Why do so many people deny climate change

[Abraham3]

Yes, unlike you we DO learn. We have learned many things about how you clowns alter data to fit your pre-conceived ideas. How you block papers that refute your "theories". How you threaten editors who don't bow down to the climate mafia... yes, we have learned a lot. And we are winning the argument because of it.

Face it. We enjoy debate and welcome opposing viewpoints You don't. It's as simple as that. YOU'RE the LUDDITES here.

We are Luddites (according to you, at least) but you deny science.

I would have said that Luddites deny science.

What does "The Science is Settled" mean to you?

It means that 97% of active climate scientists accept AGW as a valid theory. They hold that the primary cause of the last 150 years' global warming has been human GHG emissions. They (the one's with the real PhDs doing real research for a living) reject what you claim to believe and accept what you claim to reject.

Where does that put you?

 

[westwall]

Facts are tough on the conservative ego. Every one is like a slap on the face. You'd think that they'd learn.

Yes, unlike you we DO learn. We have learned many things about how you clowns alter data to fit your pre-conceived ideas. How you block papers that refute your "theories". How you threaten editors who don't bow down to the climate mafia... yes, we have learned a lot. And we are winning the argument because of it.

Face it. We enjoy debate and welcome opposing viewpoints You don't. It's as simple as that. YOU'RE the LUDDITES here.

Show us something you have learned.

I have learned that PmsMZ is not conversant with the historical record of this planet. He seems to think that there was no life on this planet 500 million years ago.

 

[westwall]

We are Luddites (according to you, at least) but you deny science.

I would have said that Luddites deny science.

What does "The Science is Settled" mean to you?

It means that 97% of active climate scientists accept AGW as a valid theory. They hold that the primary cause of the last 150 years' global warming has been human GHG emissions. They (the one's with the real PhDs doing real research for a living) reject what you claim to believe and accept what you claim to reject.

Where does that put you?

With the other 4.5 BILLION years of Earths history when the warming and cooling that occurred was somehow accomplished without mans paltry little CO2 addition. I have yet to see one iota of empirical data to support those 74 "scientists" and their particular viewpoint.

 

[itfitzme]

Yes, unlike you we DO learn. We have learned many things about how you clowns alter data to fit your pre-conceived ideas. How you block papers that refute your "theories". How you threaten editors who don't bow down to the climate mafia... yes, we have learned a lot. And we are winning the argument because of it.

Face it. We enjoy debate and welcome opposing viewpoints You don't. It's as simple as that. YOU'RE the LUDDITES here.

Show us something you have learned.

I have learned that PmsMZ is not conversant with the historical record of this planet. He seems to think that there was no life on this planet 500 million years ago.

So, as usual, you can't actually present and science on anything.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

AGW climate crusader sea ice hoax fAiL >>>>>

It use to go nearly all the way to Alaska.

And 1980

This is the average extent for.

You are doing the same moronic cherry picking presentation. As if last year is significant.

Clearly you have decided to be ignorant and ignore variability.

Oh, look, 2013 isn't shit compared to 2006 and before.

And in terms of the complete record of the extent, it is well below the average.

It would be nice if the 2013 rebound meant something long term.

Unfortunately, surface melting has it as a summer lake

And simple extent is really not the whole story. Thickness is all so important. Nasa and the NOAA are closed.

It use to go nearly all the way to Alaska.

It used to go half across Illinois.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Show us something you have learned.

I have learned that PmsMZ is not conversant with the historical record of this planet. He seems to think that there was no life on this planet 500 million years ago.

So, as usual, you can't actually present and science on anything.

Wiki, PMZ's favorite source, says he's wrong.

In its 4.6 billion years circling the sun, the Earth has harbored an increasing diversity of life forms:
for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life;
for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
for the last 475 million years, land plants;
for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
for the last 200 million years, mammals;
for the last 150 million years, birds;
for the last 130 million years, flowers;
for the last 60 million years, the primates,
for the last 20 million years, the family Hominidae (great apes);
for the last 2.5 million years, the genus Homo (human predecessors);
for the last 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans.

Periodic extinctions have temporarily reduced diversity, eliminating:
2.4 billion years ago, many obligate anaerobes, in the oxygen catastrophe;
252 million years ago, the trilobites, in the Permian–Triassic extinction event;
66 million years ago, the pterosaurs and nonavian dinosaurs, in the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event.

Dates are approximate.

Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[itfitzme]

AGW climate crusader sea ice hoax fAiL >>>>>

It use to go nearly all the way to Alaska.

And 1980

This is the average extent for.

You are doing the same moronic cherry picking presentation. As if last year is significant.

Clearly you have decided to be ignorant and ignore variability.

Oh, look, 2013 isn't shit compared to 2006 and before.

And in terms of the complete record of the extent, it is well below the average.

It would be nice if the 2013 rebound meant something long term.

Unfortunately, surface melting has it as a summer lake

And simple extent is really not the whole story. Thickness is all so important. Nasa and the NOAA are closed.

It use to go nearly all the way to Alaska.

It used to go half across Illinois.

That would be warming. And since 1910, it has been warming even more, faster than ever, faster than the natural rate. That's the point.

So, what was the last time the Arctic Ice Cap melted?

 

[kiwina]

There are two or three reasons why people "do not accept" climiate change. First what they reject is the concet that it is man coused and man can stop it. Give your brain a chance, woud you, for a change?
secound, many people live in a real world and not the make believe world of half baked science and academic arrogance . People, like farmers, fishermen, can see with their own two eyes that some years are wormer then others and some are colder then others and the same is true with decades, and centuries. The see the cycles of time and weather. They relize that the system is a lot biger then their little lab and a lot of things effect weather.
third. they reconize Tom Foolery when they hear it and see no reason to incurage fools and fat headed idots.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It use to go nearly all the way to Alaska.

And 1980

This is the average extent for.

You are doing the same moronic cherry picking presentation. As if last year is significant.

Clearly you have decided to be ignorant and ignore variability.

Oh, look, 2013 isn't shit compared to 2006 and before.

And in terms of the complete record of the extent, it is well below the average.

It would be nice if the 2013 rebound meant something long term.

Unfortunately, surface melting has it as a summer lake

And simple extent is really not the whole story. Thickness is all so important. Nasa and the NOAA are closed.

It use to go nearly all the way to Alaska.

It used to go half across Illinois.

That would be warming. And since 1910, it has been warming even more, faster than ever, faster than the natural rate. That's the point.

So, what was the last time the Arctic Ice Cap melted?

Yes, it warmed. Somehow we survived.

Faster than the natural rate?
How much faster than the "natural rate"?

So, what was the last time the Arctic Ice Cap melted?

The last time CO2 made the oceans boil.

 

[itfitzme]

It use to go nearly all the way to Alaska.

It used to go half across Illinois.

That would be warming. And since 1910, it has been warming even more, faster than ever, faster than the natural rate. That's the point.

So, what was the last time the Arctic Ice Cap melted?

Yes, it warmed. Somehow we survived.

Faster than the natural rate?
How much faster than the "natural rate"?

So, what was the last time the Arctic Ice Cap melted?

The last time CO2 made the oceans boil.

That's right, CO2 has never been this high.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That would be warming. And since 1910, it has been warming even more, faster than ever, faster than the natural rate. That's the point.

So, what was the last time the Arctic Ice Cap melted?

Yes, it warmed. Somehow we survived.

Faster than the natural rate?
How much faster than the "natural rate"?

So, what was the last time the Arctic Ice Cap melted?

The last time CO2 made the oceans boil.

That's right, CO2 has never been this high.

I'm pretty sure CO2 has been higher before.

How much faster than the "natural rate"?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

All of which may be true, but the amount of money put into discrediting climate change from special interests (i.e. the coal industry in particular) has brain washed even those of average intelligence and they believe for some unknown reason climate change data is faked as part of a liberal conspiracy.

Lincoln was correct, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

 

[Abraham3]

Yes, it warmed. Somehow we survived.

Faster than the natural rate?
How much faster than the "natural rate"?

So, what was the last time the Arctic Ice Cap melted?

The last time CO2 made the oceans boil.

That's right, CO2 has never been this high.

I'm pretty sure CO2 has been higher before.

How much faster than the "natural rate"?

Todd,

CO2 may have been higher at some point in the past, but if it was, it was more than 800,000 years ago and long, long, long before the first hint of human civilization. it was likely before the appearance of homo sapiens and probably neanderthal as well.

Additionally, as I think PMZ was trying to elicit from you, such changes in the past have come on with glacial slowness, over tens of thousands of years. The really unprecedented feature of the current situation is the rate at which CO2 and temperatures have risen. The world has not seen such a change since the KT boundary event (and that was 65 million years ago).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's right, CO2 has never been this high.

I'm pretty sure CO2 has been higher before.

How much faster than the "natural rate"?

Todd,

CO2 may have been higher at some point in the past, but if it was, it was more than 800,000 years ago and long, long, long before the first hint of human civilization. it was likely before the appearance of homo sapiens and probably neanderthal as well.

Additionally, as I think PMZ was trying to elicit from you, such changes in the past have come on with glacial slowness, over tens of thousands of years. The really unprecedented feature of the current situation is the rate at which CO2 and temperatures have risen. The world has not seen such a change since the KT boundary event (and that was 65 million years ago).

Additionally, as I think PMZ was trying to elicit from you, such changes in the past have come on with glacial slowness

You've got your warmers mixed up.

Help itfitzme out, how much faster than the "natural rate"?

 

[westwall]

It use to go nearly all the way to Alaska.

And 1980

This is the average extent for.

You are doing the same moronic cherry picking presentation. As if last year is significant.

Clearly you have decided to be ignorant and ignore variability.

Oh, look, 2013 isn't shit compared to 2006 and before.

And in terms of the complete record of the extent, it is well below the average.

It would be nice if the 2013 rebound meant something long term.

Unfortunately, surface melting has it as a summer lake

And simple extent is really not the whole story. Thickness is all so important. Nasa and the NOAA are closed.

It use to go nearly all the way to Alaska.

It used to go half across Illinois.

That would be warming. And since 1910, it has been warming even more, faster than ever, faster than the natural rate. That's the point.

So, what was the last time the Arctic Ice Cap melted?

Aaaaaaannnnnnnd, the point is you can't prove one bit of it. The global temp today is the same as it was in 1995 I think it was. Can't access the NOAA site as they are having a hissy fit.

 

[westwall]

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.

All of which may be true, but the amount of money put into discrediting climate change from special interests (i.e. the coal industry in particular) has brain washed even those of average intelligence and they believe for some unknown reason climate change data is faked as part of a liberal conspiracy.

Lincoln was correct, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

The climate fraudsters have received ORDERS of magnitude more money than the sceptic side so that argument is simply ridiculous. Plus they have had free reign with the media who actively support them. For years it was impossible to hear a sceptic talk in the MSM. As usual wry is full of shit.


The reason why the sceptics are winning is because the science is on OUR side and not yours. If it were on yours there would be no need to squelch papers from dissenters, there would be no need to threaten to imprison and murder sceptics.

No, you are losing because you are lying through your teeth and the public knows it now.

 

[westwall]

That's right, CO2 has never been this high.

I'm pretty sure CO2 has been higher before.

How much faster than the "natural rate"?

Todd,

CO2 may have been higher at some point in the past, but if it was, it was more than 800,000 years ago and long, long, long before the first hint of human civilization. it was likely before the appearance of homo sapiens and probably neanderthal as well.

Additionally, as I think PMZ was trying to elicit from you, such changes in the past have come on with glacial slowness, over tens of thousands of years. The really unprecedented feature of the current situation is the rate at which CO2 and temperatures have risen. The world has not seen such a change since the KT boundary event (and that was 65 million years ago).

Peer reviewed studies show the rate of change during the MWP and RWP were just as dramatic. Newer research is showing the HTM was likewise rapid so once again your assertions are untrue...



Medieval Warm Period thesis contradicts the unprecedented warming

However, one must mention that, already the first half of the statement, that about the unprecedented warming, elicits significant question marks in many climate scientists and even at many historians. Wasn’t there something like the medieval warm period? And in the opinion of many scientists, wasn’t it warmer during this period than today?

The idea of a medieval warm period was formulated for the first time in 1965 by the English climatologist Hubert H. Lamb [1]. Lamb, who founded the UK Climate Research Unit (CRU) in 1971, saw the peak of the warming period from 1000 to 1300, i.e. in the High Middle Ages. He estimated that temperatures then were 1-2 ° C above the normal period of 1931-1960. In the high North, it was even up to 4 degrees warmer. The regular voyages of the Vikings between Iceland and Greenland were rarely hindered by ice, and many burial places of the Vikings in Greenland still lie in the permafrost.

Glaciers were smaller than today

Also the global retreat of glaciers that occurred in the period between about 900 to 1300 [2] speaks for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. An interesting detail is that many glaciers pulling back since 1850 reveal plant remnants from the Middle Ages, which is a clear proof that the extent of the glaciers at that time was lower than today [3].

Furthermore, historical traditions show evidence of unusual warmth at this time. Years around 1180 brought the warmest winter decade ever known. In January 1186/87, the trees were in bloom near Strasbourg. And even earlier you come across a longer heat phase, roughly between 1021 and 1040. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the river Rhine. In 1135, the Danube flow was so low that people could cross it on foot. This fact has been exploited to create foundation stones for the bridge in Regensburg this year [4].

Clear evidence of the warm phase of the Middle Ages can also be found in the limits of crop cultivation. The treeline in the Alps climbed to 2000 meters, higher than current levels are [5]. Winery was possible in Germany at the Rhine and Mosel up to 200 meters above the present limits, in Pomerania, East Prussia, England and southern Scotland, and in southern Norway, therefore, much farther north than is the case today [6]. On the basis of pollen record there is evidence that during the Middle Ages, right up to Trondheim in Norway, wheat was grown and until nearly the 70th parallel/latitude barley was cultivated[4]. In many parts of the UK arable land reached heights that were never reached again later.



Google Übersetzer

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

All of which may be true, but the amount of money put into discrediting climate change from special interests (i.e. the coal industry in particular) has brain washed even those of average intelligence and they believe for some unknown reason climate change data is faked as part of a liberal conspiracy.

Lincoln was correct, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

The climate fraudsters have received ORDERS of magnitude more money than the sceptic side so that argument is simply ridiculous. Plus they have had free reign with the media who actively support them. For years it was impossible to hear a sceptic talk in the MSM. As usual wry is full of shit.


The reason why the sceptics are winning is because the science is on OUR side and not yours. If it were on yours there would be no need to squelch papers from dissenters, there would be no need to threaten to imprison and murder sceptics.

No, you are losing because you are lying through your teeth and the public knows it now.

Come on, the science is over, Al Gore said so.

Just give up your freedoms and your trillions, we know best.
We'll take it from here.

 

[percysunshine]

Game ... Set ... Match

"Dear Members of the Harvard Community,"

"Climate change represents one of the world’s most consequential challenges. I very much respect the concern and commitment shown by the many members of our community who are working to confront this problem. I, as well as members of our Corporation Committee on Shareholder Responsibility, have benefited from a number of conversations in recent months with students who advocate divestment from fossil fuel companies. While I share their belief in the importance of addressing climate change, I do not believe, nor do my colleagues on the Corporation, that university divestment from the fossil fuel industry is warranted or wise."


Fossil Fuel Divestment Statement | Harvard University

 

[flacaltenn]

That would be warming. And since 1910, it has been warming even more, faster than ever, faster than the natural rate. That's the point.

So, what was the last time the Arctic Ice Cap melted?

Yes, it warmed. Somehow we survived.

Faster than the natural rate?
How much faster than the "natural rate"?

So, what was the last time the Arctic Ice Cap melted?

The last time CO2 made the oceans boil.

That's right, CO2 has never been this high.

You're only looking at a series of ice ages there.. Not typical of the 500Mill yrs of life on this planet PRECEEDING those ice ages. And what happens when the earth is a frozen ball of ICE??? CO2 gets locked up under MILES of glacial ice.. You're a moron for not understanding that and relying on the internet phoneys to put words in your mouth.. Go pull a CO2 chart that goes back to the dinosaurs ---- if you can handle the truth...



You're very annoying --- but somehow, for some reason, I still can suffer your act. Must be because you're really an actor just studying for the role of a scientist.. You're like the Jack Nicholas of science phoneys. So awful in character -- you just gotta love him..