An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers

[westwall]

Hey Boston1 I'm still waiting for you to post some empirical evidence. Do you know what empirical means? Cue Jeopardy music.....

 

[IanC]

These jokers come I here and insult us for not believing their heroes.

Hopefully when they leave again they have a little anxiety that they don't know quite as much as they think they did.

 

[SSDD]

Hey Boston1 I'm still waiting for you to post some empirical evidence. Do you know what empirical means? Cue Jeopardy music.....

I gave him a definition....

 

[Boston1]

LOL you guys are sooooo predictable.

There's a study about you guys if anyone cares to read it

PDF
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

Quote

NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Stephan Lewandowsky University of Western Australia

Klaus Oberauer
University of Zurich and University of Western Australia

Gilles Gignac University of Western Australia

(in press, Psychological Science)

Abstract

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N

> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ≃ .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

End Quote

So you clowns want empirical evidence

No problem LOL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL you guys are sooooo predictable.

There's a study about you guys if anyone cares to read it

PDF
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

Quote

NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Stephan Lewandowsky University of Western Australia

Klaus Oberauer
University of Zurich and University of Western Australia

Gilles Gignac University of Western Australia

(in press, Psychological Science)

Abstract

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N

> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ≃ .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

End Quote

So you clowns want empirical evidence

No problem LOL

How many trillions should we waste on windmills...to reduce temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees?

 

[westwall]

LOL you guys are sooooo predictable.

There's a study about you guys if anyone cares to read it

PDF
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

Quote

NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Stephan Lewandowsky University of Western Australia

Klaus Oberauer
University of Zurich and University of Western Australia

Gilles Gignac University of Western Australia

(in press, Psychological Science)

Abstract

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N

> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ≃ .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

End Quote

So you clowns want empirical evidence

No problem LOL

That is what is known as a non sequitur silly boy. Soooooo...once again. Please provide us with some empirical evidence to support your bullshit. It's really that simple. I think you're just too stupid to even come up with a basic one.

 

[SSDD]

So you clowns want empirical evidence

No problem LOL

So that passes for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his so called greenhouse gas emissions?

It is certainly evidence that the climate is changing...but then, no one is arguing that the climate is not changing. The climate is always changing...warming...cooling...one or the other. That graph is not, evidence of any sort that man is in any way responsible.

Your graph takes the typical warmist short view. Warmers love to take the short view and claim that the climate today is unprecedented....if one takes a longer view, however, one sees that the climate today is in no way unusual, unprecedented, or disturbing. Your graph goes back to 1750 and paints a disturbing picture to someone who might not think to take a longer view....looking back to 1750 is half an eye blink in geological history. Here, take a look at a more comprehensive picture of the climate....instead of looking back two and a half centuries, look back 10,000 years. This is data from the Greenland GISP2 ice core. As you can see
your graph deliberately starts at a very cold period in time in an effort to make the present warming appear much more substantial than it is. By taking a longer look back, we see that the present warming is insignificant in comparison to even the Medieval warming which was just a bit warmer than the present...the Roman warming was considerably warmer, and the Minoan warming was even warmer than that.

As you can see, most of the past 10,000 years has been considerably warmer than the present. That being the case, one must ask why you believe the slight warming we have seen over the past 100 years is man made considering the very wide span of natural variability? How do you suppose that graph of yours is evidence that man is altering the global climate

And just so you don't fall for the false claim that the warm periods reflected in this graph were local and affected only small parts of the northern hemisphere, allow me to provide you with a graph derived from the Vostok ice cores...taken in Vostok, Antarctica...which show the same signatures in the past 10,000 years but continue the long view back over 400,000 years. As you can see, in the past half a million years, there have been quite a few times when temperatures have been warmer than the present.

I will say, that it is always interesting to see what passes, in your minds, for evidence that mankind is altering the global climate with his so called greenhouse gas emissions. I can only guess that you have never bothered to take a longer look back in history...(part of that maintaining your level of ignorance thing)...and as such have no idea as to the actual range of natural variability on this planet with regard to the temperature. It becomes more clear all the time how low the threshold of proof is within the mind of those who believe the AGW claims. You see a graph showing a very short period in geological time which shows a modest temperature rise and to you that is proof of mankind altering the global climate. Tell me, does seeing a longer view of the temperature history alter your position, or do you still believe your knowledge is superior and that mankind is altering the global climate....that the present climate is unprecedented....that catastrophe is on its way? Can you maintain your present level of ignorance having seen a longer view of the temperature of planet earth? Since you have looked this far, lets go all the way...here is what is believed to be the best reconstruction available of the temperature history of earth. As you can see, compared to most of the history of the earth....the present climate is positively cold. Now, taking a look at this very long view, if you had to make a prediction...even if mankind did not exist on the planet...which way do you think the temperature trend would be going for the next 40 to 60 million years?

 

[Boston1]

LOL you guys are sooooo predictable.

There's a study about you guys if anyone cares to read it

PDF
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

Quote

NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Stephan Lewandowsky University of Western Australia

Klaus Oberauer
University of Zurich and University of Western Australia

Gilles Gignac University of Western Australia

(in press, Psychological Science)

Abstract

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N

> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ≃ .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

End Quote

So you clowns want empirical evidence

No problem LOL

That is what is known as a non sequitur silly boy. Soooooo...once again. Please provide us with some empirical evidence to support your bullshit. It's really that simple. I think you're just too stupid to even come up with a basic one.

LOL, another perfect example

Lets review

Quote
a patient suffering of lateral neglect won't "see" one side of the world, won't draw it, and won't touch it. When asked why, the patient will answer that it was not important or that there was no reason to consider it; never that he or she couldn't perceive it. Anosognosia is what inspired Dunning and Kruger for the effect that takes their name: the "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome". It affects people who grossly overestimate their abilities or their knowledge. But Dunning and Kruger have been often misinterpreted by defining their effect as "stupid people don't realize that they are stupid". No, it is a much wider effect and it hits intelligent people in particular. It is typical of very intelligent people to be unable to realize their limits.


This kind of anosognosia is especially bad with science, in particular climate science. The Web is infested with people who suffer of a form of climate science neglect syndrome. They are not stupid; on the contrary, some of them they can display considerable creativity and inventive to support the idea that climate is not changing, or that change is not caused by human activity, or that everything is an evil plot to enslave humankind. Their problem is that they completely fail to perceive the complexity of the subject. They can't see that climate science is not about whether grapes were cultivated in England during the Middle Ages or about the letters that some scientists wrote to each other more than 10 years ago. You just can't convince them that their vision of the world is limited. The same is true with a variety of conspiracy theories based on failing to understand the complexity of the subject: chemtrails, cold fusion, abiotic oil, and many more.


Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.

End Quote

So lets try showing you that again ;--)

So in answer to SSDO, what could the cause of this radical departure of from the norm be ???? its either you start dreaming up all kinds of mythical monsters or you accept that the departure is directly attributable to fossil fuels.

So now whats your excuse ;--)

PS
Love all the groovy little graphs that don't have the resolution to accurately depict either the rate or the effect of todays alterations in the atmospheric chemistry

 

[SSDD]

[

So in answer to SSDO, what could the cause of this radical departure of from the norm be ???? its either you start dreaming up all kinds of mythical monsters or you accept that the departure is directly attributable to fossil fuels.

Being cooler than the norm for the past 10,000 years is a departure from the norm, but as your short view graph shows, we are moving in the direction of the norm so I don't see cause for alarm. This graph shows me that natural variability covers a very large range...so again, how about some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that MANKIND is altering the global climate with his so called greenhouse gas emissions. A graph showing a changing temperature would only be evidence that man is causing the change to a cretin...are you a cretin fooled by anything that even looks "science"?

By the way...did you notice how large the uncertainty bars get the further back in your graph you go...acording to your graph...1750 may have been nearly as warm as today.

 

[westwall]

LOL you guys are sooooo predictable.

There's a study about you guys if anyone cares to read it

PDF
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

Quote

NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Stephan Lewandowsky University of Western Australia

Klaus Oberauer
University of Zurich and University of Western Australia

Gilles Gignac University of Western Australia

(in press, Psychological Science)

Abstract

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N

> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ≃ .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

End Quote

So you clowns want empirical evidence

No problem LOL

That is what is known as a non sequitur silly boy. Soooooo...once again. Please provide us with some empirical evidence to support your bullshit. It's really that simple. I think you're just too stupid to even come up with a basic one.

LOL, another perfect example

Lets review

Quote
a patient suffering of lateral neglect won't "see" one side of the world, won't draw it, and won't touch it. When asked why, the patient will answer that it was not important or that there was no reason to consider it; never that he or she couldn't perceive it. Anosognosia is what inspired Dunning and Kruger for the effect that takes their name: the "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome". It affects people who grossly overestimate their abilities or their knowledge. But Dunning and Kruger have been often misinterpreted by defining their effect as "stupid people don't realize that they are stupid". No, it is a much wider effect and it hits intelligent people in particular. It is typical of very intelligent people to be unable to realize their limits.


This kind of anosognosia is especially bad with science, in particular climate science. The Web is infested with people who suffer of a form of climate science neglect syndrome. They are not stupid; on the contrary, some of them they can display considerable creativity and inventive to support the idea that climate is not changing, or that change is not caused by human activity, or that everything is an evil plot to enslave humankind. Their problem is that they completely fail to perceive the complexity of the subject. They can't see that climate science is not about whether grapes were cultivated in England during the Middle Ages or about the letters that some scientists wrote to each other more than 10 years ago. You just can't convince them that their vision of the world is limited. The same is true with a variety of conspiracy theories based on failing to understand the complexity of the subject: chemtrails, cold fusion, abiotic oil, and many more.


Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.

End Quote

So lets try showing you that again ;--)

So in answer to SSDO, what could the cause of this radical departure of from the norm be ???? its either you start dreaming up all kinds of mythical monsters or you accept that the departure is directly attributable to fossil fuels.

So now whats your excuse ;--)

PS
Love all the groovy little graphs that don't have the resolution to accurately depict either the rate or the effect of todays alterations in the atmospheric chemistry

You blabber a LOT. I am still waiting for some empirical evidence. I hear you were provided with a definition of what that means. Hop to it junior.

 

[Boston1]

[

So in answer to SSDO, what could the cause of this radical departure of from the norm be ???? its either you start dreaming up all kinds of mythical monsters or you accept that the departure is directly attributable to fossil fuels.

Being cooler than the norm for the past 10,000 years is a departure from the norm, but as your short view graph shows, we are moving in the direction of the norm so I don't see cause for alarm. This graph shows me that natural variability covers a very large range...so again, how about some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that MANKIND is altering the global climate with his so called greenhouse gas emissions. A graph showing a changing temperature would only be evidence that man is causing the change to a cretin...are you a cretin fooled by anything that even looks "sciency"?

LOL your funny.

Why are you cherry picking one data set ;--)

Could it be that by only considering ONE data set instead of ALL the data you are able to maintain your ignorance ;--)

Also I can't help but notice that the Minoan warm period, the Roman warming and the Medieval warming were ALL localized events and hardly represent the global situation we see with climate change today.

Riddle me this.
Why is it in all the events depicted on this graph there is no corresponding forcing agent within the atmospheric chemistry OTHER than in todays event. CO2 and CH4

:--)

Love
B

 

[Boston1]

LOL you guys are sooooo predictable.

There's a study about you guys if anyone cares to read it

PDF
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

Quote

NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Stephan Lewandowsky University of Western Australia

Klaus Oberauer
University of Zurich and University of Western Australia

Gilles Gignac University of Western Australia

(in press, Psychological Science)

Abstract

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N

> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ≃ .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

End Quote

So you clowns want empirical evidence

No problem LOL

That is what is known as a non sequitur silly boy. Soooooo...once again. Please provide us with some empirical evidence to support your bullshit. It's really that simple. I think you're just too stupid to even come up with a basic one.

LOL, another perfect example

Lets review

Quote
a patient suffering of lateral neglect won't "see" one side of the world, won't draw it, and won't touch it. When asked why, the patient will answer that it was not important or that there was no reason to consider it; never that he or she couldn't perceive it. Anosognosia is what inspired Dunning and Kruger for the effect that takes their name: the "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome". It affects people who grossly overestimate their abilities or their knowledge. But Dunning and Kruger have been often misinterpreted by defining their effect as "stupid people don't realize that they are stupid". No, it is a much wider effect and it hits intelligent people in particular. It is typical of very intelligent people to be unable to realize their limits.


This kind of anosognosia is especially bad with science, in particular climate science. The Web is infested with people who suffer of a form of climate science neglect syndrome. They are not stupid; on the contrary, some of them they can display considerable creativity and inventive to support the idea that climate is not changing, or that change is not caused by human activity, or that everything is an evil plot to enslave humankind. Their problem is that they completely fail to perceive the complexity of the subject. They can't see that climate science is not about whether grapes were cultivated in England during the Middle Ages or about the letters that some scientists wrote to each other more than 10 years ago. You just can't convince them that their vision of the world is limited. The same is true with a variety of conspiracy theories based on failing to understand the complexity of the subject: chemtrails, cold fusion, abiotic oil, and many more.


Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.

End Quote

So lets try showing you that again ;--)

So in answer to SSDO, what could the cause of this radical departure of from the norm be ???? its either you start dreaming up all kinds of mythical monsters or you accept that the departure is directly attributable to fossil fuels.

So now whats your excuse ;--)

PS
Love all the groovy little graphs that don't have the resolution to accurately depict either the rate or the effect of todays alterations in the atmospheric chemistry

You blabber a LOT. I am still waiting for some empirical evidence. I hear you were provided with a definition of what that means. Hop to it junior.

LOL you are a perfect example of lateral neglect syndrome

Quote

Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.


More and more, our culture seems to confine itself within narrow limits that don't include entities such as climate change, peak oil, ecosystem collapse, and much more. All that is relegated to the category of unknown unknowns, totally outside the bounds of perception; even outside the bounds of the imaginable. As it is not perceived, it is not understood, it is not discussed, it is not acted upon. And, whatever is going to crash on us all of a sudden, we are totally unprepared for it.


Unfortunately, one of the things I learned from my daughter is that there is no cure for this syndrome.

End Quote

So just for fun lets present you with a portion of the pertinent data and see if you can see it this time ;--)

 

[westwall]

LOL you guys are sooooo predictable.

There's a study about you guys if anyone cares to read it

PDF
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

Quote

NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Stephan Lewandowsky University of Western Australia

Klaus Oberauer
University of Zurich and University of Western Australia

Gilles Gignac University of Western Australia

(in press, Psychological Science)

Abstract

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N

> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ≃ .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

End Quote

So you clowns want empirical evidence

No problem LOL

That is what is known as a non sequitur silly boy. Soooooo...once again. Please provide us with some empirical evidence to support your bullshit. It's really that simple. I think you're just too stupid to even come up with a basic one.

LOL, another perfect example

Lets review

Quote
a patient suffering of lateral neglect won't "see" one side of the world, won't draw it, and won't touch it. When asked why, the patient will answer that it was not important or that there was no reason to consider it; never that he or she couldn't perceive it. Anosognosia is what inspired Dunning and Kruger for the effect that takes their name: the "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome". It affects people who grossly overestimate their abilities or their knowledge. But Dunning and Kruger have been often misinterpreted by defining their effect as "stupid people don't realize that they are stupid". No, it is a much wider effect and it hits intelligent people in particular. It is typical of very intelligent people to be unable to realize their limits.


This kind of anosognosia is especially bad with science, in particular climate science. The Web is infested with people who suffer of a form of climate science neglect syndrome. They are not stupid; on the contrary, some of them they can display considerable creativity and inventive to support the idea that climate is not changing, or that change is not caused by human activity, or that everything is an evil plot to enslave humankind. Their problem is that they completely fail to perceive the complexity of the subject. They can't see that climate science is not about whether grapes were cultivated in England during the Middle Ages or about the letters that some scientists wrote to each other more than 10 years ago. You just can't convince them that their vision of the world is limited. The same is true with a variety of conspiracy theories based on failing to understand the complexity of the subject: chemtrails, cold fusion, abiotic oil, and many more.


Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.

End Quote

So lets try showing you that again ;--)

So in answer to SSDO, what could the cause of this radical departure of from the norm be ???? its either you start dreaming up all kinds of mythical monsters or you accept that the departure is directly attributable to fossil fuels.

So now whats your excuse ;--)

PS
Love all the groovy little graphs that don't have the resolution to accurately depict either the rate or the effect of todays alterations in the atmospheric chemistry

You blabber a LOT. I am still waiting for some empirical evidence. I hear you were provided with a definition of what that means. Hop to it junior.

LOL you are a perfect example of lateral neglect syndrome

Quote

Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.


More and more, our culture seems to confine itself within narrow limits that don't include entities such as climate change, peak oil, ecosystem collapse, and much more. All that is relegated to the category of unknown unknowns, totally outside the bounds of perception; even outside the bounds of the imaginable. As it is not perceived, it is not understood, it is not discussed, it is not acted upon. And, whatever is going to crash on us all of a sudden, we are totally unprepared for it.


Unfortunately, one of the things I learned from my daughter is that there is no cure for this syndrome.

End Quote

This is now an official warning. This post is called "TROLLING". It has nothing to do with the OP. I asked you for a specific thing that DOES pertain to the OP. Now hop to it.

 

[SSDD]

You blabber a LOT. I am still waiting for some empirical evidence. I hear you were provided with a definition of what that means. Hop to it junior.

By his definition, what he is doing is squirming....an attempt to maintain his level of ignorance rather than admit that he can't come up with the sort of information we are asking for.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL you guys are sooooo predictable.

There's a study about you guys if anyone cares to read it

PDF
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

Quote

NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Stephan Lewandowsky University of Western Australia

Klaus Oberauer
University of Zurich and University of Western Australia

Gilles Gignac University of Western Australia

(in press, Psychological Science)

Abstract

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N

> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ≃ .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

End Quote

So you clowns want empirical evidence

No problem LOL

That is what is known as a non sequitur silly boy. Soooooo...once again. Please provide us with some empirical evidence to support your bullshit. It's really that simple. I think you're just too stupid to even come up with a basic one.

LOL, another perfect example

Lets review

Quote
a patient suffering of lateral neglect won't "see" one side of the world, won't draw it, and won't touch it. When asked why, the patient will answer that it was not important or that there was no reason to consider it; never that he or she couldn't perceive it. Anosognosia is what inspired Dunning and Kruger for the effect that takes their name: the "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome". It affects people who grossly overestimate their abilities or their knowledge. But Dunning and Kruger have been often misinterpreted by defining their effect as "stupid people don't realize that they are stupid". No, it is a much wider effect and it hits intelligent people in particular. It is typical of very intelligent people to be unable to realize their limits.


This kind of anosognosia is especially bad with science, in particular climate science. The Web is infested with people who suffer of a form of climate science neglect syndrome. They are not stupid; on the contrary, some of them they can display considerable creativity and inventive to support the idea that climate is not changing, or that change is not caused by human activity, or that everything is an evil plot to enslave humankind. Their problem is that they completely fail to perceive the complexity of the subject. They can't see that climate science is not about whether grapes were cultivated in England during the Middle Ages or about the letters that some scientists wrote to each other more than 10 years ago. You just can't convince them that their vision of the world is limited. The same is true with a variety of conspiracy theories based on failing to understand the complexity of the subject: chemtrails, cold fusion, abiotic oil, and many more.


Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.

End Quote

So lets try showing you that again ;--)

So in answer to SSDO, what could the cause of this radical departure of from the norm be ???? its either you start dreaming up all kinds of mythical monsters or you accept that the departure is directly attributable to fossil fuels.

So now whats your excuse ;--)

PS
Love all the groovy little graphs that don't have the resolution to accurately depict either the rate or the effect of todays alterations in the atmospheric chemistry

You blabber a LOT. I am still waiting for some empirical evidence. I hear you were provided with a definition of what that means. Hop to it junior.

LOL you are a perfect example of lateral neglect syndrome

Quote

Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.


More and more, our culture seems to confine itself within narrow limits that don't include entities such as climate change, peak oil, ecosystem collapse, and much more. All that is relegated to the category of unknown unknowns, totally outside the bounds of perception; even outside the bounds of the imaginable. As it is not perceived, it is not understood, it is not discussed, it is not acted upon. And, whatever is going to crash on us all of a sudden, we are totally unprepared for it.


Unfortunately, one of the things I learned from my daughter is that there is no cure for this syndrome.

End Quote

So just for fun lets present you with a portion of the pertinent data and see if you can see it this time ;--)

s0n......you're not getting it. Nobody is caring about the science in 2016. Of the radar of virtually all voters in 2016........there are 20 concerns that beat it in the lastest PEW Poll..........its on the bottom with gun control!! Glad to post it up by request!!

At the same time, after 20+ years of bomb throwing by alarmists, solar power still provides less than 1% of our electricity needs.........wind provides about 3%. Laughable.............and by 2040, combined with still be less than 10% ( well......so says the Obama EIA ).

The science debate is but a hobby for people with nothing better to do...........not making a difference in the real world = nobody cares.

 

[SSDD]

LOL your funny.

Why are you cherry picking one data set ;--)

Project much? I showed you at least 3 data sets...while you have provided 1 graph.

Could it be that by only considering ONE data set instead of ALL the data you are able to maintain your ignorance ;--)

Except I haven't considered only one data set...I have been looking for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting AGW for decades...haven't found it because it doesn't exist...

And insofar as ice core data sets go, GISP and Vostok are the gold standard...Your graphs show several surface records which are heavily adjusted, but they don't match the satellite record...and the satellite record is closely correlated with over a million radiosondes that have been sent up into the atmosphere directly gathering temperature and other meteorological data...I would be much more likely to trust a million plus radiosondes that all say the same thing than a heavily massaged surface record.

Also I can't help but notice that the Minoan warm period, the Roman warming and the Medieval warming were ALL localized events and hardly represent the global situation we see with climate change today.

In today's information age, I would say that it would take quite a bit of work to maintain your level of ignorance, but apparently you are willing to do the work...Did you not see the signature of all those warm periods in the Vostok ice core data take from Antarctica?....But I will go you even better, just to demonstrate the level of searching I have done in looking for actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the AGW hypothesis....You name a region in the world...and I will provide you with a peer reviewed study that finds a signature of at least one of the warming periods shown on my graphs...all studies don't go back 10,000 years.

Riddle me this.
Why is it in all the events depicted on this graph there is no corresponding forcing agent within the atmospheric chemistry OTHER than in todays event. CO2 and CH4

Riddle me this...why can you not find any observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that shows that either CO2 or CH4 cause any increase in temperature out in the open atmosphere....observed, measured, quantified, empirical data showing that those gasses cause an increase in temperature in the open atmosphere would certainly qualify as the sort of data that I asked for.

The simple fact is that we don't know enough about what drives the temperature to know what causes warming or cooling. We have hypotheses, but nothing like enough actual evidence to begin to say for sure. Insofar as "forcing" agents go...we have nothing there but hypothesis either at this point in time...certainly nothing like observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to say how much forcing any agent may cause...whether its forcing is positive or negative...or even if the suspected agents indeed force anything. Again, this is why I am supremely confident that you won't be able to provide anything like the sort of data I have asked for...it simply doesn't exist...and like it or not, all the claims of AGW are nothing more than guesses, assumptions, and baseless claims.


Now...about that observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis I asked for....lets see it....convince me...I am asking for data...you claim that it exists...I want to be convinced...stop squirming and deliver.

 

[Boston1]

LOL you guys are sooooo predictable.

There's a study about you guys if anyone cares to read it

PDF
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

Quote

NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Stephan Lewandowsky University of Western Australia

Klaus Oberauer
University of Zurich and University of Western Australia

Gilles Gignac University of Western Australia

(in press, Psychological Science)

Abstract

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N

> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ≃ .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

End Quote

So you clowns want empirical evidence

No problem LOL

That is what is known as a non sequitur silly boy. Soooooo...once again. Please provide us with some empirical evidence to support your bullshit. It's really that simple. I think you're just too stupid to even come up with a basic one.

LOL, another perfect example

Lets review

Quote
a patient suffering of lateral neglect won't "see" one side of the world, won't draw it, and won't touch it. When asked why, the patient will answer that it was not important or that there was no reason to consider it; never that he or she couldn't perceive it. Anosognosia is what inspired Dunning and Kruger for the effect that takes their name: the "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome". It affects people who grossly overestimate their abilities or their knowledge. But Dunning and Kruger have been often misinterpreted by defining their effect as "stupid people don't realize that they are stupid". No, it is a much wider effect and it hits intelligent people in particular. It is typical of very intelligent people to be unable to realize their limits.


This kind of anosognosia is especially bad with science, in particular climate science. The Web is infested with people who suffer of a form of climate science neglect syndrome. They are not stupid; on the contrary, some of them they can display considerable creativity and inventive to support the idea that climate is not changing, or that change is not caused by human activity, or that everything is an evil plot to enslave humankind. Their problem is that they completely fail to perceive the complexity of the subject. They can't see that climate science is not about whether grapes were cultivated in England during the Middle Ages or about the letters that some scientists wrote to each other more than 10 years ago. You just can't convince them that their vision of the world is limited. The same is true with a variety of conspiracy theories based on failing to understand the complexity of the subject: chemtrails, cold fusion, abiotic oil, and many more.


Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.

End Quote

So lets try showing you that again ;--)

So in answer to SSDO, what could the cause of this radical departure of from the norm be ???? its either you start dreaming up all kinds of mythical monsters or you accept that the departure is directly attributable to fossil fuels.

So now whats your excuse ;--)

PS
Love all the groovy little graphs that don't have the resolution to accurately depict either the rate or the effect of todays alterations in the atmospheric chemistry

You blabber a LOT. I am still waiting for some empirical evidence. I hear you were provided with a definition of what that means. Hop to it junior.

LOL you are a perfect example of lateral neglect syndrome

Quote

Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.


More and more, our culture seems to confine itself within narrow limits that don't include entities such as climate change, peak oil, ecosystem collapse, and much more. All that is relegated to the category of unknown unknowns, totally outside the bounds of perception; even outside the bounds of the imaginable. As it is not perceived, it is not understood, it is not discussed, it is not acted upon. And, whatever is going to crash on us all of a sudden, we are totally unprepared for it.


Unfortunately, one of the things I learned from my daughter is that there is no cure for this syndrome.

End Quote

This is now an official warning. This post is called "TROLLING". It has nothing to do with the OP. I asked you for a specific thing that DOES pertain to the OP. Now hop to it.

I notified the site of your pulling rank and falsely accusing me of Trolling. The post clearly presents data specific to the topic at hand and also directly addresses the subject of our latest few posts

If you don't have the courage to face your own ignorance and openly discuss the issues at hand then thats fine, you are not required to participate in the discussion. However, acting like a five year old who can't have his way is hardly the way to fairly moderate a topic.

You should be banned from moderating any science based discussion since you are a science denier yourself. Hardly sheds a positive light on the forum to have a climate denier in charge of anything.

PS
I don't do warnings, threaten me one time and I'm off to the owners. You are an ignorant and simply can't grasp the concepts involved.

So you start in with the threats.

real adult of ypou but it does prove one thing

Your argument can't stand an informed debate

 

[Boston1]

[

So in answer to SSDO, what could the cause of this radical departure of from the norm be ???? its either you start dreaming up all kinds of mythical monsters or you accept that the departure is directly attributable to fossil fuels.

Being cooler than the norm for the past 10,000 years is a departure from the norm, but as your short view graph shows, we are moving in the direction of the norm so I don't see cause for alarm. This graph shows me that natural variability covers a very large range...so again, how about some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that MANKIND is altering the global climate with his so called greenhouse gas emissions. A graph showing a changing temperature would only be evidence that man is causing the change to a cretin...are you a cretin fooled by anything that even looks "science"?

By the way...did you notice how large the uncertainty bars get the further back in your graph you go...acording to your graph...1750 may have been nearly as warm as today.

Gass lighting again eh

You showed this graph and I responded to this graph. Its just one data set was the answer and what it is falsely trying to compare is arguable localized weather events with established global climate

Man you are desperate to find flaw aren't you ?

 

[SSDD]

This is now an official warning. This post is called "TROLLING". It has nothing to do with the OP. I asked you for a specific thing that DOES pertain to the OP. Now hop to it.

Trolls troll....its what they do. He needs to do it in order to be able to tell himself how superior he is to us skeptics. We all know that he will never be able to provide the requested data...you may as well ask him to deliver the data on a flying pig.

It really wasn't going anywhere interesting...I doubt that he understood much of the psychobabble he was posting....I do love to watch them squirm though...and very much like to see what passes for actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in their minds.

 

[Boston1]

This is now an official warning. This post is called "TROLLING". It has nothing to do with the OP. I asked you for a specific thing that DOES pertain to the OP. Now hop to it.

Trolls troll....its what they do. He needs to do it in order to be able to tell himself how superior he is to us skeptics. We all know that he will never be able to provide the requested data...you may as well ask him to deliver the data on a flying pig.

It really wasn't going anywhere interesting...I doubt that he understood much of the psychobabble he was posting....I do love to watch them squirm though...and very much like to see what passes for actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in their minds.

You guys are desperate to bail. Its OK most cognitive dissonant people will eventually react poorly when confronted with overwhelming evidence that threatens their preferred view.

The fact is that there is only ONE thing thats changed in the last few hundred years that can account for the sudden increase in temps. Burning of fossil fuels ;--)

Time to grow up people

Climate shift is very real and the cause is obvious