Why do so many people deny climate change

[ScienceRocks]

From my read of the graph provided:

Warming rate leading in to the MWP: +0.045C/century

Warming rate from 1900 till 2000: +0.9C/century

RATIO: 20:1

Still waiting for the research from Westwall that shows the warming rates were similar.

You really are brainwashed or math challenged or both..

Your 0.045degC/century implies that the warming for MWP was only on the order of 0.1degC... That's ludicrous.... And nobody with an investment in the fight is gonna buy that.

From the graph that's been floating around here it looks to me as if the rise time of the MWP was 550 years in length and that over that period temperatures rose 0.25C. If you've got different data, let's see it.

Right around the warming from 1980 to 2000!

 

[PMZ]

There is nothing to deny.

Climate changes constantly and people surely have an effect.

What's not to be believed is that the world will end if the temps are a few degrees warmer.

Where did you get the idea that the world would end? Perhaps you are prone to catastophizing.

All you have to do is listen to the warming wackos.

"Millions will die." " We have to "save the planet" Floods, drought "extreme" weather yada yada etc etc ad nauseum.

Of course you must have scientific evidence to the contrary. Where is it?

 

[PMZ]

All you have to do is listen to the warming wackos.

"Millions will die." " We have to "save the planet" Floods, drought "extreme" weather yada yada etc etc ad nauseum.

"the world will end"

That is your statement.

The population of the planet is 7 Billion. Millions is 1000 times less than a Billion. So, if millions die, that isn't the end of the world.

Flood and extreme drought are also not "the end of the world".

You can count beyond four, right?

I'm considering using that brilliant and compassionate assertion in my footer.. How do you want your name to appear. All lower case??

It is comforting to know that we aren't talking about the end of all life. Just some of it.

No sense in solving such a minor problem.

 

[flacaltenn]

From my read of the graph provided:

Warming rate leading in to the MWP: +0.045C/century

Warming rate from 1900 till 2000: +0.9C/century

RATIO: 20:1

Still waiting for the research from Westwall that shows the warming rates were similar.

You really are brainwashed or math challenged or both..

Your 0.045degC/century implies that the warming for MWP was only on the order of 0.1degC... That's ludicrous.... And nobody with an investment in the fight is gonna buy that.

From the graph that's been floating around here it looks to me as if the rise time of the MWP was 550 years in length and that over that period temperatures rose 0.25C. If you've got different data, let's see it.

I'lll take 500 yrs due to uncertainty in the record and give you 200 yrs UP and 200 yrs DOWN... So the rate you quoted does indeed stink and claims about 0.1degC at the peak... It's a fantasy.. I need at least 0.6degC for a peak --- and personally believe it to be LOCALLY IN PLACES as much as 1.5degC...

Even with your assumptions --- you are waaaaaay the hell off..

 

[bripat9643]

Where did you get the idea that the world would end? Perhaps you are prone to catastophizing.

All you have to do is listen to the warming wackos.

"Millions will die." " We have to "save the planet" Floods, drought "extreme" weather yada yada etc etc ad nauseum.

Of course you must have scientific evidence to the contrary. Where is it?

He doesn't have to produce any contrary evidence, numskull. Why do I have to keep explaining to you that people who make extraordinary claims have to provide extraordinary evidence to support those claims? You know that guy you always see in cartoons carrying the sign that says "the end is near?" You think any of the people walking past him feel obligated to provide evidence that the end is not near? No, they just ignore him and go about their business. Until you and your cult and produce convincing evidence that the end is indeed near, then you deserve the same treatment.

You and your fellow cult members are just a gang of kooks walking around in a daze mumbling "The end is near. The end is near!" Everyone with a brain just ignores you and goes about their business.

 

[Mr. H.]

The U.S. has gone the extra mile in mitigating carbon effluent.

It's time for the rest of the world to pony up. Fuck the EPA, private enterprise in this country has affected the lowest C02 emissions in 20 years.

Where's the International Carbon Credit Program? The rest of the world owes us fucking dividends.

 

[SSDD]

From my read of the graph provided:

Warming rate leading in to the MWP: +0.045C/century

Warming rate from 1900 till 2000: +0.9C/century

RATIO: 20:1

Still waiting for the research from Westwall that shows the warming rates were similar.

You really are brainwashed or math challenged or both..

Your 0.045degC/century implies that the warming for MWP was only on the order of 0.1degC... That's ludicrous.... And nobody with an investment in the fight is gonna buy that.

From the graph that's been floating around here it looks to me as if the rise time of the MWP was 550 years in length and that over that period temperatures rose 0.25C. If you've got different data, let's see it.

Compare the graph "that's been floating around here" to the graph that the IPCC used prior to mann's fraud. This graph reflects the actual published literature rather than the discredited claims of one man and the resulting papers that are based and dependent upon his work being right.

 

[SSDD]

Where did you get the idea that the world would end? Perhaps you are prone to catastophizing.

All you have to do is listen to the warming wackos.

"Millions will die." " We have to "save the planet" Floods, drought "extreme" weather yada yada etc etc ad nauseum.

Of course you must have scientific evidence to the contrary. Where is it?

One only need look back to the MWP, or the RWP to see that under the warming you claim will kill us all mankind actually flourished. History tells us exactly what to expect.

 

[Spiderman]

Where did you get the idea that the world would end? Perhaps you are prone to catastophizing.

All you have to do is listen to the warming wackos.

"Millions will die." " We have to "save the planet" Floods, drought "extreme" weather yada yada etc etc ad nauseum.

"the world will end"

That is your statement.

The population of the planet is 7 Billion. Millions is 1000 times less than a Billion. So, if millions die, that isn't the end of the world.

Flood and extreme drought are also not "the end of the world".

You can count beyond four, right?

Excuse the fuck out of me Mr Literal.

BTW those that live by literals shouldn't be questioning the intelligence of anyone.

 

[Spiderman]

Where did you get the idea that the world would end? Perhaps you are prone to catastophizing.

All you have to do is listen to the warming wackos.

"Millions will die." " We have to "save the planet" Floods, drought "extreme" weather yada yada etc etc ad nauseum.

Of course you must have scientific evidence to the contrary. Where is it?

You have yet to prove that millions will die if the earth is a couple degrees warmer.

 

[SSDD]

All you have to do is listen to the warming wackos.

"Millions will die." " We have to "save the planet" Floods, drought "extreme" weather yada yada etc etc ad nauseum.

Of course you must have scientific evidence to the contrary. Where is it?

You have yet to prove that millions will die if the earth is a couple degrees warmer.

At this point he hasn't even proven that 1 will die over a temperature increase.

 

[mamooth]

Compare the graph "that's been floating around here" to the graph that the IPCC used prior to mann's fraud.

It's been pointed out to you before how you're spouting a crazy falsehood there. Meaning you can't use ignorance as an excuse. You're deliberately lying now.

Nobody except members of the RightWingDingDong cult try to claim anymore that the MWP was warmer than today, because it's such a crazy claim, one so overwhelmingly disproved by the data. If you see someone make such a claim, it's a red flag that you're dealing with a person who regards loyalty to a political cult as being more important than honesty.

 

[PMZ]

Compare the graph "that's been floating around here" to the graph that the IPCC used prior to mann's fraud.

It's been pointed out to you before how you're spouting a crazy falsehood there. Meaning you can't use ignorance as an excuse. You're deliberately lying now.

Nobody except members of the RightWingDingDong cult try to claim anymore that the MWP was warmer than today, because it's such a crazy claim, one so overwhelmingly disproved by the data. If you see someone make such a claim, it's a red flag that you're dealing with a person who regards loyalty to a political cult as being more important than honesty.

Good point. The ignorant excuse has been removed from the table. Day after day after day.

 

[itfitzme]

1 million is 1000 times less than 1 billion.

Nope. 0 is "1 times less" than 1 billion.

1 million is one/thousandth of 1 billion.

Sorry, your stupid shit make me laugh, not whine.

What the f are you talking about? Do you have any idea? Cuz no one else does

Unless you're talking about a negative number, nothing is more than 1 times less than. Idiot.

You are playing stupid, ignorant word games.

 

[itfitzme]

All you have to do is listen to the warming wackos.

"Millions will die." " We have to "save the planet" Floods, drought "extreme" weather yada yada etc etc ad nauseum.

"the world will end"

That is your statement.

The population of the planet is 7 Billion. Millions is 1000 times less than a Billion. So, if millions die, that isn't the end of the world.

Flood and extreme drought are also not "the end of the world".

You can count beyond four, right?

Excuse the fuck out of me Mr Literal.

BTW those that live by literals shouldn't be questioning the intelligence of anyone.

Well, you are exaggerating someone else's statements. If you want to be figurative, and claim that the "world is going to end", that's fine. I think we can follow it. But you are not being figurative, you are representing someone else's statements. You are claiming that someone else said "the end of the world".

You are creating a strawman, attributing it to someone else, then arguing against it.

 

[itfitzme]

All you have to do is listen to the warming wackos.

"Millions will die." " We have to "save the planet" Floods, drought "extreme" weather yada yada etc etc ad nauseum.

"the world will end"

That is your statement.

The population of the planet is 7 Billion. Millions is 1000 times less than a Billion. So, if millions die, that isn't the end of the world.

Flood and extreme drought are also not "the end of the world".

You can count beyond four, right?

I'm considering using that brilliant and compassionate assertion in my footer.. How do you want your name to appear. All lower case??

Another example of creating a strawman and presenting things out of context.

It is exactly what makes you a disingenuous asshole. Everyone knows that the conversation is with regard to Spiderman's misrepresentation, exaggerating and catastrophizing by claiming someone said, "the end of the world."

It becomes pretty obvious who lies, misrepresents, and exaggerates.

That would be you.

 

[Spiderman]

"the world will end"

That is your statement.

The population of the planet is 7 Billion. Millions is 1000 times less than a Billion. So, if millions die, that isn't the end of the world.

Flood and extreme drought are also not "the end of the world".

You can count beyond four, right?

Excuse the fuck out of me Mr Literal.

BTW those that live by literals shouldn't be questioning the intelligence of anyone.

Well, you are exaggerating someone else's statements. If you want to be figurative, and claim that the "world is going to end", that's fine. I think we can follow it. But you are not being figurative, you are representing someone else's statements. You are claiming that someone else said "the end of the world".

You are creating a strawman, attributing it to someone else, then arguing against it.

To what someone did I attribute any statements?

I used a vague group of people, the warming wackos. That alone should have been a clue that I was not being literal. If I wanted to quote someone I would not have used such an inclusive and therefore ambiguous term.

As I said those who live by literals should not be questioning the intelligence of others

 

[itfitzme]

You really are brainwashed or math challenged or both..

Your 0.045degC/century implies that the warming for MWP was only on the order of 0.1degC... That's ludicrous.... And nobody with an investment in the fight is gonna buy that.

From the graph that's been floating around here it looks to me as if the rise time of the MWP was 550 years in length and that over that period temperatures rose 0.25C. If you've got different data, let's see it.

Compare the graph "that's been floating around here" to the graph that the IPCC used prior to mann's fraud. This graph reflects the actual published literature rather than the discredited claims of one man and the resulting papers that are based and dependent upon his work being right.

You still haven't figured out that the second law of thermo is a statistical property?

You have absolutely no credibility as long as you keep presenting this ignorance.

 

[itfitzme]

Excuse the fuck out of me Mr Literal.

BTW those that live by literals shouldn't be questioning the intelligence of anyone.

Well, you are exaggerating someone else's statements. If you want to be figurative, and claim that the "world is going to end", that's fine. I think we can follow it. But you are not being figurative, you are representing someone else's statements. You are claiming that someone else said "the end of the world".

You are creating a strawman, attributing it to someone else, then arguing against it.

To what someone did I attribute any statements?

I used a vague group of people, the warming wackos. That alone should have been a clue that I was not being literal. If I wanted to quote someone I would not have used such an inclusive and therefore ambiguous term.

As I said those who live by literals should not be questioning the intelligence of others

If you don't know who you were attributing it to the you have some real serious issues.

 

[Spiderman]

Well, you are exaggerating someone else's statements. If you want to be figurative, and claim that the "world is going to end", that's fine. I think we can follow it. But you are not being figurative, you are representing someone else's statements. You are claiming that someone else said "the end of the world".

You are creating a strawman, attributing it to someone else, then arguing against it.

To what someone did I attribute any statements?

I used a vague group of people, the warming wackos. That alone should have been a clue that I was not being literal. If I wanted to quote someone I would not have used such an inclusive and therefore ambiguous term.

As I said those who live by literals should not be questioning the intelligence of others

If you don't know who you were attributing it to the you have some real serious issues.

Why don't you tell me who I attributed it to then. Other than a very vague and amorphous group of wackos that is.