled to know everything without learning.

That's why civilization is leaving conservatism behind. It's old baggage.

 

[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.

Considering meteorologists can't give an accurate 5 day forecast, why oh why would I believe that some scientist somewhere can predict a 50 year forecast?

I've already lived thru some of the most dire predictions by scientists that never came to fruition.

What did happen to that ice age? MMMMMM............let's see, the rain forest being cut down would mean the end of civilization as we know it..............that other one that Ted Danson was on about. I think it involved the death of the oceans and everything in it.

There have been so many.

And I'm still alive and kicking and bitching at my weatherman who still can't get it freaking right.

No doubt, you must be the smartest person in the world by far if nobody knows anything more or better than you.

At least that's one possibility.