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?

Anyone completely open minded must know nothing.

And now you claim closed-mindedness is a virtue!

 

[PMZ]

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?

Liberals took an early flawed governmental concept, a plutocracy modeled after the European aristocracies of the founders times, and changed it into an equal rights for everyone democracy. Conservatives have resisted every step in every way possible.

The bills from the latest attempt at conservative government will still be getting paid off by dozens of future generations.

The majority of the electorate is now well informed about those limitations in conservatism.

No Whitehouse for you in any of our lifetimes.

 

[daveman]

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?

He doesn't believe the AGW cult. He posts links to polls showing the public is increasingly uninterested in your doomsday predictions.

What's so hard for you to understand?

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.

Then why do you keep insisting feed-in tariffs are NOT subsidies?

 

[PMZ]

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.

I like it when the Toddster has to blatantly lie because no truth will serve his politics.

 

[PMZ]

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?

I don't think like you do. I accept reality as it becomes known and live my life according to it. I was completely open minded about all AGW possibilities until science determined the truth. Now we know what it makes sense to work on now. I had a whole career doing this so I'm pretty confident in my abilities.

Unfortunately I'm no longer in a position to contribute much to the development of solutions, but I can support the process. Because I know that it works.

Doing nothing now is completely nonsensical to me.

 

[PMZ]

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.

What you wish was true about me is no more true than any of your other wishes.

The perfect loser.

 

[PMZ]

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.

But you are the poster boy for group think. That's why you are indeed a threat to America and our way of life. You are the real Archie Bunker. He was funny to watch but only on TV. Not so funny in person.

 

[PMZ]

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.

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.

There was so much important stuff to criticize the Bushman for that I had no time for trivialities.

 

[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?

I don't think like you do.

You don't think at all.

I accept reality as it becomes known and live my life according to it. I was completely open minded about all AGW possibilities until science determined the truth.

You were open to all possibilities...except for one: That it's not happening.

You heard what you liked, and that defined reality for you. Your mind snapped shut.

Now we know what it makes sense to work on now. I had a whole career doing this so I'm pretty confident in my abilities.

Unfortunately I'm no longer in a position to contribute much to the development of solutions, but I can support the process. Because I know that it works.

Doing nothing now is completely nonsensical to me.

I guess you didn't notice that I've NEVER advocated doing nothing.

More lies.

 

[daveman]

And you are wrong about that.

Wow. Just...wow.

You are profoundly ignorant about science, kid.

What you wish was true about me is no more true than any of your other wishes.

The perfect loser.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Falsifiability or refutability is the trait of a statement, hypothesis, or theory whereby it could be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Science must be falsifiable. The scientific method can not be implemented without the theoretical possibilities of both disproof and verification.​

You deny that AGW can be disproved. Most on your side do.

That's not science. It's dogma.

 

[daveman]

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.

But you are the poster boy for group think. That's why you are indeed a threat to America and our way of life. You are the real Archie Bunker. He was funny to watch but only on TV. Not so funny in person.

You're not paying attention, kid. I'm a threat because I don't subscribe to progressive Groupthink. I hold dangerous an unapproved ideas.

Were you drinking last night when you were reasonable?

 

[daveman]

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.

There was so much important stuff to criticize the Bushman for that I had no time for trivialities.

I have no proof, of course, but I'm certain you're lying.

 

[numan]

I have no proof, of course, but I'm certain you're lying.

That could be said of everything which you claim. · ·

.

 

[alan1]

Why do so many people deny climate change.

It is more a questioning of whether or not mankind is responsible or can control/alter climate change. Not climate change itself.
You did a piss-poor job of claiming something exists where it does not. Very unscientific of you when you attempt to create a scientific post.

Fail.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I like it when the Toddster has to blatantly lie because no truth will serve his politics.

Pointing out your ignorance is not a lie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I like it when the Toddster has to blatantly lie because no truth will serve his politics.

"Wouldn't it make sense to reprocess and burn the plutonium in a reactor"

Do you understand the differences between power plants and bombs? Power plants are controllable. Bombs go boom. Plutonium is for bombs.
__________________


http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...bal-warming-is-a-religion-30.html#post7815406

Poor PMZ, can't hide from your own posts.

 

[mamooth]

You deny that AGW can be disproved. Most on your side do.

If you're not lying, you'll be able to specifically point to these people and where they said such a crazy thing. But I'm guessing you'll just respond with that usual vague handwaving thing where you declare how you magically know what all the dirty liberals _really_ think.

AGW is disproven if the world starts cooling. That would be the whole world, which would include the oceans. It would also be disproven if the heat balance wasn't a net positive. There are more, but the point is there are specific measurable conditions which could disprove AGW theory.

That's not science. It's dogma.

Denialism, on the other hand, is undisprovable pseudoscience. The earth warms? Just scream "Natural cycles!". Heat balance positive? Yell "Cosmic rays are changing the clouds!". And so on. Every sign of warming has a convenient excuse to be handwaved away.

Feel free to prove me incorrect. Simply list some things could disprove denialism. Be specific and realistic.

 

[PMZ]

Wow. Just...wow.

You are profoundly ignorant about science, kid.

What you wish was true about me is no more true than any of your other wishes.

The perfect loser.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Falsifiability or refutability is the trait of a statement, hypothesis, or theory whereby it could be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Science must be falsifiable. The scientific method can not be implemented without the theoretical possibilities of both disproof and verification.​

You deny that AGW can be disproved. Most on your side do.

That's not science. It's dogma.

You have been completely unable to offer any evidence, any science, that demonstrates even the possibility that atmospheric GHGs do not cause global warming.

 

[PMZ]

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.

But you are the poster boy for group think. That's why you are indeed a threat to America and our way of life. You are the real Archie Bunker. He was funny to watch but only on TV. Not so funny in person.

You're not paying attention, kid. I'm a threat because I don't subscribe to progressive Groupthink. I hold dangerous an unapproved ideas.

Were you drinking last night when you were reasonable?

You are a big oil robot. Bought and paid for. So much that you don't even care that there is zero evidence of what you've been taught to want is real.

 

[PMZ]

You're scary stupid.

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

I like it when the Toddster has to blatantly lie because no truth will serve his politics.

"Wouldn't it make sense to reprocess and burn the plutonium in a reactor"

Do you understand the differences between power plants and bombs? Power plants are controllable. Bombs go boom. Plutonium is for bombs.
__________________


http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...bal-warming-is-a-religion-30.html#post7815406

Poor PMZ, can't hide from your own posts.

So you're saying that nuclear bombs don't use plutonium. That’s the point. Remember?