Why do so many people deny climate change

[westwall]

So are all the denailists now going to flipflop as well and pretend they haven't constantly invoked magical natural cycles?

We never backtrack on anything silly person. That falls to you globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruptionbiodiversity ignoramouses, who rebrand everything in 5 year increments because the climate just won't DO WHAT YOU SAY IT WILL!

Here's the wiki (because that is the limit of your reading comprehension it seems) entry into climate oscillations... what you would call a climate cycle

Many oscillations on different time-scales are hypothesized, although the causes may be unknown. They include:
the Ice ages
the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
the El Niño Southern Oscillation
the Pacific decadal oscillation
the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
the Arctic oscillation
the North Atlantic Oscillation
the North Pacific Oscillation
the Hale cycle (may be discernable in climate records; see solar variation)
the 60-year climate cycle recorded in many ancient calendars, as per Scafetta (2010)

Climate oscillation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gosh but you're dumb.. There's a Monty Python song that works quite well for you I think...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqrLgKdrAAI]16-Dennis Moore Song (Robin Hood Theme) (Part 4) (Monty Python's Previous Record Subtitulado) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[westwall]

So are all the denailists now going to flipflop as well and pretend they haven't constantly invoked magical natural cycles?

There are no natural cycles, that's why there is still a mile on ice on top of Chicago.

Change and cycles are not synonymous Todd.

I notice you're avoiding this post like the plague...what's the matter cat got your tongue?

New IPCC Report: Climatologists More Certain Global Warming Is Caused By Humans, Impacts Are Speeding Up | ThinkProgress

 

[PMZ]

Begging the question, why focus on what we cannot change and ignore what we can? Conservative answer. Because action is inconvenient.

 

[westwall]

Begging the question, why focus on what we cannot change and ignore what we can? Conservative answer. Because action is inconvenient.

Inconvenient? No, stupid beyond belief. Trillions squandered in the vain hope that the global temp will be lower by one degree in 100 years is idiocy personified. You're just so desperate for it to happen so you can sit back and suck the life out of the people like the succubus you are.

So sad for you that the Earth changed to cold before you could get your fraud implemented.

 

[PMZ]

Begging the question, why focus on what we cannot change and ignore what we can? Conservative answer. Because action is inconvenient.

Inconvenient? No, stupid beyond belief. Trillions squandered in the vain hope that the global temp will be lower by one degree in 100 years is idiocy personified. You're just so desperate for it to happen so you can sit back and suck the life out of the people like the succubus you are.

So sad for you that the Earth changed to cold before you could get your fraud implemented.

Let's see. Fossil fuels are in limited supply, so we have to switch to sources in unlimited supply. The only question is when. So, no additional cost for that.

We are already spending billions of dollars and hundreds of lost lives every year due to more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW. I assume that we will continue those recoveries and try to mitigate the causes where we can.

In addition, the limited supply and rising global demand and competition for that supply will make FF ever more expensive in cash and environmental damage which translates to more cash. Ask the Gulf states.

So where is this economic boogeyman that lives in your closet?

 

[JoeNormal]

There are no natural cycles, that's why there is still a mile on ice on top of Chicago.

Change and cycles are not synonymous Todd.

I notice you're avoiding this post like the plague...what's the matter cat got your tongue?

New IPCC Report: Climatologists More Certain Global Warming Is Caused By Humans, Impacts Are Speeding Up | ThinkProgress

What do you want us to say about it? That it has no tick marks? That the scale is too compressed to determine whether or not it reflects what still hasn't happened?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Begging the question, why focus on what we cannot change and ignore what we can? Conservative answer. Because action is inconvenient.

Inconvenient? No, stupid beyond belief. Trillions squandered in the vain hope that the global temp will be lower by one degree in 100 years is idiocy personified. You're just so desperate for it to happen so you can sit back and suck the life out of the people like the succubus you are.

So sad for you that the Earth changed to cold before you could get your fraud implemented.

Let's see. Fossil fuels are in limited supply, so we have to switch to sources in unlimited supply. The only question is when. So, no additional cost for that.

We are already spending billions of dollars and hundreds of lost lives every year due to more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW. I assume that we will continue those recoveries and try to mitigate the causes where we can.

In addition, the limited supply and rising global demand and competition for that supply will make FF ever more expensive in cash and environmental damage which translates to more cash. Ask the Gulf states.

So where is this economic boogeyman that lives in your closet?

more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW.

The scientifically certain AGW was supposed to give us record hurricanes the last 5 years.
What happened?

 

[PMZ]

Inconvenient? No, stupid beyond belief. Trillions squandered in the vain hope that the global temp will be lower by one degree in 100 years is idiocy personified. You're just so desperate for it to happen so you can sit back and suck the life out of the people like the succubus you are.

So sad for you that the Earth changed to cold before you could get your fraud implemented.

Let's see. Fossil fuels are in limited supply, so we have to switch to sources in unlimited supply. The only question is when. So, no additional cost for that.

We are already spending billions of dollars and hundreds of lost lives every year due to more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW. I assume that we will continue those recoveries and try to mitigate the causes where we can.

In addition, the limited supply and rising global demand and competition for that supply will make FF ever more expensive in cash and environmental damage which translates to more cash. Ask the Gulf states.

So where is this economic boogeyman that lives in your closet?

more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW.

The scientifically certain AGW was supposed to give us record hurricanes the last 5 years.
What happened?

Do you really belive that humanity can forecast weather five years away?

That's decades away.

 

[westwall]

Begging the question, why focus on what we cannot change and ignore what we can? Conservative answer. Because action is inconvenient.

Inconvenient? No, stupid beyond belief. Trillions squandered in the vain hope that the global temp will be lower by one degree in 100 years is idiocy personified. You're just so desperate for it to happen so you can sit back and suck the life out of the people like the succubus you are.

So sad for you that the Earth changed to cold before you could get your fraud implemented.

Let's see. Fossil fuels are in limited supply, so we have to switch to sources in unlimited supply. The only question is when. So, no additional cost for that.

We are already spending billions of dollars and hundreds of lost lives every year due to more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW. I assume that we will continue those recoveries and try to mitigate the causes where we can.

In addition, the limited supply and rising global demand and competition for that supply will make FF ever more expensive in cash and environmental damage which translates to more cash. Ask the Gulf states.

So where is this economic boogeyman that lives in your closet?

So far fossil fuels can power us for the next century without a problem. In that time the technological level will increase dramatically unless people like you prevent it as you have prevented legitimate scientific debate on the theory of global warming.

Your groups ethics and competency are dubious at best, and you clearly don't care about the environment, nor mankind.

 

[westwall]

Change and cycles are not synonymous Todd.

I notice you're avoiding this post like the plague...what's the matter cat got your tongue?

New IPCC Report: Climatologists More Certain Global Warming Is Caused By Humans, Impacts Are Speeding Up | ThinkProgress

What do you want us to say about it? That it has no tick marks? That the scale is too compressed to determine whether or not it reflects what still hasn't happened?

Ohhh, c'mon Joe.... Are you really that dense? Go back and read the thread so you can try and figure out what it's all about them come back and play with the adults when you are up to speed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's see. Fossil fuels are in limited supply, so we have to switch to sources in unlimited supply. The only question is when. So, no additional cost for that.

We are already spending billions of dollars and hundreds of lost lives every year due to more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW. I assume that we will continue those recoveries and try to mitigate the causes where we can.

In addition, the limited supply and rising global demand and competition for that supply will make FF ever more expensive in cash and environmental damage which translates to more cash. Ask the Gulf states.

So where is this economic boogeyman that lives in your closet?

more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW.

The scientifically certain AGW was supposed to give us record hurricanes the last 5 years.
What happened?

Do you really belive that humanity can forecast weather five years away?

That's decades away.

So the warmers were wrong with their predictions?
That's interesting.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW.

The scientifically certain AGW was supposed to give us record hurricanes the last 5 years.
What happened?

Do you really belive that humanity can forecast weather five years away?

That's decades away.

So the warmers were wrong with their predictions?
That's interesting.

The oceans ate that Warming

Buoy, oh buoy

AGW, it's just not science

 

[PMZ]

more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW.

The scientifically certain AGW was supposed to give us record hurricanes the last 5 years.
What happened?

Do you really belive that humanity can forecast weather five years away?

That's decades away.

So the warmers were wrong with their predictions?
That's interesting.

I don't know. Who made what prediction specifically?

 

[PMZ]

Do you really belive that humanity can forecast weather five years away?

That's decades away.

So the warmers were wrong with their predictions?
That's interesting.

The oceans ate that Warming

Buoy, oh buoy

AGW, it's just not science

Actually it is just science. Just as denial is just politics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you really belive that humanity can forecast weather five years away?

That's decades away.

So the warmers were wrong with their predictions?
That's interesting.

I don't know. Who made what prediction specifically?

All of them. Including you.

more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW.

Unless AGW went away over the last 5 years?

 

[PMZ]

So the warmers were wrong with their predictions?
That's interesting.

I don't know. Who made what prediction specifically?

All of them. Including you.

more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW.

Unless AGW went away over the last 5 years?

I said extreme weather generally. You're talking about specific long range hurricane forecasts.

That’s the claim that you have to support.

 

[PMZ]

You still seem unclear of the certain scientific connection between fossil fuel consumption, atmospheric GHG concentrations, and AGW.

It's not that hard to understand. Only the transitory dynamics are. Which we call weather.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know. Who made what prediction specifically?

All of them. Including you.

more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW.

Unless AGW went away over the last 5 years?

I said extreme weather generally. You're talking about specific long range hurricane forecasts.

That’s the claim that you have to support.

I said extreme weather generally.

Hurricanes aren't extreme weather generally?

You're talking about specific long range hurricane forecasts.

Long range? It was 1-5 years later. And it was wrong. Why?

 

[PMZ]

All of them. Including you.

more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW.

Unless AGW went away over the last 5 years?

I said extreme weather generally. You're talking about specific long range hurricane forecasts.

That’s the claim that you have to support.

I said extreme weather generally.

Hurricanes aren't extreme weather generally?

You're talking about specific long range hurricane forecasts.

Long range? It was 1-5 years later. And it was wrong. Why?

Because nobody is able to make long term weather forecasts, just like I said. Especially those people with zero understanding of science.

 

[itfitzme]

All of them. Including you.

more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW.

Unless AGW went away over the last 5 years?

I said extreme weather generally. You're talking about specific long range hurricane forecasts.

That’s the claim that you have to support.

I said extreme weather generally.

Hurricanes aren't extreme weather generally?

You're talking about specific long range hurricane forecasts.

Long range? It was 1-5 years later. And it was wrong. Why?

"All of them. Including you." over generalizations like this are the very thing that keeps you in the dark about reality, Todd. Intelligent understanding of the world isn't grounded in abstractions and generalizations. It is grounded in specific details.

I haven't seen any actual link to back up this claim that hurricanes were predicted to be more extreme. So, I did a search on the IPCC 2007 report. The page is

10.3.6.3 Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes) - AR4 WGI Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections


The reason, it seems, the the UN convened the IPCC is to have an official clearinghouse for climate science relative to global warming. To pick some individual, out of some 7 billion people, and apply their statement to being indicative of climate science is simple stupidity.

On the other hand, we can turn to an official source

It says;

Earlier studies assessed in the TAR showed that future tropical cyclones would likely become more severe with greater wind speeds and more intense precipitation. More recent modelling experiments have addressed possible changes in tropical cyclones in a warmer climate and generally confirmed those earlier results. These studies fall into two categories: those with model grid resolutions that only roughly represent some aspects of individual tropical cyclones, and those with model grids of sufficient resolution to reasonably simulate individual tropical cyclones.

A synthesis of the model results to date indicates that, for a future warmer climate, coarse-resolution models show few consistent changes in tropical cyclones, with results dependent on the model, although those models do show a consistent increase in precipitation intensity in future storms. Higher-resolution models that more credibly simulate tropical cyclones project some consistent increase in peak wind intensities, but a more consistent projected increase in mean and peak precipitation intensities in future tropical cyclones. There is also a less certain possibility of a decrease in the number of relatively weak tropical cyclones, increased numbers of intense tropical cyclones and a global decrease in total numbers of tropical cyclones.

So, it appears that as of 2007, the word is "Earlier studies ... showed that future tropical cyclones would likely become more severe.... " "A synthesis of the model results to date indicates that, for a future warmer climate, coarse-resolution models show few consistent changes in tropical cyclones,"

That all says that, at best, some indicate higher severity would be LIKELY. Specifically, "likely" equals "> 66% probability". That is, a 2 in 3 probability. Not great odds, but better than 50:50. At worse, a synthesis of models few consistent changes. Taken together, that is a very weak prediction, if any, of an increase in storm intensity.

Taking a look at NOAA, we find

Due to the Federal government shutdown, NOAA.gov and most associated web sites are unavailable. crap!!!

Additionally, we find

"But while the numbers are not contested, their significance most certainly is. Another study considered how this information was being collected, and research suggested that the increase in reported storms was due to improved monitoring rather than more storms actually taking place.

And to cap it off, two recent peer-reviewed studies completely contradict each other. One paper predicts considerably more storms due to global warming. Another paper suggests the exact opposite – that there will be fewer storms in the future."

What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?

This is just a sampling of the wealth of info about global warming and hurricanes. It includes ocean area, storm strength, frequency, and precipitation.

All in all, I find no reason to conclude that there was a strong consensus on predicting future increases in intensity or frequency. This in light of the data that tends to show increased frequency and intensity without claiming statistical significance, depending on the type of measure considered.

I think we would better serve our understanding if we first detail the number of measures before going off and making some general claim that "All of them."