Why do so many people deny climate change

[Luddly Neddite]

How much would the coastline of FL change with a one ft change in sea level?

It wouldn't even be noticeable.

Then you haven't seen an elevation map of the state. And your physical oceanography is more than a little weak. Tell me, how far from the polar ice does this magical 32F region extend? And why isn't the entire sum of the world's water trapped there?

Interesting documentary showing footage of various areas that are already affected showed Vienna, New York City, parts of Florida and others.

People can't see past their own back yard and some will hold on to their ignorance right up until they drown.

 

[mamooth]

The graph showing a very warm MWP was in the 1990

When someone uses obsolete data when better data is available, that's a sign you're looking at someone embracing pseudoscience. Naturally, denialists use obsolete data whenever possible. That particular chart they cling to is based on the 1965 Lamb paper.

IPCC report, you ******* moron.

Non-tards, of course, understand both that:
1. Temps have risen a lot since 1965.
2. Proxy measurements have gotten a much better and more exhaustive since 1965, thus allowing much more accurate measurements of historical temperatures. Hence the changes, because the data got better.

Now, if someone is a political cultist, they'll wave their hands around and declare all the more recent data has to be forged, because it disagrees with their cult's teachings. Normal people laugh at such cultists.

Only ice on land melting can change sea level, and it would take much higher temperatures to make the Greenland and antarctic ice sheets melt.

Glaciers exist all around the world, and 70% of the sea level rise is due to thermal expansion, not melt. Thus your theory fails. Massive heating spanning the whole globe would have had to cause a big increase in the rate of sea level rise, like it's doing now. It didn't back then. Therefore, there was no massive heating covering the whole globe during the MWP.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The graph showing a very warm MWP was in the 1990

When someone uses obsolete data when better data is available, that's a sign you're looking at someone embracing pseudoscience. Naturally, denialists use obsolete data whenever possible. That particular chart they cling to is based on the 1965 Lamb paper.

IPCC report, you ******* moron.

Non-tards, of course, understand both that:
1. Temps have risen a lot since 1965.
2. Proxy measurements have gotten a much better and more exhaustive since 1965, thus allowing much more accurate measurements of historical temperatures. Hence the changes, because the data got better.

Now, if someone is a political cultist, they'll wave their hands around and declare all the more recent data has to be forged, because it disagrees with their cult's teachings. Normal people laugh at such cultists.

Only ice on land melting can change sea level, and it would take much higher temperatures to make the Greenland and antarctic ice sheets melt.

Glaciers exist all around the world, and 70% of the sea level rise is due to thermal expansion, not melt. Thus your theory fails. Massive heating spanning the whole globe would have had to cause a big increase in the rate of sea level rise, like it's doing now. It didn't back then. Therefore, there was no massive heating covering the whole globe during the MWP.

When someone uses obsolete data when better data is available, that's a sign you're looking at someone embracing pseudoscience.

Mann found better data on the MWP? LOL! That's funny.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's how it's likely to come down. The combination of rising sea levels, and millions of conservatives with their heads stuck in the sand, will be self correcting.

When the water comes, they will treat it as they treat all problems, by ignoring it, and the lemming effect will be their timely end.

Yeah, that "flood" of sea level increasing by 12 inches every century is going to kill millions!

 

[mamooth]

So Toddster is actually claiming that there wasn't any new data since 1965. His mindless cult allegiance has turned him into a retard. Is he capable of understanding that, or is he too much of a retard now to understand it?

Now, more on that figure. It was in IPCC 1990, but gone by 1992, replaced by better figures. Denialists should probably adjust their 'tard conspiracy. Do they now claim the conspiracy extends back to 1992? Understand that Dr. Mann didn't get involved with IPCC until around 1996, so they'll have to find another personality to demonize as Satan incarnate. Denialists, exactly who forged the data in 1992?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So Toddster is actually claiming that there wasn't any new data since 1965. His mindless cult allegiance has turned him into a retard. Is he capable of understanding that, or is he too much of a retard now to understand it?

Now, more on that figure. It was in IPCC 1990, but gone by 1992, replaced by better figures. Denialists should probably adjust their 'tard conspiracy. Do they now claim the conspiracy extends back to 1992? Understand that Dr. Mann didn't get involved with IPCC until around 1996, so they'll have to find another personality to demonize as Satan incarnate. Denialists, exactly who forged the data in 1992?

I'm laughing at the idea that Mann found better data. Did he really?

 

[bripat9643]

So Toddster is actually claiming that there wasn't any new data since 1965. His mindless cult allegiance has turned him into a retard. Is he capable of understanding that, or is he too much of a retard now to understand it?

Now, more on that figure. It was in IPCC 1990, but gone by 1992, replaced by better figures. Denialists should probably adjust their 'tard conspiracy. Do they now claim the conspiracy extends back to 1992? Understand that Dr. Mann didn't get involved with IPCC until around 1996, so they'll have to find another personality to demonize as Satan incarnate. Denialists, exactly who forged the data in 1992?

I'm laughing at the idea that Mann found better data. Did he really?

The data was certainly "better" from the viewpoint of AGW con-artists.

 

[tinydancer]

Here's how it's likely to come down. The combination of rising sea levels, and millions of conservatives with their heads stuck in the sand, will be self correcting.

When the water comes, they will treat it as they treat all problems, by ignoring it, and the lemming effect will be their timely end.

How about something really simple?

Don't build on a shoreline. Learn how to swim. Buy a freaking boat. Move inland.

 

[PMZ]

So Toddster is actually claiming that there wasn't any new data since 1965. His mindless cult allegiance has turned him into a retard. Is he capable of understanding that, or is he too much of a retard now to understand it?

Now, more on that figure. It was in IPCC 1990, but gone by 1992, replaced by better figures. Denialists should probably adjust their 'tard conspiracy. Do they now claim the conspiracy extends back to 1992? Understand that Dr. Mann didn't get involved with IPCC until around 1996, so they'll have to find another personality to demonize as Satan incarnate. Denialists, exactly who forged the data in 1992?

I'm laughing at the idea that Mann found better data. Did he really?

Who had better data before him?

 

[PMZ]

Here's how it's likely to come down. The combination of rising sea levels, and millions of conservatives with their heads stuck in the sand, will be self correcting.

When the water comes, they will treat it as they treat all problems, by ignoring it, and the lemming effect will be their timely end.

How about something really simple?

Don't build on a shoreline. Learn how to swim. Buy a freaking boat. Move inland.

Those would all been great ideas 250 years ago.

 

[PMZ]

So Toddster is actually claiming that there wasn't any new data since 1965. His mindless cult allegiance has turned him into a retard. Is he capable of understanding that, or is he too much of a retard now to understand it?

Now, more on that figure. It was in IPCC 1990, but gone by 1992, replaced by better figures. Denialists should probably adjust their 'tard conspiracy. Do they now claim the conspiracy extends back to 1992? Understand that Dr. Mann didn't get involved with IPCC until around 1996, so they'll have to find another personality to demonize as Satan incarnate. Denialists, exactly who forged the data in 1992?

The debate between science and politics is fun for us, miserable for them, but, in the end, unresolvable. There are no truths in politics. There are no lies in science. The two ''sides'' talk past each other.

But, it's necessary at times to keep the polluted water of politics out of the pristine landscape of science because we are completely dependent on science for solutions. There is no option especially from the political world.

The ultimate inconvenient truth for politics.

 

[tinydancer]

Here's how it's likely to come down. The combination of rising sea levels, and millions of conservatives with their heads stuck in the sand, will be self correcting.

When the water comes, they will treat it as they treat all problems, by ignoring it, and the lemming effect will be their timely end.

How about something really simple?

Don't build on a shoreline. Learn how to swim. Buy a freaking boat. Move inland.

Those would all been great ideas 250 years ago.

And still applicable today.

There is no global warming. Not since 1998. And climate change is natural.

Instead of spending all our resources trying to "fix the climate" brought to you by the same politicians who can't "fix a pot hole" or can't "fix an economy" I'd like to invest in science that can and will help us deal with our issues in the here and now but also in the future with realistic predictions on how the changing climate will affect us locally and also globally.

And take a pro active stance on doing something instead of predicting the end of the world as we know ad nauseaum and milking the crap out of the tax paying populace of the planet in a money grabbing scheme called "save the earth give me your money now".

 

[bripat9643]

So Toddster is actually claiming that there wasn't any new data since 1965. His mindless cult allegiance has turned him into a retard. Is he capable of understanding that, or is he too much of a retard now to understand it?

Now, more on that figure. It was in IPCC 1990, but gone by 1992, replaced by better figures. Denialists should probably adjust their 'tard conspiracy. Do they now claim the conspiracy extends back to 1992? Understand that Dr. Mann didn't get involved with IPCC until around 1996, so they'll have to find another personality to demonize as Satan incarnate. Denialists, exactly who forged the data in 1992?

I'm laughing at the idea that Mann found better data. Did he really?

Who had better data before him?

Honest data is always better than fake data.

 

[bripat9643]

So Toddster is actually claiming that there wasn't any new data since 1965. His mindless cult allegiance has turned him into a retard. Is he capable of understanding that, or is he too much of a retard now to understand it?

Now, more on that figure. It was in IPCC 1990, but gone by 1992, replaced by better figures. Denialists should probably adjust their 'tard conspiracy. Do they now claim the conspiracy extends back to 1992? Understand that Dr. Mann didn't get involved with IPCC until around 1996, so they'll have to find another personality to demonize as Satan incarnate. Denialists, exactly who forged the data in 1992?

The debate between science and politics is fun for us, miserable for them, but, in the end, unresolvable. There are no truths in politics. There are no lies in science. The two ''sides'' talk past each other.

You are so naive it's unbelievable. Ever heard of Piltdown Man? Why do you think you never see him mentioned in the scientific literature? The appalling fact is that fraud is endemic in science. There are scores of people pushing perpetual motion machines on the web at this very instant. Some of their ads have appeared in this forum.

But, it's necessary at times to keep the polluted water of politics out of the pristine landscape of science because we are completely dependent on science for solutions. There is no option especially from the political world.

The ultimate inconvenient truth for politics.

Yes, that's why politicians should quit funding these AGW magicians. They are corrupting science.

 

[mamooth]

I'm laughing at the idea that Mann found better data. Did he really?

As I don't speak 'tard, I have no idea what you're babbling about. Best I can tell, your 'tard conspiracy theory declares that Mann, who wasn't working with the IPCC until 1996, was forging a new graph in 1992.

Anyways, don't blame yourselves too much. All the denialists here have fallen for that stupid scam, given that the CultOfMcIntyre basically requires its acolytes to recite it 6 times a day as they bow and face WUWT on the computer screen. For example, a few here have shown us this sacred cult icon:

So why is it bogus?

First, because the graph they label as "1990-2001" was actually discarded by the IPCC by 1992. Whoever fudged the labels on that plot made up fake dates so they could lie about how the IPCC supposedly kept the 1965 image around as gospel truth through several editions until 2001. They didn't. In the first report in 1990, that was the only research around, so the IPCC used it. By the next edition, the 1992 supplementary report, the IPCC knew it was wildly inaccurate and hopelessly out of date, so they worked hard to replace it with good data. If someone thinks that's a conspiracy, then they're too much of a cult rube to ever be taken seriously.

Second, that 1965 graph is also for northern europe only, but the denialists say it's for the whole world.

This appears to be the origin of the scam graph, the fine scammers at WUWT. Given that the correct labels and explanations are on the wiki page they copied the original from, they can't use ignorance as an excuse. They just lied.

When the IPCC ?disappeared? the Medieval Warm Period | Watts Up With That?

So, if you ever posted that image, or if you fell for it, you should be asking yourself some tough questions. Your leaders have been lying their asses off to you, and as a result you lied about honest scientists. You can either admit your errors, or you can go full blown cultist and double down on the big lie, which would make you from now on an active participant in outright lying. Ignorance could excuse you all before, but not any longer.

(SSDD, I'm talking about you. You fell for the scam, posted the bogus graph, pushed it hard, and insulted anyone who didn't fall for it. You got some splainin' to do.)

 

[PMZ]

How about something really simple?

Don't build on a shoreline. Learn how to swim. Buy a freaking boat. Move inland.

Those would all been great ideas 250 years ago.

And still applicable today.

There is no global warming. Not since 1998. And climate change is natural.

Instead of spending all our resources trying to "fix the climate" brought to you by the same politicians who can't "fix a pot hole" or can't "fix an economy" I'd like to invest in science that can and will help us deal with our issues in the here and now but also in the future with realistic predictions on how the changing climate will affect us locally and also globally.

And take a pro active stance on doing something instead of predicting the end of the world as we know ad nauseaum and milking the crap out of the tax paying populace of the planet in a money grabbing scheme called "save the earth give me your money now".

If you knew science you'd know that science has found no alternative to AGW at the GHG concentrations we measure today. Politics has. Do nothing and push the consequences off on the future. Good for us, bad for everyone else. Potholes and the economy pale in comparison. Not to mention that it was conservative politics that gave us the economy that caused the need to recover.

So what you're selling is to be irresponsible. We received the benefit of fossil fuels. Let's dump the cost on others.

That's not the America that we've always been proud to be a part of.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm laughing at the idea that Mann found better data. Did he really?

As I don't speak 'tard, I have no idea what you're babbling about. Best I can tell, your 'tard conspiracy theory declares that Mann, who wasn't working with the IPCC until 1996, was forging a new graph in 1992.

Anyways, don't blame yourselves too much. All the denialists here have fallen for that stupid scam, given that the CultOfMcIntyre basically requires its acolytes to recite it 6 times a day as they bow and face WUWT on the computer screen. For example, a few here have shown us this sacred cult icon:

So why is it bogus?

First, because the graph they label as "1990-2001" was actually discarded by the IPCC by 1992. Whoever fudged the labels on that plot made up fake dates so they could lie about how the IPCC supposedly kept the 1965 image around as gospel truth through several editions until 2001. They didn't. In the first report in 1990, that was the only research around, so the IPCC used it. By the next edition, the 1992 supplementary report, the IPCC knew it was wildly inaccurate and hopelessly out of date, so they worked hard to replace it with good data. If someone thinks that's a conspiracy, then they're too much of a cult rube to ever be taken seriously.

Second, that 1965 graph is also for northern europe only, but the denialists say it's for the whole world.

This appears to be the origin of the scam graph, the fine scammers at WUWT. Given that the correct labels and explanations are on the wiki page they copied the original from, they can't use ignorance as an excuse. They just lied.

When the IPCC ?disappeared? the Medieval Warm Period | Watts Up With That?

So, if you ever posted that image, or if you fell for it, you should be asking yourself some tough questions. Your leaders have been lying their asses off to you, and as a result you lied about honest scientists. You can either admit your errors, or you can go full blown cultist and double down on the big lie, which would make you from now on an active participant in outright lying. Ignorance could excuse you all before, but not any longer.

(SSDD, I'm talking about you. You fell for the scam, posted the bogus graph, pushed it hard, and insulted anyone who didn't fall for it. You got some splainin' to do.)

Why don't you post a link to the original so we can determine the facts for ourselves?

 

[PMZ]

I'm laughing at the idea that Mann found better data. Did he really?

As I don't speak 'tard, I have no idea what you're babbling about. Best I can tell, your 'tard conspiracy theory declares that Mann, who wasn't working with the IPCC until 1996, was forging a new graph in 1992.

Anyways, don't blame yourselves too much. All the denialists here have fallen for that stupid scam, given that the CultOfMcIntyre basically requires its acolytes to recite it 6 times a day as they bow and face WUWT on the computer screen. For example, a few here have shown us this sacred cult icon:

So why is it bogus?

First, because the graph they label as "1990-2001" was actually discarded by the IPCC by 1992. Whoever fudged the labels on that plot made up fake dates so they could lie about how the IPCC supposedly kept the 1965 image around as gospel truth through several editions until 2001. They didn't. In the first report in 1990, that was the only research around, so the IPCC used it. By the next edition, the 1992 supplementary report, the IPCC knew it was wildly inaccurate and hopelessly out of date, so they worked hard to replace it with good data. If someone thinks that's a conspiracy, then they're too much of a cult rube to ever be taken seriously.

Second, that 1965 graph is also for northern europe only, but the denialists say it's for the whole world.

This appears to be the origin of the scam graph, the fine scammers at WUWT. Given that the correct labels and explanations are on the wiki page they copied the original from, they can't use ignorance as an excuse. They just lied.

When the IPCC ?disappeared? the Medieval Warm Period | Watts Up With That?

So, if you ever posted that image, or if you fell for it, you should be asking yourself some tough questions. Your leaders have been lying their asses off to you, and as a result you lied about honest scientists. You can either admit your errors, or you can go full blown cultist and double down on the big lie, which would make you from now on an active participant in outright lying. Ignorance could excuse you all before, but not any longer.

(SSDD, I'm talking about you. You fell for the scam, posted the bogus graph, pushed it hard, and insulted anyone who didn't fall for it. You got some splainin' to do.)

Why don't you post a link to the original so we can determine the facts for ourselves?

''So we can determine the facts for ourselves'' requires science. You have none. That’s what the world has given the IPCC the responsibility for. They are discovering the necessary science. Your politics are no help at all to them or us.

Don't worry. They won't leave you behind.

 

[tinydancer]

Those would all been great ideas 250 years ago.

And still applicable today.

There is no global warming. Not since 1998. And climate change is natural.

Instead of spending all our resources trying to "fix the climate" brought to you by the same politicians who can't "fix a pot hole" or can't "fix an economy" I'd like to invest in science that can and will help us deal with our issues in the here and now but also in the future with realistic predictions on how the changing climate will affect us locally and also globally.

And take a pro active stance on doing something instead of predicting the end of the world as we know ad nauseaum and milking the crap out of the tax paying populace of the planet in a money grabbing scheme called "save the earth give me your money now".

If you knew science you'd know that science has found no alternative to AGW at the GHG concentrations we measure today. Politics has. Do nothing and push the consequences off on the future. Good for us, bad for everyone else. Potholes and the economy pale in comparison. Not to mention that it was conservative politics that gave us the economy that caused the need to recover.

So what you're selling is to be irresponsible. We received the benefit of fossil fuels. Let's dump the cost on others.

That's not the America that we've always been proud to be a part of.

I'm married to a man who graduated from the University of Toronto with degrees in biology and chemistry.

He's my go to guy. Well apart from other things.

I've also gone completely primitive in my lifetime. Nothing but a woodstove, fireplace, kerosene lamps and battery operated radio. Oh and having to pump water.

And you can type on any board for a million posts talking about the evil of fossil fuels, but unless you can tell me in the here and now that you are posting depending on a windmill or solar you are a hypocrite.

Unless you can tell me you are going to cook on a wood stove tonight or heat your home that way, you are a hypocrite.

Sorry as I can be, but if you are right now using the same fossil fuels that you love to hate, you are a hypocrite.

Get off the grid for a couple of years and get back to me on how evil fossil fuels are. Use only solar or wind.

I'll be waiting.

 

[mamooth]

Why don't you post a link to the original so we can determine the facts for ourselves?

No problem.

Description of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in IPCC reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original:

The altered:

And from the wiki page, dating back prior to the 2010 scam graph:
---
The graph had no clear source (but can be traced to publications by Hubert Lamb representing the Central England Temperature; those publications have no explicit calibration against instrumental data, [and are] just Lamb’s qualitative judgement and interpretation of what he refers to as the ‘evidence’ [1]), and disappeared from the 1992 supplementary report.
---