Why do people deny science?

[Wake]

If people are to consider the discussion of global warming, scientists should strive to simplify their claims by providing succinct, undeniable evidence. No theories or speculation. Most people accept that blood contains iron. People need to be able feel feel that same kind of certainty regarding the notion of global warming. Create a neat little package of undeniable scientific proof focusing on showing exactly how carbon can increase the temperature of our atmosphere. Break it down, and make it so that nothing can be dismissed without sounding like a Holocaust denier.

 

[flacaltenn]

If people are to consider the discussion of global warming, scientists should strive to simplify their claims by providing succinct, undeniable evidence. No theories or speculation. Most people accept that blood contains iron. People need to be able feel feel that same kind of certainty regarding the notion of global warming. Create a neat little package of undeniable scientific proof focusing on showing exactly how carbon can increase the temperature of our atmosphere. Break it down, and make it so that nothing can be dismissed without sounding like a Holocaust denier.

I fear that instead of simplifying the science, they've packaged and pruned it for public consumption, thus rendering a scientific understanding unacheivable.

Witness the fuss about this one number.. This Annual Global Mean Surface Temperature.

The masses breathlessly await the lottery.. Did It rise? By how much?? Ooooooo that's warming. Does it fit the models?

But the actual MEANING of that number and how it's derived implies that the ENTIRE earth is ONE CLIMATE zone working under a set of uniform rules. The Arctic doesn't react to temperature like the tropics do. Coastal areas are affected more by cyclical changes in the oceans. Warm winters in Moscow and cold summers in Des Moines cancel each other out but hold HUGE CLUES as to the dynamics of the system. And averaging all of those multivariate systems into one happy Average Annual is a side-show to understanding the problem or the theory.

AGW was purposely FOCUSED on that silly number because the public has the attention of a squirrel.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Many on the right think it isn't worth doing at all. These people would love to see our society go back to 1791!!!

Really the more I think about things, the more I want to stay away from the extremes. Left or right!!!

 

[westwall]

Many on the right think it isn't worth doing at all. These people would love to see our society go back to 1791!!!

Really the more I think about things, the more I want to stay away from the extremes. Left or right!!!

You're wrong Matthew, it's the libs who want to see us back to the STONE AGE. Take a look around you. Every method of dealing with the "problem" consists of lowering the First Worlds standard of living. They are the true Luddites here.

Every project they have reduces the ability of the average person to travel and meet their neighbors, to go out into the wilderness to see what it is like, to interact with critters other than at a zoo (and there are those who want to end that), to breathe free.

No, their solution is to return the people back to the level of serfdom.

 

[Saigon]

Many on the right think it isn't worth doing at all. These people would love to see our society go back to 1791!!!

Really the more I think about things, the more I want to stay away from the extremes. Left or right!!!

Absolutely - being extreme means one has to follow doctrine, as we see on this board every day.

It amazes me how many posters, particularly right wing but also one or two on the left, will back a position they do not believe in, purely and simply because their political views demand it.

No one should be so committed to their understanding of climate that they can not change their position based on available evidence.

 

[Oddball]

Many on the right think it isn't worth doing at all. These people would love to see our society go back to 1791!!!

Really the more I think about things, the more I want to stay away from the extremes. Left or right!!!

Absolutely - being extreme means one has to follow doctrine, as we see on this board every day.

It amazes me how many posters, particularly right wing but also one or two on the left, will back a position they do not believe in, purely and simply because their political views demand it.

No one should be so committed to their understanding of climate that they can not change their position based on available evidence.

Textbook SEZ...........


2a. Freudian Projection

The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.

• "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."
  
• "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."
  
• "Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."
  
• "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."
  
• "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."
  
• "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."

 

[flacaltenn]

Many on the right think it isn't worth doing at all. These people would love to see our society go back to 1791!!!

Really the more I think about things, the more I want to stay away from the extremes. Left or right!!!

Absolutely - being extreme means one has to follow doctrine, as we see on this board every day.

It amazes me how many posters, particularly right wing but also one or two on the left, will back a position they do not believe in, purely and simply because their political views demand it.

No one should be so committed to their understanding of climate that they can not change their position based on available evidence.

LMHAO -- at that last line bud.. Some are so committed to "their" understanding, that they can IGNORE evidence to the contrary placed right in their lap... And "their" understanding has more to do with polling and Press Releases than the science..

 

[westwall]

Many on the right think it isn't worth doing at all. These people would love to see our society go back to 1791!!!

Really the more I think about things, the more I want to stay away from the extremes. Left or right!!!

Absolutely - being extreme means one has to follow doctrine, as we see on this board every day.

It amazes me how many posters, particularly right wing but also one or two on the left, will back a position they do not believe in, purely and simply because their political views demand it.

No one should be so committed to their understanding of climate that they can not change their position based on available evidence.

Pot meet kettle...

Where oh where in science is it ever wrong to question the paradigm? Where oh where is it ever wrong to be a sceptic? Only in the minds of the AGW fanatics where skepticism is tantamount to holocaust denial.

You Sir, are hoist on your own petard...

 

[skookerasbil]

If people are to consider the discussion of global warming, scientists should strive to simplify their claims by providing succinct, undeniable evidence. No theories or speculation. Most people accept that blood contains iron. People need to be able feel feel that same kind of certainty regarding the notion of global warming. Create a neat little package of undeniable scientific proof focusing on showing exactly how carbon can increase the temperature of our atmosphere. Break it down, and make it so that nothing can be dismissed without sounding like a Holocaust denier.

You are exactly right......been saying it for years. These people need a Plan B.....and the perpetual bomb thrwing has only hurt their cause. In a huge way. All these dozens of predictions of doom that have fallen flat on their face......yet they still lob the bombs. Its ******* hysterical.


Heres the poop......people might pay attention to this stuff if, and only if, we see a TRULY freaky anomoly......like waterskiiing on an Alaskan lake in mid-January during a 3 week wave of 60-70 degrees. Not a moment sooner Im afraid.


People arent stupid......they know this weather stuff prediction business is a joke. Just Thursday, New York was bracing for this imminent Dorecho weather event.......forcast was for "100% chance of rain" in the metropolitan area starting around noon and going through the night. It was sunny almost all the day and finally had some hard rain around 8:30pm for a couple of hours. Thats it. People take notice and say WTF??? So......what? They are going to believe these meatheads predicting shit 10.....20.....40 years from now..............I DONT THINK SO.

 

[Saigon]

No one should be so committed to their understanding of climate that they can not change their position based on available evidence.

LMHAO -- at that last line bud.. Some are so committed to "their" understanding, that they can IGNORE evidence to the contrary placed right in their lap... And "their" understanding has more to do with polling and Press Releases than the science..

Exactly.

Everyone should be willing to step back from what they might 'like' to believe, and look at what the science and numbers suggest. It applies equally to left and right.

And yet we still have posters on this board who deny that 97% of the world's glaciers are in decline, and others who claim that is completely normal.

 

[SSDD]

No one should be so committed to their understanding of climate that they can not change their position based on available evidence.

LMHAO -- at that last line bud.. Some are so committed to "their" understanding, that they can IGNORE evidence to the contrary placed right in their lap... And "their" understanding has more to do with polling and Press Releases than the science..

Exactly.

Everyone should be willing to step back from what they might 'like' to believe, and look at what the science and numbers suggest. It applies equally to left and right.

And yet we still have posters on this board who deny that 97% of the world's glaciers are in decline, and others who claim that is completely normal.

The ice has been melting back for 14,000 years, what's your point

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

The ice has been melting back for 14,000 years, what's your point

Thanks for proving my point.

Your are presenting a position held by virtually no one at all, and one contradicted by virtually all research conducted into glaciers during the past 50 years. We saw years of net increase in ice as recently as the 1980's.

Given that you must know this, the only reason that I can imagine for you to be backing a claim you know to be false is politics.

I think a single chart here will suffice to establish how off-base your claim is:

http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/glacier_retreat.htm

Anyone unclear about the acceleration of glacial decline could do worse than read through this site - it's excellent.

 

[Oddball]

No one should be so committed to their understanding of climate that they can not change their position based on available evidence.

LMHAO -- at that last line bud.. Some are so committed to "their" understanding, that they can IGNORE evidence to the contrary placed right in their lap... And "their" understanding has more to do with polling and Press Releases than the science..

Exactly.

Everyone should be willing to step back from what they might 'like' to believe, and look at what the science and numbers suggest. It applies equally to left and right.

Everyone, it seems, except yourself and the rest of the warmerists.

 

[Sunshine]

No one should be so committed to their understanding of climate that they can not change their position based on available evidence.

LMHAO -- at that last line bud.. Some are so committed to "their" understanding, that they can IGNORE evidence to the contrary placed right in their lap... And "their" understanding has more to do with polling and Press Releases than the science..

Exactly.

Everyone should be willing to step back from what they might 'like' to believe, and look at what the science and numbers suggest. It applies equally to left and right.

And yet we still have posters on this board who deny that 97% of the world's glaciers are in decline, and others who claim that is completely normal.

If you are going to 'apply' something like warming, then you need to apply it to China, the EU, the Middle East, and every other industrialized country on the plant. Sadly, Europeans see themselves and the rest of the world as exempt from the problem. And they are not, they are as much a part of it as anyone else. I personally have been sickened by the brown air in Cairo and Beijing. Never saw brown air in the US, and I've covered most of it.


SS

 

[Stephanie]

You notice "science" has become some peoples "god"

It's not like they haven't BEEN WRONG before...

good grief

 

[Saigon]

If you are going to 'apply' something like warming, then you need to apply it to China, the EU, the Middle East, and every other industrialized country on the plant. Sadly, Europeans see themselves and the rest of the world as exempt from the problem. And they are not, they are as much a part of it as anyone else. I personally have been sickened by the brown air in Cairo and Beijing. Never saw brown air in the US, and I've covered most of it.

I couldn't agree more - although given the EU has much tighter restrictions on emissions than any other region on earth, I don't know why you say Europeans see themselves as exempt!!

It's a global issue, and all countries have their role to play.

btw. You never saw brown air flying into LA? Really?

 

[Stephanie]

Does this sound familiar?



SNIP:
The Green Nazis: Environmentalism in the Third Reich


It has been elaborately pointed out how the device of environmentalism is especially favoured by tyrants as a means of controlling their subjects. The current 'green' movement, as we know, is no exception. It has been nurtured from its very conception as a systematic eugenics operation by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller- and Ford Foundations. Throughout the 20th century there have been multiple examples of tyrants implementing a very strict environmental policy to which their subjects had to conform, sometimes through the collection of taxes, sometimes at the barrel of a gun; usually a subtle mixture of the two. It is a well documented though seldom highlighted fact that the Nazis were very much into environmentalism- not for environmentalism's sake of course, but rather as a means of oppression and control. As it turns out, environmentalism fits the form of tyranny like a well tailored suit.

all of it here
The Green Nazis: Environmentalism in the Third Reich - Minnesotans For Global Warming

Hitler’s Green Killing Machine
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/hitlers-green-killing-machine/

SOUND FAMILAR PEOPLE?

snip:
Obama Tells Keystone Foes He Will Unveil Climate Measures




By Lisa Lerer

June 14, 2013
With his administration under pressure from environmentalists to reject the Keystone XL pipeline project, President Barack Obama plans to unveil a package of separate actions next month focused on curbing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

At closed-door fundraisers held over the past few weeks, the president has been telling Democratic party donors that he will unveil new climate proposals in July, according to people who have attended the events or been briefed.

Obama’s promise frequently comes in response to pleas from donors to reject TransCanada Corp (TRP).’s proposed Keystone XL project, a $5.3 billion pipeline that would carry tar-sands oil from Canada to U.S. refineries. Opponents of the pipeline say it would increase greenhouse-gas emissions by encouraging use of the tar sands.

While Obama has not detailed the specifics of his plan to the donors, pipeline opponents anticipate the package will include final rules from the Environmental Protection Agency to limit greenhouse-gas emissions from new power plants. In April, the EPA delayed issuing the rule after the electric-power industry said the initial proposal was unworkable. Since then, the agency has been revising the rules, and environmental groups are urging the EPA not to scale back its initial plan.

Power Plants

all of it here
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...e-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-package-in-july

 

[Oddball]

Does this sound familiar?



SNIP:
The Green Nazis: Environmentalism in the Third Reich


It has been elaborately pointed out how the device of environmentalism is especially favoured by tyrants as a means of controlling their subjects. The current 'green' movement, as we know, is no exception. It has been nurtured from its very conception as a systematic eugenics operation by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller- and Ford Foundations. Throughout the 20th century there have been multiple examples of tyrants implementing a very strict environmental policy to which their subjects had to conform, sometimes through the collection of taxes, sometimes at the barrel of a gun; usually a subtle mixture of the two. It is a well documented though seldom highlighted fact that the Nazis were very much into environmentalism- not for environmentalism's sake of course, but rather as a means of oppression and control. As it turns out, environmentalism fits the form of tyranny like a well tailored suit.

all of it here
The Green Nazis: Environmentalism in the Third Reich - Minnesotans For Global Warming

Hitler’s Green Killing Machine
Hitler?s Green Killing Machine

SOUND FAMILAR PEOPLE?

Scratch an environmentalist whackaloon and watch a eugenicist bleed.

 

[Stephanie]

Does this sound familiar?



SNIP:
The Green Nazis: Environmentalism in the Third Reich


It has been elaborately pointed out how the device of environmentalism is especially favoured by tyrants as a means of controlling their subjects. The current 'green' movement, as we know, is no exception. It has been nurtured from its very conception as a systematic eugenics operation by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller- and Ford Foundations. Throughout the 20th century there have been multiple examples of tyrants implementing a very strict environmental policy to which their subjects had to conform, sometimes through the collection of taxes, sometimes at the barrel of a gun; usually a subtle mixture of the two. It is a well documented though seldom highlighted fact that the Nazis were very much into environmentalism- not for environmentalism's sake of course, but rather as a means of oppression and control. As it turns out, environmentalism fits the form of tyranny like a well tailored suit.

all of it here
The Green Nazis: Environmentalism in the Third Reich - Minnesotans For Global Warming

Hitler’s Green Killing Machine
Hitler?s Green Killing Machine

SOUND FAMILAR PEOPLE?

Scratch an environmentalist whackaloon and watch a eugenicist bleed.

the similarities of the green Nazi and the Democrat party is damn scary..

 

[Stephanie]

FORWARD