Why do so many people deny climate change

[Abraham3]

Is the climate changing?

Well let's say it's definitely different than it has been in the recent past.

Because of this we are witnessing the destruction of industries and the annihilation of jobs.

And to what end? Staving off "global warming"?

Might I ask what point you are trying to make here?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Is the climate changing?

Well let's say it's definitely different than it has been in the recent past.

Because of this we are witnessing the destruction of industries and the annihilation of jobs.

And to what end? Staving off "global warming"?

Might I ask what point you are trying to make here?

That there is no compelling evidence for us to ruin our industrial base to stop something we can not even prove is happening. Further if it is we can not significantly effect the supposed changes according to the doomsday cult anyway.

 

[Abraham3]

Is the climate changing?

Well let's say it's definitely different than it has been in the recent past.

Because of this we are witnessing the destruction of industries and the annihilation of jobs.

And to what end? Staving off "global warming"?

Might I ask what point you are trying to make here?

That there is no compelling evidence for us to ruin our industrial base to stop something we can not even prove is happening. Further if it is we can not significantly effect the supposed changes according to the doomsday cult anyway.

Are you Mr H? Is that your post? Unless you're confessing sock puppethood, the answer to both questions is "no".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

'
The Denialist dolts are criminally ignorant of science, and they cannot bear to think of their beliefs and way of life being challenged.

They would not recognize a fact if it fell on them ... like an iceberg.

And Global Heating is a fact.

.

Maybe it is a "fact" but unless and until you show us how you've eliminate all variables except for an additional wisp of CO2 you join the rest of the Warmer cult in the STFU club

 

[Mr. H.]

Is the climate changing?

Well let's say it's definitely different than it has been in the recent past.

Because of this we are witnessing the destruction of industries and the annihilation of jobs.

And to what end? Staving off "global warming"?

Might I ask what point you are trying to make here?

Hydrocarbons are the boogeyman these days. Especially coal. Never mind that coal makes up nearly 50% of our electrical and industrial energy source. Under the guise of stemming global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it - we're being convinced by this administration that coal must simply die. Along with tens of thousands of jobs. Crude oil and natural gas are also squarely in the EPA's crosshairs.

As was stated earlier, it is the developing nations and emerging markets of the world that pose the greatest "threat". Not the U.S.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Might I ask what point you are trying to make here?

That there is no compelling evidence for us to ruin our industrial base to stop something we can not even prove is happening. Further if it is we can not significantly effect the supposed changes according to the doomsday cult anyway.

Are you Mr H? Is that your post? Unless you're confessing sock puppethood, the answer to both questions is "no".

To bad you don't get to decide who posts in threads isn't it? As to my answer those are the facts, your doomsday cult wants us to cut our throats when they ADMIT most results according to them will not stop what they claim is happening.

Which means we need our industrial base and science to come up with another answer. Something that IS happening. New tech is coming on line all the time. And the response from you retards,,, ohh no don't use that that won't force us to go back to the dark ages like we want.

 

[Mr. H.]

Might I ask what point you are trying to make here?

That there is no compelling evidence for us to ruin our industrial base to stop something we can not even prove is happening. Further if it is we can not significantly effect the supposed changes according to the doomsday cult anyway.

Are you Mr H? Is that your post? Unless you're confessing sock puppethood, the answer to both questions is "no".

Looks like we've been busted, Gunny.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do any of you denier sock puppets have anything that works better than this?

No? That's what I thought.

How about this?

Vostok ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature

 

[daveman]

'
The Denialist dolts are criminally ignorant of science, and they cannot bear to think of their beliefs and way of life being challenged.

They would not recognize a fact if it fell on them ... like an iceberg.

And Global Heating is a fact.

.

Criminally ignorant?

What do you propose...fines, jail time, execution?

You wouldn't be the first leftist to propose using government violence to silence dissent. If you can't get people to agree with you...jail them. Put them in camps. Put them in mass graves.

 

[daveman]

Do any of you denier sock puppets have anything that works better than this?

No? That's what I thought.

How about this?

I challenge your source. I much prefer ImageShack over Tinypic.

Wait -- you didn't really think we were just going to take your word that these graphs are accurate, did you?

You DID?

 

[daveman]

And a couple degrees here or there won't matter much.

That depends on how fast it gets here. And where you live.

Don't worry we're not all gonna die.

But some will. And MANY will suffer and ALL will pay the very high cost.

And if we do like you want, some will die, MANY will suffer, and ALL will pay the very high cost.

 

[daveman]

Do any of you denier sock puppets have anything that works better than this?

No? That's what I thought.

How about this?

Vostok ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature

His graph would, too, if it weren't compressed to represent 300,000 years.

 

[Abraham3]

And a couple degrees here or there won't matter much.

That depends on how fast it gets here. And where you live.

Don't worry we're not all gonna die.

But some will. And MANY will suffer and ALL will pay the very high cost.

And if we do like you want, some will die, MANY will suffer, and ALL will pay the very high cost.

Well... THAT really put me in MY place.

 

[PMZ]

Mankind, like all life, adapted to our environment. But our adaptation rather than being based on evolution and natural selection, was mostly building things. Farms where the fertile soil and adequate precipitation was. Cities where deep water ports could be. Population near where they could work.

All of our ambition took great energy, and we found it cheap, plentiful, and in easily available supply.

It turned out that while the supply was cheap, disposing of the waste, CO2, was problematic. It tended to change the climate which meant it altered the weather, warmer, which changed the sea level. Ouch.

Fortunately, science was able to see the subtle changes and launched intense study of the problem.

Thanks to that, we have some growing insight into our alternative futures.

We can continue to use up the gift of millions of years ago, fossil fuel, but it will run out. And it will warm the climate. And we will have to pay trillions to adapt our civilization to a new climate. And when it's gone, rebuild for sustainable energy.

Or, we can leave some in the ground, reduce the amount of change in the climate and therefore the adaptation costs, by moving to sustainable energy sooner.

Science is, and will continue to, determine the least expensive path. Great news except that it's a choice between two costly alternatives, and some big businesses today will be rendered obsolete by the change from fossil fuels.

That’s where the denial act comes from. If we remain ignorant of the problem, the painful solution will be delayed. That will make it even more painful, but pass it on to other people.

The myth that there is a zero cost option, has been dangled in front of the people, and they've been lied to that science will take that away. So, a small army has been recruited under false pretenses, to resist the science that's looking for the least expensive path.

Dumb for most of us. But profitable for some of us.

 

[Abraham3]

His graph would, too, if it weren't compressed to represent 300,000 years.

I do accept that for most of the Earth's history, increased CO2 has been a result of temperature increase rather than a cause. However, work last year by Jeremy Shakun (of Marcott and Shakun fame) showed that in many instances during the Holocene, increasing CO2 levels caused substantially MORE warming than the initial effect which triggered their own release. However, that was not the point.

During the 19th, 20th and 21st century, the correlation between CO2 level and global heat content has been exceptionally tight and through it all, CO2 levels have led.

The 300,000 year scale has nothing to do with any point I am trying to make. If you're interested, CO2 levels are now at values they have not reached in over 800,000 years.

 

[Abraham3]

I challenge your source. I much prefer ImageShack over Tinypic.

Woo-woo, Dave can R E A D.

Wait -- you didn't really think we were just going to take your word that these graphs are accurate, did you?

You DID?

You really know no lower bound, do you. Tell you what: **** off asshole.

 

[Abraham3]

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 believe that's me you're talking about.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...rming-over-the-past-20-years.html#post7831617

The information in his graph is meaningless. No source, no citations, nothing but numbers and lines that ANYONE could have simply made up.

You can accept it as valid, but you'd be taking it on faith.

And that's the problem with AGW: The science doesn't back it up, so it has to be taken on faith.

So, when I give you the source for those data, you're going to admit you were wrong and apologize for being such a top-notch dickhead all this time. Right?

 

[PMZ]

His graph would, too, if it weren't compressed to represent 300,000 years.

I do accept that for most of the Earth's history, increased CO2 has been a result of temperature increase rather than a cause. However, work last year by Jeremy Shakun (of Marcott and Shakun fame) showed that in many instances during the Holocene, increasing CO2 levels caused substantially MORE warming than the initial effect which triggered their own release. However, that was not the point.

During the 19th, 20th and 21st century, the correlation between CO2 level and global heat content has been exceptionally tight and through it all, CO2 levels have led.

The 300,000 year scale has nothing to do with any point I am trying to make. If you're interested, CO2 levels are now at values they have not reached in over 800,000 years.

The forcing caused by increases in atmospheric GHGs is immediate. The earth's response to that forcing is very slow though due to the mass involved, and all of the systems that are thrown out of balance, rebalancing.

On top of that, each increment of warming or cooling launches positive or negative feedbacks that can result in huge delays before the system fully stabilizes.

So, even if we stopped adding GHGs today, we have no idea when stability would be ultimately restored.

The fact that we are still undecided about when we can stop dumping just adds more uncertainty to what and when our new reality will be.

We can measure the GHG concentration today. We can measure the current degree of climate change caused by it. Is that 10%, 50%, or 90% of what it will be when fully stabilized is very uncertain.

 

[daveman]

That depends on how fast it gets here. And where you live.



But some will. And MANY will suffer and ALL will pay the very high cost.

And if we do like you want, some will die, MANY will suffer, and ALL will pay the very high cost.

Well... THAT really put me in MY place.

It should, but you're not bright enough to recognize it, nor honest enough to acknowledge it.

If AGW is as catastrophic as you all claim, and your proposed "solution" will mitigate only a small part of the effects, then the only thing you're after is political power and government control over individual lives.

 

[PMZ]

And if we do like you want, some will die, MANY will suffer, and ALL will pay the very high cost.

Well... THAT really put me in MY place.

It should, but you're not bright enough to recognize it, nor honest enough to acknowledge it.

If AGW is as catastrophic as you all claim, and your proposed "solution" will mitigate only a small part of the effects, then the only thing you're after is political power and government control over individual lives.

One thing is undeniable for everybody. We will run out of fossil fuels.

Before that, as various FFs deplete, we have to define and construct a completely new, and sustainable energy infrastructure. I'm thinking that, like the building of our present system, will take 100-200 years.

What do you think?