Why do so many people deny climate change

[daveman]

Science is not an opinion. We know right science from non science. The more complex it is, the more education is required to know the right stuff.

So you're right.

Anything that disputes AGW science is automatically a "poor source of information".

You certainly are proud of being closed-minded, aren't you?

 

[bripat9643]

Nobody knows. What we do know is that we took the easy stuff first. What's left is the most expensive in every respect to harvest and use. And the demand from third world countries is growing at the same rate that our demand grew when we were developing. That’s why big oil has instructed you to act the way that you are. There is nothing more profitable than high demand, low supply of a hard to produce commodity. Think diamonds.

Nobody knows.

Then you shouldn't make the claim you did.

That there's an end to fossil fuels?

There is nothing more profitable than high demand, low supply of a hard to produce commodity. Think diamonds.

You think there's a low supply of diamonds? LOL!

By definition the supply is held to much less than demand. It's called business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others.

By definition of what? According to economics, supply and demand always intersect. That determines the price. You do understand the laws of supply and demand, do you not?

 

[bripat9643]

Science is not an opinion. We know right science from non science. The more complex it is, the more education is required to know the right stuff.

So you're right.

Anything that disputes AGW science is automatically a "poor source of information".

ROFL!

You kill me!

 

[PMZ]

To answer the OP, people deny climate change for political reasons, and political reasons only.

Certainly literacy is also a factor, and it is clear that some of our sceptics on this board simply cannot read and write well enugh to read science or news concerning science. Most can, however.

If we list the 5 - 10 most commonly cited 'issues' with climate change, they are all political.

They are also arguments which the posters themselves frequently know not to be true, and in that this topic may be unique. Every week we see posters claiming that scientists only do what government wants them to do - and then going strangely quiet when reminded that scientists in most conservative countries also back AGW.

Such arguments are simple non sequitors, tossed out purely as an excuse to justify denying science.

There is a postive side to this in that (on this board) there are probably only one or two posters who genuinely do not understand or believe in AGW. There are simply 20 or so who will not admit to it.

Conservatives, like all revolutionaries, are media creations. They only repeat what they are told to. No thinking, no education, no experience required.

So now conservatives are "revolutionaries".

I'm concerned that that comes as a surprise to you. When you want to end current government in favor of a drastically different approach that's by definition, revolutionary. Democracy, like we enjoy today, is by its very nature, evolutionary. Look how long it took we, the people, to correct the flaws in our original Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

Todd -

I'll try and post this at a level you might be able to follow - is the amount of oil left limitless?

It's pretty close. With new recovery methods the amount of recoverable oil is 6.2 trillion barrels - enough to last hundreds of years.

Define recoverable. When used by big oil it typically means at any cost, monetarily and environmentally, and of any quality, and requiring any degree of refinement, and from any other source country.

No it doesn't. It means "economically recoverable." That means at a price that oil companies can make a profit on. At an oil price of $100/bbl, there are 6.2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in the ground.

 

[PMZ]

So it's "settled", huh?

You guys really should stop making such absolute statements. They always turn around and bite you on the behind.

I don't deny climate change. I deny that man has had any appreciable impact on climate change.

See? You even got THAT wrong.

That faux superiority is getting pretty old -- especially from someone who refuses to acknowledge science that counters his dogma.

Note: For someone claiming to be literate, there sure are a lot of misspellings in your post.

That's the problem: You don't want anyone to understand it -- you want everyone to believe in it. Accept it. Endorse it. Above all, don't question it.

Those of us who value science and the scientific method simply can't do that. We have to speak up when we see science being perverted and bastardized for political ends.

Your problem is NOT that skeptics don't understand. Your problem is that skeptics understand all too well.

You keep using the word ''settled''. Some is, some isn't, and scientists can tell the difference. That’s a fundamental truth of science.

I wouldn't use the word if you guys didn't all the time to try to silence debate. I keep saying science is NEVER settled.

And you are wrong about that.

 

[PMZ]

Science is not an opinion. We know right science from non science. The more complex it is, the more education is required to know the right stuff.

So you're right.

Anything that disputes AGW science is automatically a "poor source of information".

You certainly are proud of being closed-minded, aren't you?

Anyone completely open minded must know nothing.

 

[Saigon]

They have a reasonable command of the English language, and can get their ideas across.

Would you mind linking to any post of Skooks that demonstrates this?

And yes, of course feed-in tariffs are forms of subsidies - but are intended as a temporary incentive to allow companies to invest in necessary infrastructure. It's considerably less than what most countries have allowed coal over the years.

 

[bripat9643]

Conservatives, like all revolutionaries, are media creations. They only repeat what they are told to. No thinking, no education, no experience required.

So now conservatives are "revolutionaries".

I'm concerned that that comes as a surprise to you. When you want to end current government in favor of a drastically different approach that's by definition, revolutionary. Democracy, like we enjoy today, is by its very nature, evolutionary. Look how long it took we, the people, to correct the flaws in our original Constitution.

No one thinks we can dispose of democracy overnight. Just like the way liberals have spent the last 150 years undermining the Constitutional government the Founding Fathers originally setup, we are willing to bide our time.

That makes us liberals, doesn't it?

 

[PMZ]

Nobody knows.

Then you shouldn't make the claim you did.

That there's an end to fossil fuels?

There is nothing more profitable than high demand, low supply of a hard to produce commodity. Think diamonds.

You think there's a low supply of diamonds? LOL!

By definition the supply is held to much less than demand. It's called business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others.

By definition of what? According to economics, supply and demand always intersect. That determines the price. You do understand the laws of supply and demand, do you not?

You're scary stupid.

There is what's true yesterday and today, and there is planning for the future. To determine the price that something will be sold for, businesses consider what the supply and demand possibilities are. Curves.

 

[PMZ]

It's pretty close. With new recovery methods the amount of recoverable oil is 6.2 trillion barrels - enough to last hundreds of years.

Define recoverable. When used by big oil it typically means at any cost, monetarily and environmentally, and of any quality, and requiring any degree of refinement, and from any other source country.

No it doesn't. It means "economically recoverable." That means at a price that oil companies can make a profit on. At an oil price of $100/bbl, there are 6.2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in the ground.

Says who? At what environmental and defense cost? How many years worth is that giving the rising demand. What does that assume about future energy wasting automobiles?

So many questions.

 

[daveman]

But the use of the word settled is typically used by people who find the truth of science inconvenient to their politics.

You're right.

"The science behind climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming," Jackson told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "That conclusion is not a partisan one."

"Climategate" aside, here's what we know: a blanket of greenhouse gases is suffocating the earth. The thickness of this blanket is highly correlated with human activity, including deforestation and development. Rising levels of carbon dioxide are acidifying oceans and destroying coral reefs -- the bottom of the food chain. Most scientists strongly believe, but do not know for sure, that temperatures will rise fairly steadily over the next century, throwing human life as we know it into chaos. It is hard to get rid of carbon dioxide, so the natural policy to reverse or stall the warming trend would be to reduce the amount of carbon emitted. Much of the science is settled, but parts of it, particularly temperature projections, are subject to large margins of error -- though often, this error redounds to the benefit of those scientists whose projections were too conservative.

This is the truth, folks, the science is settled: Global warming is real and humans are causing it.


Yep, a lot of people find truth inconvenient to their politics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By definition the supply is held to much less than demand. It's called business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others.

By definition of what? According to economics, supply and demand always intersect. That determines the price. You do understand the laws of supply and demand, do you not?

You're scary stupid.

There is what's true yesterday and today, and there is planning for the future. To determine the price that something will be sold for, businesses consider what the supply and demand possibilities are. Curves.

You're scary stupid.

Says the guy who doesn't know plutonium can be used in reactors.

 

[PMZ]

It's pretty close. With new recovery methods the amount of recoverable oil is 6.2 trillion barrels - enough to last hundreds of years.

Define recoverable. When used by big oil it typically means at any cost, monetarily and environmentally, and of any quality, and requiring any degree of refinement, and from any other source country.

No it doesn't. It means "economically recoverable." That means at a price that oil companies can make a profit on. At an oil price of $100/bbl, there are 6.2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in the ground.

From Wikipedia.

''Oil reserves are the amount of technically and economically recoverable oil. Reserves may be for a well, for a reservoir, for a field, for a nation, or for the world. Different classifications of reserves are related to their degree of certainty.''

''The total estimated amount of oil in an oil reservoir, including both producible and non-producible oil, is called oil in place. However, because of reservoir characteristics and limitations in petroleum extraction technologies, only a fraction of this oil can be brought to the surface, and it is only this producible fraction that is considered to be reserves. The ratio of producible oil reserves to total oil in place for a given field is often referred to as the recovery factor. Recovery factors vary greatly among oil fields. The recovery factor of any particular field may change over time based on operating history and in response to changes in technology and economics. The recovery factor may also rise over time if additional investment is made in enhanced oil recovery techniques such as gas injection, surfactants injection, water-flooding,[1] or microbial enhanced oil recovery.''

''Based on data from OPEC at the beginning of 2011 the highest proved oil reserves including non-conventional oil deposits are in Venezuela (20% of global reserves), Saudi Arabia (18% of global reserves), Canada (13% of global reserves), and Iran (9%).''

''Because the geology of the subsurface cannot be examined directly, indirect techniques must be used to estimate the size and recoverability of the resource. While new technologies have increased the accuracy of these techniques, significant uncertainties still remain. In general, most early estimates of the reserves of an oil field are conservative and tend to grow with time. This phenomenon is called reserves growth.''

''Many oil-producing nations do not reveal their reservoir engineering field data and instead provide unaudited claims for their oil reserves. The numbers disclosed by some national governments are suspected of being manipulated for political reasons.''

 

[daveman]

Looky there: EEEEEvil Big Oil looking to make money off of alternative energy.

I'll bet you didn't know about any of that, did you?

Are you kidding?

There are TV ads from every major oil company telling us how green they are and how algal fuels may be the next big thing etc, etc.

That doesn't mean they are, or it is.

Oddly enough, you removed the articles from my post proving they are.

Do you really believe that by not looking at those articles, you can alter reality?

 

[daveman]

If you mean that my mind is closed to things provably not true, then you are correct.

How do you know they're provably not true if you don't even look at them?

Oh, yes, that's right. You've made up your mind, and therefore no further input is required.

That's being closed-minded, Skippy.

You are against any admission that others know more than you on any topic. That’s just not true of anyone.

You keep making stuff up about me, contrary to things I've written.

Why is that? Why do you need to lie? Is it because you acknowledge reality doesn't support what you wish to be true?

 

[daveman]

I think that one of the things that keeps you out in the weeds...

What keeps me out in the weeds, as you term it, is realism.

I have never said anything remotely like that.

Let me guess: The IPCC.

...the best of government and business and responsible private citizens. But, none of those contributors are perfect. In fact their all made up of mere humans. But we won't be given any breaks by mother nature. The difficulty of the problem is just what is.

Your and my choice is simple. Contribute to either the problem if that's all you can do, or to the solution if you are able.

Your attitude is that you see anything that doesn't exactly parallel your proposed solution as being part of the problem.

It's a closed-minded and narrow view. Your way or the highway. You're either with us or against us.

I'm guessing you criticized George Bush for that attitude.

Problems can have many solutions. Just because you don't like some of them based on emotion reasons doesn't mean they're not viable.

My opinion is that George B was a hood ornament. Like Reagan. They were along for the ride while others did the even light lifting.

Deflection. I'm 97% certain you've criticized Bush for saying "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Probably because you felt your toes being stepped on.

 

[daveman]

And there you go again....trying to score points by posting things that are obvious to everyone else on the forum except you. I mean....how can you post that and not feel embarassed about how obvious it is?

Maybe leave the point scoring for some of the stronger posters?

You mean everyone knows but us how much is left?

Then you won't have any problem telling us, will you?

I mean that everyone but Todd knows that the US has very limited amounts of domestic oil left.

It isn't just what oil Venezuela and Iran have left that matters here, is it?

You should use a spotter when you're backpedaling.

 

[daveman]

Conservatives, like all revolutionaries, are media creations. They only repeat what they are told to. No thinking, no education, no experience required.

So now conservatives are "revolutionaries".

I'm concerned that that comes as a surprise to you. When you want to end current government in favor of a drastically different approach that's by definition, revolutionary. Democracy, like we enjoy today, is by its very nature, evolutionary. Look how long it took we, the people, to correct the flaws in our original Constitution.

Oh, no, it's no surprise at all to me.

I'm a conservative Christian gun-owning veteran who supports small government. This Administration has already declared me a potential domestic terrorist for not embracing Groupthink.

 

[daveman]

You keep using the word ''settled''. Some is, some isn't, and scientists can tell the difference. That’s a fundamental truth of science.

I wouldn't use the word if you guys didn't all the time to try to silence debate. I keep saying science is NEVER settled.

And you are wrong about that.

Wow. Just...wow.

You are profoundly ignorant about science, kid.