Why do so many people deny climate change

[Uncensored2008]

I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph. After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.

Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:

One is that many people who deny global warming do not have a science background. Therefore, they find themselves in a bind when dealing with the materials explaining the issue.

Additionally, climate change discussion has become so politicized and misinformation so regularly injected by those with incentive to do so that the conversation is overwhelming for many people to sort through.

And last but not least, I think the prospect of declining living standards creates an emotional response in people that in many ways shares the stages of grief. People are emotionally attached to lifestyles and it is VERY difficult to accept data that may point toward new behaviors.

K.

In 4.6 billion years. there has been only one constant to the climate of planet Earth, that constant is change.

What rational people do, is realize that the Gaea cult are moronic fuctards, and that anthropogenic global warming is the purvey of primitive apes attempting to convince others that the idiotic horseshit you peddle has some relation to legitimate science. Michael Mann is a fraud, guided by his idiotic religion, rather than by the results of scientific inquiry. Such is the case of the AGW crowd in general, who are really just a bunch of New Age nutjobs engaged in primitive animist worship.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You might want to put Frank on your ignore list, Loa.

Gaea cultists, never to be hampered by fact or evidence. And you have the nerve to attack creationists....

 

[bripat9643]

I deny that man is affecting the climate either way. The reasons I do are many and scientifically and empirically based.

Deny away. You're welcome to your opinion.

However due to your lack of credibility we will not act on your opinion but rather the high credibility of IPCC science.

The IPCC has been wrong on so many issues that they have no credibility whatsoever. Their biggest faux pax was their support of Michael Mann's hockey stick graph, which has been proven to be fraudulent.

 

[PMZ]

One of the sources of denier ignorance is that they have been instructed to avoid studying the IPCC documentation just like a few years ago they were instructed to avoid Wikipedia, both for the same reason. To maintain ignorance.

Here's, therefore, the ultimate exposure for them, the IPCC AR4 summarized by Wikipedia.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

Of course it was the state of climate science then (2007), and is about to be superceded by AR5, the state of climate science now.

There can be no doubt that they'll want to burn AR5 too.

 

[PMZ]

I deny that man is affecting the climate either way. The reasons I do are many and scientifically and empirically based.

Deny away. You're welcome to your opinion.

However due to your lack of credibility we will not act on your opinion but rather the high credibility of IPCC science.

The IPCC has been wrong on so many issues that they have no credibility whatsoever. Their biggest faux pax was their support of Michael Mann's hockey stick graph, which has been proven to be fraudulent.

Show us that proof.

 

[PMZ]

I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph. After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.

Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:

One is that many people who deny global warming do not have a science background. Therefore, they find themselves in a bind when dealing with the materials explaining the issue.

Additionally, climate change discussion has become so politicized and misinformation so regularly injected by those with incentive to do so that the conversation is overwhelming for many people to sort through.

And last but not least, I think the prospect of declining living standards creates an emotional response in people that in many ways shares the stages of grief. People are emotionally attached to lifestyles and it is VERY difficult to accept data that may point toward new behaviors.

K.

In 4.6 billion years. there has been only one constant to the climate of planet Earth, that constant is change.

What rational people do, is realize that the Gaea cult are moronic fuctards, and that anthropogenic global warming is the purvey of primitive apes attempting to convince others that the idiotic horseshit you peddle has some relation to legitimate science. Michael Mann is a fraud, guided by his idiotic religion, rather than by the results of scientific inquiry. Such is the case of the AGW crowd in general, who are really just a bunch of New Age nutjobs engaged in primitive animist worship.

The usual name for a belief for which there is no supporting evidence is a myth. Myths are very important in primitive cultures to explain things that are unexplained by the tribes knowledge.

We still have primitive sub cultures among us that employ myths to explain what they can't.

The post above is a good example of a myth of the primitive conservative subculture. It is a mythological explanation that's the basis for their worship of the god, Ignorance, who they believe rewards them with political power.

 

[IanC]

Simple energy balance calculations.

Simple?

Then what is (within 1 degree) the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2. If they are simple, then you should be able to provide a sensitivity to within a fraction of a degree, but lets work with whole numbers...

The existence of positive feedbacks, and the fact that we have not agreed to a path forward relative to ongoing use of FFs, makes that answer unknowable with certainty.

The best climate minds in the country have estimated the range of possibilities to be 3 to 12 degrees C.

Ithought you used the IPCC reports as a bible? Where did you get 3-12C from? AR5 is back to 1.5-4.5C isn't it?

 

[bripat9643]

Deny away. You're welcome to your opinion.

However due to your lack of credibility we will not act on your opinion but rather the high credibility of IPCC science.

The IPCC has been wrong on so many issues that they have no credibility whatsoever. Their biggest faux pax was their support of Michael Mann's hockey stick graph, which has been proven to be fraudulent.

Show us that proof.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf

 

[Uncensored2008]

The usual name for a belief for which there is no supporting evidence is a myth.

Ergo the myth of anthropogenic global warming....

Alas though, in this too you are wrong. The term "myth" is a cultural tale to explain that which confronts a society. Since fanciful deities such as Zeus or Gaea are present, you ignorantly assumed that the fact or fiction have a bearing on myth, it does not.

Myths are very important in primitive cultures to explain things that are unexplained by the tribes knowledge.

Few cultures in human history have been as ignorant or primitive as the modern left. The presentation of myth with the demand that said myth is science demonstrates the extremity of the cultural devolution of the modern left.

We still have primitive sub cultures among us that employ myths to explain what they can't.

Such as those who attribute the natural change of climate to the "carbon sins" of humans.

There is both arrogance and ignorance in this; the arrogance of the cultist that they have such great power that their actions can alter the very fabric of reality, Of course this is supported by astounding ignorance and a great deal of fraud, as we see from the IPCC and most of the religion's leaders.

The post above is a good example of a myth of the primitive conservative subculture. It is a mythological explanation that's the basis for their worship of the god, Ignorance, who they believe rewards them with political power.

Ah, so the real sophistication is the belief in a sentient planet that is so fragile that the "carbon sins" of man will destroy all reality - unless we give lots of money to Aljazeera Gore and His Assholiness, Michael Mann....

ROFL, y'all are barely sentient apes, flinging shit and imagining yourselves clever, while led by the same shaman using the same tales as every doomsday cult in history.

Go sacrifice monkey, you must appease the volcano god.....

 

[SSDD]

The answers to all of your questions are known and accepted as standard quantum physics by virtually every qualified scientist on the planet. You chose to reman ignorant of that science. Your choice, but nobody owes you a thing in response to your choices.

Quantum physics? That branch of physics that is rife with contradictions and inconsistencies? That branch of physics that has to fabricate an ad hoc "fix" to even explain the electron cloud of a hydrogen atom? Right.

 

[SSDD]

Simple energy balance calculations.

Simple?

Then what is (within 1 degree) the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2. If they are simple, then you should be able to provide a sensitivity to within a fraction of a degree, but lets work with whole numbers...

The existence of positive feedbacks, and the fact that we have not agreed to a path forward relative to ongoing use of FFs, makes that answer unknowable with certainty.

The best climate minds in the country have estimated the range of possibilities to be 3 to 12 degrees C.

So you admit that you lied when you claimed that it was just a matter of simple energy balance calculations. Any observable experiments that prove any of those feedbacks?

 

[PMZ]

Simple?

Then what is (within 1 degree) the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2. If they are simple, then you should be able to provide a sensitivity to within a fraction of a degree, but lets work with whole numbers...

The existence of positive feedbacks, and the fact that we have not agreed to a path forward relative to ongoing use of FFs, makes that answer unknowable with certainty.

The best climate minds in the country have estimated the range of possibilities to be 3 to 12 degrees C.

So you admit that you lied when you claimed that it was just a matter of simple energy balance calculations. Any observable experiments that prove any of those feedbacks?

The fact of AGW is a simple calculation. The dynamics are not, nor is predicting the future behavior of mankind.

The fact of ice and snow melting is certainly observable. Where and when it will stop, nobody knows, but could be the difference between an affordable and an unaffordable adaptation by mankind.

 

[PMZ]

Simple?

Then what is (within 1 degree) the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2. If they are simple, then you should be able to provide a sensitivity to within a fraction of a degree, but lets work with whole numbers...

The existence of positive feedbacks, and the fact that we have not agreed to a path forward relative to ongoing use of FFs, makes that answer unknowable with certainty.

The best climate minds in the country have estimated the range of possibilities to be 3 to 12 degrees C.

Ithought you used the IPCC reports as a bible? Where did you get 3-12C from? AR5 is back to 1.5-4.5C isn't it?

Neither you nor I have seen AR5.

However, I'll have to see if I erred. As I think about it now, it might be 3-12 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

[PMZ]

The answers to all of your questions are known and accepted as standard quantum physics by virtually every qualified scientist on the planet. You chose to reman ignorant of that science. Your choice, but nobody owes you a thing in response to your choices.

Quantum physics? That branch of physics that is rife with contradictions and inconsistencies? That branch of physics that has to fabricate an ad hoc "fix" to even explain the electron cloud of a hydrogen atom? Right.

That branch of physics of which you are woefully ignorant.

 

[PMZ]

The usual name for a belief for which there is no supporting evidence is a myth.

Ergo the myth of anthropogenic global warming....

Alas though, in this too you are wrong. The term "myth" is a cultural tale to explain that which confronts a society. Since fanciful deities such as Zeus or Gaea are present, you ignorantly assumed that the fact or fiction have a bearing on myth, it does not.

Myths are very important in primitive cultures to explain things that are unexplained by the tribes knowledge.

Few cultures in human history have been as ignorant or primitive as the modern left. The presentation of myth with the demand that said myth is science demonstrates the extremity of the cultural devolution of the modern left.

We still have primitive sub cultures among us that employ myths to explain what they can't.

Such as those who attribute the natural change of climate to the "carbon sins" of humans.

There is both arrogance and ignorance in this; the arrogance of the cultist that they have such great power that their actions can alter the very fabric of reality, Of course this is supported by astounding ignorance and a great deal of fraud, as we see from the IPCC and most of the religion's leaders.

The post above is a good example of a myth of the primitive conservative subculture. It is a mythological explanation that's the basis for their worship of the god, Ignorance, who they believe rewards them with political power.

Ah, so the real sophistication is the belief in a sentient planet that is so fragile that the "carbon sins" of man will destroy all reality - unless we give lots of money to Aljazeera Gore and His Assholiness, Michael Mann....

ROFL, y'all are barely sentient apes, flinging shit and imagining yourselves clever, while led by the same shaman using the same tales as every doomsday cult in history.

Go sacrifice monkey, you must appease the volcano god.....

''Ah, so the real sophistication is the belief in a sentient planet that is so fragile that the "carbon sins" of man will destro all reality - unless we give lots of money to Aljazeera Gore and His Assholiness, Michael Mann....''

This is the paragraph that cost you all credibility.

 

[PMZ]

The IPCC has been wrong on so many issues that they have no credibility whatsoever. Their biggest faux pax was their support of Michael Mann's hockey stick graph, which has been proven to be fraudulent.

Show us that proof.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf

I asked for proof. You responded with just another opinion.

 

[daveman]

You've never denied AGW? That is the most bizarre thing that I 'very heard.

What are you, stupid?

Rhetorical question. Don't bother answering.

I've never claimed that greenhouse gases cause global warming.

I dispute the claim that man's small amount of greenhouse gases are responsible for any appreciable warming, and that there will be catastrophic consequences.

When is some science going to show up in your denying?

I've presented lots of science. Your willful ignorance does not alter that reality.

 

[PMZ]

Hey '' It looks like Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann, the scientist most clearly identified with the iconic climate change “hockey stick” research, may get his day in court that he has requested.

A superior court judge for the District of Columbia’s Civil Division denied a motion by National Review, Inc., to set aside Mann’s court challenge claiming he was defamed by an article in the magazine that he feels equated him to convicted pedophile and former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky.

Pointing to the legal definition of defamation, Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene wrote that “The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff [Mann] is likely to succeed on the merits.” The court ruled that the magazine’s description of Mann “as the man behind the fraudulent climate change ‘hockey stick’ graph’ was essentially an allegation of fraud.” For a scholar, the judge wrote, “it is obvious that allegations of fraud could lead to the demise of [Mann's] profession and tarnish his character and standing in the community.”

From

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.or...ichael-mann-can-proceed-with-defamation-suit/

 

[Uncensored2008]

''Ah, so the real sophistication is the belief in a sentient planet that is so fragile that the "carbon sins" of man will destro all reality - unless we give lots of money to Aljazeera Gore and His Assholiness, Michael Mann....''

This is the paragraph that cost you all credibility.

ROFL, from you? Who cares?

Seriously, y'all are mindless monkeys, screaming with great rage, whilst conveying nothing at all.

I used to be baffled by the idiocy of AGW fools, but then I figured out that you're all frauds, just a bunch of New Age monkey's clothing your idiotic and primitive cult in an mockery of science.

{Cray recently delivered the final 26 cabinets of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Gaea climate research supercomputer, which is housed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The newly arrived cabinets are loaded with the new AMD 16-core Interlagos processors. According to Jeff Nichols, an associate lab director at ORNL who heads the computational science directorate, the Gaea system is still in two pieces. The first piece is the original 14-cabinet system with a peak capability of 260 teraflops, Nichols said. The second piece is the new 26-cabinet system with a capability of 720 teraflops, he said.}

Friday Funny ? New NOAA supercomputer ?Gaea? revealed | Watts Up With That?

Yeah, in case anyone failed to grasp that y'all are a bunch of Gaea cult dumbfucks....

{Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.

There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden? }

Crichton: Environmentalism is a religion > Hawaii Free Press

 

[daveman]

I deny that man is affecting the climate either way. The reasons I do are many and scientifically and empirically based.

Deny away. You're welcome to your opinion.

However due to your lack of credibility we will not act on your opinion but rather the high credibility of IPCC science.

Progressives sure do loves them some authority figures, don't they?

If you could make your own decisions, you wouldn't need others to make them for you.