Why do so many people deny climate change

[PMZ]

Their research must advance science.

Particularly if the PhD. is in Literature...

Dogma is a political and religious concept.

ROFL

Politics is 99% of academia, even the legitimate disciplines.

It has no meaning in science. Science is truth.

Bwahahahahaha

"Science is Truth."

ROFL

NOW I know you're in Jr. High.

No stupid, science is not "truth." Science is a tool, a methodology for discovery. When properly applied, it reveals facts; properties and processes that allow humans to better understand things. As with any tool, science can be misapplied, and the observations misinterpreted. This is particularly true when there is an agenda involved.

Dogma is the mythological basis of primitive cultures, like organized religion and politics who are fundamentally cults. They are based on what their self serving leaders want to become true.

I see the AGW morons and your Gaea cult as a return to the primitive. Y'all are a bunch of mindless apes.

Why didn't you go on to high school?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I think that this is revealing rhetoric about the anti science crowd. A primitive cult and culture out to impose what they wish was true on the rest of the world.

I think it is as well - and I'm glad that you acknowledge that you New Age Gaea Cultists are indeed "anti-science."

You fear that legitimate research will be conducted, for when it is, we find:

{Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates. The validity of Marcott-Shakun re-dating will be discussed below, but first, to show that the re-dating “matters” (TM-climate science), here is a graph showing reconstructions using alkenones (31 of 73 proxies) in Marcott style, comparing the results with published dates (red) to results with Marcott-Shakun dates (black). As you see, there is a persistent decline in the alkenone reconstruction in the 20th century using published dates, but a 20th century increase using Marcott-Shakun dates. (It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.)}

Hey, your religion needs fraud - science refutes it...

McIntyre finds the Marcott ?trick? ? How long before Science has to retract Marcott et al? | Watts Up With That?

Oh, and you mindless fucktards try to pretend that what you have isn't a religion....

{And the thing is that these are externalities that everyone can see. You can deny global warming (and may you be punished in the afterlife for doing so — this kind of denial for petty personal or political reasons is an almost inconceivable sin)} - Paul Krugman - a fraud in his own right - in my field of specialty.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/everyday-externalities/?_r=0

Wait a minute - is it SCIENCE demanding the heretics burn in hell?

ROFL

You ******* apes and your stupid religion...

 

[PMZ]

Those are the statistics on those with Bachelor Degrees. I don't know for your case the statistics on GSE.

The rise in the number of people earning a Bachelor's is meteoric. At this point, a four year program is roughly equal to a high school diploma in 1950.

{"As more and more people get a bachelor's degree, it becomes more commonplace," says Linda Serra Hagedorn, immediate past president of the Association for the Study of Higher Education and associate dean and professor at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa.

And, she adds, "not all bachelor's are equal." In many communities around the country, the bachelor's is not enough to make you stand out. " 'A bachelor's in what?' that's the question," Professor Hagedorn says.}

Reference:

Lawrence, L. (n.d.). Retrieved from Bachelor's degree: Has it lost its edge and its value? - CSMonitor.com

I agree with her. As technology has expanded exponentially, a BS in engineering or the sciences is table stakes for a productive life. Unfortunately that requires half a life of education if it also included civilizing studies like philosophy and anthropology and literature and art. Or, the real solution, life long learning. Unfortunately most folks spend that time watching drivel on TV that makes them more ignorant.

Perhaps democracies epitaph will point to the impossibility of maintaining an informed electorate.

 

[Uncensored2008]

AGW is science.

Oh thanks, YWC - good of you to demand that your faith is the true science.

Let's refresh everyone's memory on what you mindless ***** were predicting a few years back...

WHY do your priests and prophets (profits) NEVER, EVER, get anything right? Carbongeddon never quite comes along.

Just like the JW's predicting the return of Jesus, you chattering monkeys make lots of claims, and chatter louder when time and again you are proven wrong..

Denier dogma is politics,

Ah, so questioning dogma and the process of falsification is politics, blind faith is "science!"

You Gaea cultists sure are smart...

pure and simple. Here's what I wish was true, accept it or else. That giant flushing sound is your movement circling the bowl.

Of course - you wish your could kill or imprison all the vile heretics who dare question your faith.

We know this.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In this display case we have an early third millennium Neanderthal.

Who doesn't even accept the worship of Gaea...

Good work, YWC.

Notice the sloped forehead and the road burned knuckles. Their primitive campsites were mostly found in the south of North America and on the northern plains of America. They went extinct around 2020 demonstrating natural selection's penalty for not adapting to environmental change. Interestingly enough, even in the throes of extinction, they denied evolution. (As well as most science)

I see devolution. You Gaea cultists have devolved into mindless apes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why didn't you go on to high school?

When are you slated to finish middle school?

 

[JoeNormal]

It's obvious that you've had zero exposure to actual scientists.

BWAHAHAHAHA

Uh yeah, kracky..

In fact you'd probably cross over to the other side of the street if one was walking toward you.

Oooh, what a clever burn. Bet all the other kids on the short bus think you're super kewl.....

Another uneducated moron, blindly following the moronic AGW cult.......

Revel in your ignorance! Do one thing and do it better than anybody.

 

[PMZ]

AGW is science.

Oh thanks, YWC - good of you to demand that your faith is the true science.

Let's refresh everyone's memory on what you mindless ***** were predicting a few years back...

WHY do your priests and prophets (profits) NEVER, EVER, get anything right? Carbongeddon never quite comes along.

Just like the JW's predicting the return of Jesus, you chattering monkeys make lots of claims, and chatter louder when time and again you are proven wrong..

Denier dogma is politics,

Ah, so questioning dogma and the process of falsification is politics, blind faith is "science!"

You Gaea cultists sure are smart...

pure and simple. Here's what I wish was true, accept it or else. That giant flushing sound is your movement circling the bowl.

Of course - you wish your could kill or imprison all the vile heretics who dare question your faith.

We know this.

One source of your ignorance is the wish that AGW immediately follows GHG atmospheric concentrations. Doesn't work that way. If GHG concentrations were held constant today, a stable new climate could be still decades away. Not only does the increased absorbed energy have to be passed among all of earth's systems, water, land, ice, atmosphere, but the use of that energy to melt snow and ice has to go to completion. So, an eight degree warming from current concentrations is still one of the possibilities. Simple thermodynamics and meteorology. In other words, science.

 

[PMZ]

One of the most prophetic icons of climatology was the title of the movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth''. The inconvenience is driving the what's in it for me crowd crazy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Difference between Creationists and the AGW cult.

One believes that man is sinful by nature and fallen from grace, through sin, humans have offended a sentient deity who will punish mankind and destroy the world. That the words of leaders can never be questioned and that any attempt to investigate the established dogma is heresy and must be stopped.

The other believes that a cosmic goat herder created everything in 6 days....

 

[Uncensored2008]

One source of your ignorance is the wish that AGW immediately follows GHG atmospheric concentrations. Doesn't work that way. If GHG concentrations were held constant today, a stable new climate could be still decades away. Not only does the increased absorbed energy have to be passed among all of earth's systems, water, land, ice, atmosphere, but the use of that energy to melt snow and ice has to go to completion. So, an eight degree warming from current concentrations is still one of the possibilities. Simple thermodynamics and meteorology. In other words, science.

Thanks YWC - you creationists - er, Gaea cultists, have lots of excuses when your predictions fail, over and over.

Of course the graph shows predicted TEMPERATURE CHANGE, not greenhouse gas - and you're just lying - buyt hey, you have your faith to protect, you can't let integrity get in the way.

 

[PMZ]

One source of your ignorance is the wish that AGW immediately follows GHG atmospheric concentrations. Doesn't work that way. If GHG concentrations were held constant today, a stable new climate could be still decades away. Not only does the increased absorbed energy have to be passed among all of earth's systems, water, land, ice, atmosphere, but the use of that energy to melt snow and ice has to go to completion. So, an eight degree warming from current concentrations is still one of the possibilities. Simple thermodynamics and meteorology. In other words, science.

Thanks YWC - you creationists - er, Gaea cultists, have lots of excuses when your predictions fail, over and over.

Of course the graph shows predicted TEMPERATURE CHANGE, not greenhouse gas - and you're just lying - buyt hey, you have your faith to protect, you can't let integrity get in the way.

Look at your graph. The red and the blue. The time scale. Who plotted it and when.

You know, do the math and science or ask for help from someone who can.

You're telling us what you wish it said.

 

[PMZ]

Difference between Creationists and the AGW cult.

One believes that man is sinful by nature and fallen from grace, through sin, humans have offended a sentient deity who will punish mankind and destroy the world. That the words of leaders can never be questioned and that any attempt to investigate the established dogma is heresy and must be stopped.

The other believes that a cosmic goat herder created everything in 6 days....

This is the AGW thread. This is about science. This is about the search for truth, not about your politics or religon. Try to stay on topic.

Oh that's right. You get embarrassed every time that you do.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Look at your graph. The red and the blue. The time scale. Who plotted it and when.

You know, do the math and science or ask for help from someone who can.

You're telling us what you wish it said.

Seriously YWC, you're as inept with the internet as you are with science... (the source was in the title, shitferbrains.)


{Temperature change over past 11,300 years (in blue, via Science, 2013) plus projected warming this century on humanity’s current emissions path (in red, via recent literature). }

Bombshell: Recent Warming Is 'Amazing And Atypical' And Poised To Destroy Stable Climate That Enabled Civilization | ThinkProgress

THIS is why you're a creationist, er, AGW cultist....

 

[flacaltenn]

When you have been lied to the first time about the climate becoming an ice age in the 70's then changed to warming you tend not to believe them.

They also are not addressing why so many planets in our solar system climates are changing also.

It seems to be tied to something that is happening to our Solar System not mankind's pollution.

It was the global warming deniers, who you now believe, who lied to you about a coming Ice Age. The vast majority of scientists were predicting global warming in the 70s.

And the planetary canard has been addressed! Some planets and moons are warming, but other planets and moons are cooling, so it is obviously related to conditions in each location rather than a solar system related cause.

Imagine that... All the articles I've listed below --- and YET --- I ME get blamed for misinformation.. And of course --- ALL these articles were prompted by some small handful of cultish denier scientists..

1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book, 1976)
1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book, 1977)
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of – TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, May 1978)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

It's all pre-internet -- but I've checked out 5 or 6 successfully.. Sorry -- that turd don't fly.

(you can pretty much check out the Time links, the books and CSMonitor references in a couple minutes)

The moral of this message -- don't trust the LA Times, the NY Times, or the Chicago Tribune for your climate news...

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm sure not holding my breath.

That is a shame.

See the little blue snippet at the extreme left end of the Gaussian curve? That's like the 'evidence' supporting your side of the argument.

That's merely the IPCC doing what they were TOLD to do.. Which is to explore ONLY those causes of warming attributed to MAN.. The TSI number is completely fudged as we have previously discussed and you will notice NONE of the CURRENT EXCUSES for the reduction in warming due to NATURAL causes --- like AMO, PDO, ENSO, AO and others are even MENTIONED as forcing functions on temperatures..

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is the AGW thread.

I noticed that.

This is about science.

I thought you said this is the AGW thread?

Make up your mind.

This is about the search for truth, not about your politics or religon.

You fucknut cultists are little more than primitive Apes.

{It seems the uptick in the 20th century is not real, being nothing more than an artifact of shoddy procedures where the dates on the proxy samples were changed for some strange reason.}

McIntyre finds the Marcott ?trick? ? How long before Science has to retract Marcott et al? | Watts Up With That?

Ooooppps...

You Shamans caught with their dick in the dog, yet again...

Your cult is a fraud, you simpering moron.

 

[Peterf]

The thread title does not end with a question mark but I assume it is, nevertheless, an enquiry.

Many 'deny' AGW because they are immune to hysterical propaganda. Some - me for example - have a world view based on science and are revolted by its perversion. Many more are worldly wise and can recognise charlatans on the make.

Warmists 'computer models' and false data have comprehensively demolished . Only defenders of the faith, impervious to evidence or reason, remain.

 

[mamooth]

Warmists 'computer models' and false data have comprehensively demolished . Only defenders of the faith, impervious to evidence or reason, remain.

Your only say that because your retard political cult deems it PC to spout such idiot conspiracy theories. Like every other denialist here, you're dogshit-ignorant of the actual science. All you'll ever be capable of doing is parroting your cult's retard propaganda. Like you just did.

You want to impress us? Talk about the science, instead of just chanting your mantras. Think you're capable of it? I don't. I'm guessing that all you'll be able to do is scream that all the data is fraudulent, and that a great worldwide socialist conspiracy is afoot. You know, like all the other 'tards here do.

 

[mamooth]

Oops, dupe.