Why do so many people deny climate change

[itfitzme]

I just can't figure out why they work so hard at being wrong. It just makes no sense.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Personally, until you admit the validity of quantum theory and the reality of un-magically-restrained radiative heat transfer, I see no point in discussing ANY technical topic with you. Your views on those two points identify you as unqualified to form an opinion worth discussion.

So long as quantum theory remains full of errors, contradictions, and ad hoc fixes, what idiot would even think that it is valid. The contradictions found within it raise far more questions than it answers. It is a best guess at explaining a lot of things that we don't understand....the suggestion of validity is laughable at this point in our learning.

A fourth spatial dimension explains all that. The quantum leap is into 4D and back again at a different place in 3D. The maximum velocity within the substratum is 6 light-years a second. Further proof is, that just like Warmalarmism, the scientific hierarchy institutes an Inquisition on anyone who questions their irrational jerry-built constructs.

John Nash (played by Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind) questioned the Quantum Quackery, as anyone would who is not a careerist conformist. He was advised not to go there because of the Postclassical Inquisition.

 

[PrometheusBound]

We don't trust treehuggers; AGW is just an extension of their cult. They are unfit mutants with a Death Wish. They've been trained to spew sophistic doubletalk and shout people down. The immense power of this fringe group indicates that they have connections to the ruling class. We must stop them before they destroy the modern economy and bring us back to the stagnant Middle Ages.

 

[PMZ]

Typical, I am entitled to the reality that I want!

Lots of luck with that!

 

[Abraham3]

We don't trust treehuggers; AGW is just an extension of their cult. They are unfit mutants with a Death Wish. They've been trained to spew sophistic doubletalk and shout people down. The immense power of this fringe group indicates that they have connections to the ruling class. We must stop them before they destroy the modern economy and bring us back to the stagnant Middle Ages.

Who is "we"?

 

[Abraham3]

Personally, until you admit the validity of quantum theory and the reality of un-magically-restrained radiative heat transfer, I see no point in discussing ANY technical topic with you. Your views on those two points identify you as unqualified to form an opinion worth discussion.

So long as quantum theory remains full of errors, contradictions, and ad hoc fixes, what idiot would even think that it is valid. The contradictions found within it raise far more questions than it answers. It is a best guess at explaining a lot of things that we don't understand....the suggestion of validity is laughable at this point in our learning.

A fourth spatial dimension explains all that. The quantum leap is into 4D and back again at a different place in 3D. The maximum velocity within the substratum is 6 light-years a second. Further proof is, that just like Warmalarmism, the scientific hierarchy institutes an Inquisition on anyone who questions their irrational jerry-built constructs.

John Nash (played by Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind) questioned the Quantum Quackery, as anyone would who is not a careerist conformist. He was advised not to go there because of the Postclassical Inquisition.

Oh... they made a movie. It must be truth.

 

[orogenicman]

We don't trust treehuggers...

Yeah, they are such evil people.

They are unfit mutants with a Death Wish. They've been trained to spew sophistic doubletalk and shout people down. The immense power of this fringe group indicates that they have connections to the ruling class. We must stop them before they destroy the modern economy and bring us back to the stagnant Middle Ages.

What, exactly, is your beef against trees? Do one fall and hit you in your noggin when you were a wee lad?

 

[PMZ]

We don't trust treehuggers...

Yeah, they are such evil people.

They are unfit mutants with a Death Wish. They've been trained to spew sophistic doubletalk and shout people down. The immense power of this fringe group indicates that they have connections to the ruling class. We must stop them before they destroy the modern economy and bring us back to the stagnant Middle Ages.

What, exactly, is your beef against trees? Do one fall and hit you in your noggin when you were a wee lad?

It's sort of poetic justice that mother nature clearly offered us profound knowledge from life's model that sustainable energy, in the form of plant life, made from carbon, is the only path to sustainable life.

We, in our enthusiasm for the easy life, denied her knowledge, and chose a temporary, but cheap at first glance, alternative, also from carbon.

Now the bill for taking the easy path is due and some of us are trying to get out of paying it, despite that there is no way not to.

Somehow she always wins in the end and we have to learn yet another lesson from the natural universe.

 

[PrometheusBound]

We don't trust treehuggers...

Yeah, they are such evil people.

They are unfit mutants with a Death Wish. They've been trained to spew sophistic doubletalk and shout people down. The immense power of this fringe group indicates that they have connections to the ruling class. We must stop them before they destroy the modern economy and bring us back to the stagnant Middle Ages.

What, exactly, is your beef against trees? Do one fall and hit you in your noggin when you were a wee lad?

It's sort of poetic justice that mother nature clearly offered us profound knowledge from life's model that sustainable energy, in the form of plant life, made from carbon, is the only path to sustainable life.

We, in our enthusiasm for the easy life, denied her knowledge, and chose a temporary, but cheap at first glance, alternative, also from carbon.

Now the bill for taking the easy path is due and some of us are trying to get out of paying it, despite that there is no way not to.

Somehow she always wins in the end and we have to learn yet another lesson from the natural universe.

Nature is not supernatural. Personifying a mindless and destructive force shows a primitive mindset. Nature is the enemy of man and must be tamed and re-organized. Your kind of thinking should have ended with the Stone Age.

 

[PMZ]

Yeah, they are such evil people.



What, exactly, is your beef against trees? Do one fall and hit you in your noggin when you were a wee lad?

It's sort of poetic justice that mother nature clearly offered us profound knowledge from life's model that sustainable energy, in the form of plant life, made from carbon, is the only path to sustainable life.

We, in our enthusiasm for the easy life, denied her knowledge, and chose a temporary, but cheap at first glance, alternative, also from carbon.

Now the bill for taking the easy path is due and some of us are trying to get out of paying it, despite that there is no way not to.

Somehow she always wins in the end and we have to learn yet another lesson from the natural universe.

Nature is not supernatural. Personifying a mindless and destructive force shows a primitive mindset. Nature is the enemy of man and must be tamed and re-organized. Your kind of thinking should have ended with the Stone Age.

Nature has the longest run on Broadway. Almost every kind of progress by man was modeled after some aspect of natural science. We are driven to higher and higher understanding of natural processes.

I agree that to personify nature is nothing more than a literary trick to make the abstract a little more available to some minds.

But, ''a mindless and destructive force'', or ''the enemy of man'' that ''must be tamed and re-organized.'', is far from true in my book. In fact an approach that almost always ends in failure.

 

[flacaltenn]

And I challenge you to explain why the desert nightime lows are LARGELY determined by the presence or absence of a GHGas.. (water vapor content) ----- instead of on a constant atmos pressure..

Because as we know, water vapor, unlike CO2 can actually absorb and hold heat.

So SSDD my bud. Looks like we are done again. BUT I need to put a bookmark on this recurring abuse of science. So if theres anything in my list of science stuff that you deny, please correct the ledger.

PHYSICS and STUFF that SSDD DENIES

#1 ----- The fact that Co2 can retain heat.

#2 ----- Greenhouse Theory and particurly the radiative IR component of that theory that
explaains the balance btwn earth IR surface emision and radiative emissions from compponents of the atmos.

#3 ------ The fact that photons (light) travels without regard to surface temps and that ALL objects regardless otemp CAN and do exchange IR in proportion to there thermal energy.

#4 ------ That we have tools capable of measuring "backradiation" and that samples of this measurement have been done.

#5 ----- That we have to shelve all calculations in radiative physics because the existence of photons is still subject to speculative discussions of their quantum details.

#6 ----- That common handheld nonconttact IR thermoters are receiving and tallying IR photons

#7 ----- That some comment in a spec sheet about optional filtering for such a device means that Dr Spencer was fooled in his crude measurements of back radiation..


Thats a start. I reserve the right to revise and extend the list. This is done without reviewing our most recent skirmish...

 

[itfitzme]

And I challenge you to explain why the desert nightime lows are LARGELY determined by the presence or absence of a GHGas.. (water vapor content) ----- instead of on a constant atmos pressure..

Because as we know, water vapor, unlike CO2 can actually absorb and hold heat.

So SSDD my bud. Looks like we are done again. BUT I need to put a bookmark on this recurring abuse of science. So if theres anything in my list of science stuff that you deny, please correct the ledger.

PHYSICS and STUFF that SSDD DENIES

#1 ----- The fact that Co2 can retain heat.

#2 ----- Greenhouse Theory and particurly the radiative IR component of that theory that
explaains the balance btwn earth IR surface emision and radiative emissions from compponents of the atmos.

#3 ------ The fact that photons (light) travels without regard to surface temps and that ALL objects regardless otemp CAN and do exchange IR in proportion to there thermal energy.

#4 ------ That we have tools capable of measuring "backradiation" and that samples of this measurement have been done.

#5 ----- That we have to shelve all calculations in radiative physics because the existence of photons is still subject to speculative discussions of their quantum details.

#6 ----- That common handheld nonconttact IR thermoters are receiving and tallying IR photons

#7 ----- That some comment in a spec sheet about optional filtering for such a device means that Dr Spencer was fooled in his crude measurements of back radiation..


Thats a start. I reserve the right to revise and extend the list. This is done without reviewing our most recent skirmish...

And it all comes down to this unfortunate word use on

HyperPhysics

" It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

They got a little loose in their word usage, changing from "heat" to "energy".

It is such a shame.

 

[westwall]

I just can't figure out why they work so hard at being wrong. It just makes no sense.

Climatology Sees One Of The Greatest Scientific Reversals Of All Time – The Rise And Fall Of The Hockey Stick Charts



The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in November 1988 by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Organization for Meteorology (WMO). The main task of the UN Climate Framework Convention (UNFCCC) was to assess the risks of global warming and to draw up mitigation strategies. One important role was to determine the global climate development over the last 1000 years in order to see if the warming of the last century was “unique” and to see if today’s supposed manmade warming was a threat.

An examination of the five IPCC reports published thus far reveals a remarkable scientific reversal. What follows is the evolution of the 1000-year temperature curve: from double hump (1990) - to hockey stick 2001) – and back again to double hump (2013).

See more at: Climatology Sees One Of The Greatest Scientific Reversals Of All Time ? The Rise And Fall Of The Hockey Stick Charts



Avid environmentalist challenges climate change alarmists - book event at Florey's

About 10 years ago, while working to restore watershed and wildlife habitat, Steele said it became clear that landscape changes and natural cycles had a much greater impact on wildlife than climate change. The initial plan was to write on the subject for various magazines and websites, but he realized only a book could tell the whole story. This Sunday, Steele will be at Florey's to sign and discuss the book which developed from these earlier musings — "Landscapes & Cycles" (An Environmentalist's Journey to Climate Skepticism).

"The more I researched the causes of change in wildlife populations and local climates, the more I became appalled by the amount of bad science that was too easily published simply because it agreed with the prevailing bias of climate catastrophes," Steele said. "Every other chapter of the book highlights different species whose decline was mistakenly blamed on rising CO2."



Avid environmentalist challenges climate change alarmists - book event at Florey's - San Jose Mercury News




Now, what were you saying blind boy?

 

[flacaltenn]

Because as we know, water vapor, unlike CO2 can actually absorb and hold heat.

So SSDD my bud. Looks like we are done again. BUT I need to put a bookmark on this recurring abuse of science. So if theres anything in my list of science stuff that you deny, please correct the ledger.

PHYSICS and STUFF that SSDD DENIES

#1 ----- The fact that Co2 can retain heat.

#2 ----- Greenhouse Theory and particurly the radiative IR component of that theory that
explaains the balance btwn earth IR surface emision and radiative emissions from compponents of the atmos.

#3 ------ The fact that photons (light) travels without regard to surface temps and that ALL objects regardless otemp CAN and do exchange IR in proportion to there thermal energy.

#4 ------ That we have tools capable of measuring "backradiation" and that samples of this measurement have been done.

#5 ----- That we have to shelve all calculations in radiative physics because the existence of photons is still subject to speculative discussions of their quantum details.

#6 ----- That common handheld nonconttact IR thermoters are receiving and tallying IR photons

#7 ----- That some comment in a spec sheet about optional filtering for such a device means that Dr Spencer was fooled in his crude measurements of back radiation..


Thats a start. I reserve the right to revise and extend the list. This is done without reviewing our most recent skirmish...

And it all comes down to this unfortunate word use on

HyperPhysics

" It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

They got a little loose in their word usage, changing from "heat" to "energy".

It is such a shame.

Ya think thats the only problem we have here? Wouldnt be a 2 yr 22 page battle if it was that simple..

 

[flacaltenn]

I just can't figure out why they work so hard at being wrong. It just makes no sense.

Climatology Sees One Of The Greatest Scientific Reversals Of All Time – The Rise And Fall Of The Hockey Stick Charts



The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in November 1988 by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Organization for Meteorology (WMO). The main task of the UN Climate Framework Convention (UNFCCC) was to assess the risks of global warming and to draw up mitigation strategies. One important role was to determine the global climate development over the last 1000 years in order to see if the warming of the last century was “unique” and to see if today’s supposed manmade warming was a threat.

An examination of the five IPCC reports published thus far reveals a remarkable scientific reversal. What follows is the evolution of the 1000-year temperature curve: from double hump (1990) - to hockey stick 2001) – and back again to double hump (2013).

See more at: Climatology Sees One Of The Greatest Scientific Reversals Of All Time ? The Rise And Fall Of The Hockey Stick Charts



Avid environmentalist challenges climate change alarmists - book event at Florey's

About 10 years ago, while working to restore watershed and wildlife habitat, Steele said it became clear that landscape changes and natural cycles had a much greater impact on wildlife than climate change. The initial plan was to write on the subject for various magazines and websites, but he realized only a book could tell the whole story. This Sunday, Steele will be at Florey's to sign and discuss the book which developed from these earlier musings — "Landscapes & Cycles" (An Environmentalist's Journey to Climate Skepticism).

"The more I researched the causes of change in wildlife populations and local climates, the more I became appalled by the amount of bad science that was too easily published simply because it agreed with the prevailing bias of climate catastrophes," Steele said. "Every other chapter of the book highlights different species whose decline was mistakenly blamed on rising CO2."



Avid environmentalist challenges climate change alarmists - book event at Florey's - San Jose Mercury News




Now, what were you saying blind boy?

I gotta get that book from your 2nd ref.. Love to have all that species and range hype debunked all in all place.

 

[itfitzme]

So SSDD my bud. Looks like we are done again. BUT I need to put a bookmark on this recurring abuse of science. So if theres anything in my list of science stuff that you deny, please correct the ledger.

PHYSICS and STUFF that SSDD DENIES

#1 ----- The fact that Co2 can retain heat.

#2 ----- Greenhouse Theory and particurly the radiative IR component of that theory that
explaains the balance btwn earth IR surface emision and radiative emissions from compponents of the atmos.

#3 ------ The fact that photons (light) travels without regard to surface temps and that ALL objects regardless otemp CAN and do exchange IR in proportion to there thermal energy.

#4 ------ That we have tools capable of measuring "backradiation" and that samples of this measurement have been done.

#5 ----- That we have to shelve all calculations in radiative physics because the existence of photons is still subject to speculative discussions of their quantum details.

#6 ----- That common handheld nonconttact IR thermoters are receiving and tallying IR photons

#7 ----- That some comment in a spec sheet about optional filtering for such a device means that Dr Spencer was fooled in his crude measurements of back radiation..


Thats a start. I reserve the right to revise and extend the list. This is done without reviewing our most recent skirmish...

And it all comes down to this unfortunate word use on

HyperPhysics

" It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

They got a little loose in their word usage, changing from "heat" to "energy".

It is such a shame.

Ya think thats the only problem we have here? Wouldnt be a 2 yr 22 page battle if it was that simple..

Yes, it isn't very complicated. He would spend two years and 1000s of pages defending an incorrect norepinephrine locked "rule" because he can't deal with the fact that he misunderstood it.

 

[itfitzme]

I just can't figure out why they work so hard at being wrong. It just makes no sense.

Climatology Sees One Of The Greatest Scientific Reversals Of All Time – The Rise And Fall Of The Hockey Stick Charts



The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in November 1988 by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Organization for Meteorology (WMO). The main task of the UN Climate Framework Convention (UNFCCC) was to assess the risks of global warming and to draw up mitigation strategies. One important role was to determine the global climate development over the last 1000 years in order to see if the warming of the last century was “unique” and to see if today’s supposed manmade warming was a threat.

An examination of the five IPCC reports published thus far reveals a remarkable scientific reversal. What follows is the evolution of the 1000-year temperature curve: from double hump (1990) - to hockey stick 2001) – and back again to double hump (2013).

See more at: Climatology Sees One Of The Greatest Scientific Reversals Of All Time ? The Rise And Fall Of The Hockey Stick Charts



Avid environmentalist challenges climate change alarmists - book event at Florey's

About 10 years ago, while working to restore watershed and wildlife habitat, Steele said it became clear that landscape changes and natural cycles had a much greater impact on wildlife than climate change. The initial plan was to write on the subject for various magazines and websites, but he realized only a book could tell the whole story. This Sunday, Steele will be at Florey's to sign and discuss the book which developed from these earlier musings — "Landscapes & Cycles" (An Environmentalist's Journey to Climate Skepticism).

"The more I researched the causes of change in wildlife populations and local climates, the more I became appalled by the amount of bad science that was too easily published simply because it agreed with the prevailing bias of climate catastrophes," Steele said. "Every other chapter of the book highlights different species whose decline was mistakenly blamed on rising CO2."



Avid environmentalist challenges climate change alarmists - book event at Florey's - San Jose Mercury News




Now, what were you saying blind boy?

Your point being what? That Pierre L. Gosselin is also working really hard to help you deny reality?

Or that your going to drop $20 bucks of a book by Jim Steele?

Cuz so far, you haven't explained anything except your own gullibility.

 

[flacaltenn]

And it all comes down to this unfortunate word use on

HyperPhysics

" It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

They got a little loose in their word usage, changing from "heat" to "energy".

It is such a shame.

Ya think thats the only problem we have here? Wouldnt be a 2 yr 22 page battle if it was that simple..

Yes, it isn't very complicated.

You are wrong. A misunderstanding of the 2nd law CANNOT explain ALL of those issues.

 

[itfitzme]

Ya think thats the only problem we have here? Wouldnt be a 2 yr 22 page battle if it was that simple..

Yes, it isn't very complicated.

You are wrong. A misunderstanding of the 2nd law CANNOT explain ALL of those issues.

That and ignorance.

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually NOT ignorance. Which is why he and I maintain mutual respect.

These problems stem from poor choices of internet research material. Some of the folks who have peddled these "scientific conspiracies" are quite brilliant, but too arrogant and stubborn to engage in debate.