Why do so many people deny climate change

[PMZ]

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.

Who denies that we can stop making it worse?

 

[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.

Pointing out your ignorance is not a lie.

Well, it turns out that it is no matter what you feel entitled to.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Global warming/ Climate change is so 2001. I'm just amazed by the parallels of people who write a post about non christians going to hell and a post about Earth burning to a cinder if the climate change "deniers" don't jump on board with a morally and intellectually "superior" religion... oops.. I mean "scientific" mandate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Bombs can use plutonium and uranium 235.
So can reactors.
First time you've heard this?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It's your job to prove that it does, not our job to prove that it doesn't. I also don't have to prove that Big Foot doesn't exist. See, that's how the scientific method works.

 

[daveman]

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.

Look, I really don't think I can teach you logical thinking in one post, but let's see what happens.

Anyone who declares the science is settled, the debate is over -- they're denying that AGW can be disproved.

Get it now, or is you skull too full of unmerited arrogance to allow any logic in?

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.

How about science? How about proving that the AGW cult has NOT proved their case?

Naturally, you won't accept anything like that, will you?

I've presented enough studies the past few days to give a reasonable person something to think about.

But since most AGW cultists are not reasonable, nor do they think, what I've presented has no effect.

Thank you for illustrating this so excellently.

 

[daveman]

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.

Oooh, great job, Captain Strawman!

Probably because I've never claimed that. I really DO wish you'd stop lying about what I've said.

 

[daveman]

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.

Or were you sober last night for the first time since you joined here?

Yes, I think that's much more likely.

 

[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.

Who denies that we can stop making it worse?

What proves that we are making it worse?

I find it almost hysterical that your post title claims that people deny climate change when that really isn't the slightest bit of truth. As I said, it is more a questioning of whether mankind is responsible or can control it.
I'm kinda leaning towards the "no, we can't". Sorta like we can't stop climate altering volcanoes like this or this

 

[Abraham3]

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.

Who denies that we can stop making it worse?

What proves that we are making it worse?

I find it almost hysterical that your post title claims that people deny climate change when that really isn't the slightest bit of truth. As I said, it is more a questioning of whether mankind is responsible or can control it.
I'm kinda leaning towards the "no, we can't". Sorta like we can't stop climate altering volcanoes like this or this

A few things Alan:

The close correlation between rising CO2 levels and increasing temperatures since 1870

The isotopic analysis that shows 100% of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the combustion of fossil fuels.

The fact that no climate model that ignores AGW can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years.

The simple bookkeeping summation of fossil fuels burned and the simple chemical calculation of how much CO2 they would produce.

The calculation from first principles of the radiative forcing factor created by adding 130 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere over a 150 year period.

And, uhhh.. Alan, are you one of those folks that think volcanos are the dominant source of GHGs?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who denies that we can stop making it worse?

What proves that we are making it worse?

I find it almost hysterical that your post title claims that people deny climate change when that really isn't the slightest bit of truth. As I said, it is more a questioning of whether mankind is responsible or can control it.
I'm kinda leaning towards the "no, we can't". Sorta like we can't stop climate altering volcanoes like this or this

A few things Alan:

The close correlation between rising CO2 levels and increasing temperatures since 1870

The isotopic analysis that shows 100% of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the combustion of fossil fuels.

The fact that no climate model that ignores AGW can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years.

The simple bookkeeping summation of fossil fuels burned and the simple chemical calculation of how much CO2 they would produce.

The calculation from first principles of the radiative forcing factor created by adding 130 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere over a 150 year period.

And, uhhh.. Alan, are you one of those folks that think volcanos are the dominant source of GHGs?

The fact that no climate model that ignores AGW can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years.

Which models that assume AGW can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years?

 

[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.

No. We deny that anyone has shown any evidence that increased GHG concentration will not lead to AGW.

 

[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?

How come nobody has shown any evidence or any theory even that explains how increased atmospheric GHG concentrations do not lead to AGW.

 

[daveman]

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.

No. We deny that anyone has shown any evidence that increased GHG concentration will not lead to AGW.

You betray your ignorance yet again.

It's up to the people making the claim that more GHG will lead to AGW to prove it.

So far, they haven't.

 

[daveman]

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?

How come nobody has shown any evidence or any theory even that explains how increased atmospheric GHG concentrations do not lead to AGW.

Because we don't have to. It's up to you to prove they do.

You may THINK they've proven it, but that's only because you want to believe it.

Wishful thinking is not a rational basis for science.

 

[PMZ]

Global warming/ Climate change is so 2001. I'm just amazed by the parallels of people who write a post about non christians going to hell and a post about Earth burning to a cinder if the climate change "deniers" don't jump on board with a morally and intellectually "superior" religion... oops.. I mean "scientific" mandate.

GHG caused AGW is an absolute certainty. There is no other possibility. That does not change if the science is denied. So the choices are: accept the science, or, deny the science. No matter what choice you or any other denier makes, the science and nature stays the same.

 

[PMZ]

"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?

Bombs can use plutonium and uranium 235.
So can reactors.
First time you've heard this?

It's what I said.

 

[PMZ]

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.

It's your job to prove that it does, not our job to prove that it doesn't. I also don't have to prove that Big Foot doesn't exist. See, that's how the scientific method works.

We have proved it. You saying that you don't understand the proof does not change it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Bombs can use plutonium and uranium 235.
So can reactors.
First time you've heard this?

It's what I said.

No. You said plutonium was for bombs, when you were claiming I was wrong to say it should be burned in reactors, to reduce proliferation worries.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Global warming/ Climate change is so 2001. I'm just amazed by the parallels of people who write a post about non christians going to hell and a post about Earth burning to a cinder if the climate change "deniers" don't jump on board with a morally and intellectually "superior" religion... oops.. I mean "scientific" mandate.

GHG caused AGW is an absolute certainty. There is no other possibility. That does not change if the science is denied. So the choices are: accept the science, or, deny the science. No matter what choice you or any other denier makes, the science and nature stays the same.

You do realize that you sound like a religious fanatic, right?