Why do so many people deny climate change

[Toddsterpatriot]

Between then and now they'll run on CNG.

CNG has far less power than gasoline or diesel.

But we're running out of gasoline and diesel and not natural gas.

More evidence that the world is not as you wish it was.

But we're running out of gasoline and diesel

How much is left?

 

[PMZ]

The operative word is yet.

Indeed. Yet here, too, the government is trying to pick winners and losers.

And it's failing.

Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door.

Give taxpayer money to big party donors, and the taxpayers get screwed.

I think that one of the things that keeps you out in the weeds is the idea that future energy is a simple problem with one not yet invented solution. I see no evidence of that. It's a very complex problem worthy of a global scientific organization, the best of government and business and responsible private citizens. But, none of those contributors are perfect. In fact they're all made up of mere humans. But we won't be given any breaks by mother nature. The difficulty of the problem is just what is.

Your and my choice is simple. Contribute to either the problem, if that's all you can do, or to the solution, if you are able.

 

[PMZ]

If the government waits for business to welcome the future we'll be stuck here for ever. The future is risky. The present is profitable.

What's the government's track record on green energy investment?

Not so hot, actually. The left points to the Tesla as a successful electric car. But its $60K price puts it out of reach for most of America.

Industry will lead the way to sustainable energy -- if government gets out of the way.

Why would business change if the most profitable path for each individual business is doing nothing?

Remember the one rule of each business is make more money regardless of the cost to others.

 

[PMZ]

Electric cars don't eliminate pollution; they merely relocate the source.

But have you seen an electric vehicle that can replace these?

Battery technology will have to improve by several orders of magnitude before these types of vehicles can run off electric motors.

And as far as electric passenger vehicles go, they're simply not practical yet, either. Limited range, too high a cost. A Chevy Volt is fine in the city -- out here in rural areas? Not so much.

Between then and now they'll run on CNG.

CNG has half the efficiency of diesel....I doubt it.

Diesel engines are easily converted to CNG with equal efficiency as with diesel fuel.

 

[PMZ]

To answer the OP, people deny climate change for political reasons, and political reasons only.

Certainly literacy is also a factor, and it is clear that some of our sceptics on this board simply cannot read and write well enugh to read science or news concerning science. Most can, however.

If we list the 5 - 10 most commonly cited 'issues' with climate change, they are all political.

They are also arguments which the posters themselves frequently know not to be true, and in that this topic may be unique. Every week we see posters claiming that scientists only do what government wants them to do - and then going strangely quiet when reminded that scientists in most conservative countries also back AGW.

Such arguments are simple non sequitors, tossed out purely as an excuse to justify denying science.

There is a postive side to this in that (on this board) there are probably only one or two posters who genuinely do not understand or believe in AGW. There are simply 20 or so who will not admit to it.

Conservatives, like all revolutionaries, are media creations. They only repeat what they are told to. No thinking, no education, no experience required.

 

[daveman]

Dave -

So it's "settled", huh?

Try and respond to what I post, and not what you think I might post.

I was speaking of this absolute statement of yours:

"people deny climate change for political reasons, and political reasons only."

You think the matter of skepticism is settled. You've dictated that it's due to politics only. You haven't read a single piece of science we've presented that casts doubt on AGW.

I've made quite clear that my skepticism of AGW is firmly based on science. My opposition to the solutions proposed to mitigate the effects of AGW is based on reality.

Two separate issues.

Can you see the difference, or would you rather keep arguing against what you think I might post?

The details of climate change are far from being settled, and I doubt they ever will be totally settled, because climate is in constant flux. The basic trends, however, are settled, and have been for a decade or more.

For 17 years, there has been no warming.

Is that "settled"?

However, on this board the argumentation from sceptical posters is almost entirely political. Those are the arguments we see presented here most often.

Then I submit you're seeing only what you want to see.

btw. Sceptics do not question science, they ignore it. They also tend to swallow whatever they see on blogs and do so without hesitation. THAT is the problem in a nutshell - poor sources of information.

From your point of view, that's correct. Anything that disputes AGW dogma is automatically a "poor source of information".

That's not very open-minded, is it?

 

[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.

what i find intrusting is that the warmers... deny the earth. They deny what the earth has done since the earth was formed.

The earth has always warned and cooled. That little fact has nothing to do with politics or humans for that matter.

anyone with a science background.... knows that little fact about the earth. The earth warms and cools.

sadly... politicians don't understand it very well at all.

When was the previous time that the earth had 7B energy guzzling humans on it?

 

[Saigon]

But we're running out of gasoline and diesel

How much is left?

And there you go again....trying to score points by posting things that are obvious to everyone else on the forum except you. I mean....how can you post that and not feel embarassed about how obvious it is?

Maybe leave the point scoring for some of the stronger posters?

 

[Abraham3]

I've made quite clear that my skepticism of AGW is firmly based on science.

HAHA HA HA Ha ha ha ha hhaaaaaaa... oh... Jeezus, I can't stop... I can't stop...

 

[daveman]

Actually it already has...starting about 20 years ago.

I can list a dozen profitable private companies selling sustainable energy products - but we both know that you won't support them.

We do? Why is that, do you suppose?

Name them, and let's find out, shall we?

Well, how about Siemens?

Ocean Power - Siemens

Why would I not support that? That's a fine idea, and I hope they can make it work efficiently and economically -- WITHOUT government subsidies.

Or are you confusing opposition to subsidies with opposition to the technology itself?

For someone claiming to be literate, there sure are a lot of misspellings in your post.

No there aren't. I make typos like anyone else, and my space bar sticks, so I occasionally post wordstogether but I am more literate in my third language than most sceptics are in their first.

Uh huh. Again, you definition of "literacy" differs from mine. Do you perhaps mean "liturgy"?

 

[Saigon]

Dave -

Again, please try to respond to what I post, not what you are thinking.

For 17 years, there has been no warming.

Is that "settled"?

I specifically said that the science is not completely settled, and never will be, because of the nature of climate.

But to answer your question - yes, the basic forces and trends of climate change are known and proven beyond any reasonable doubt. If you want to call that "settled" then go with that.

Anything that disputes AGW dogma is automatically a "poor source of information".

That's not very open-minded, is it?

It's also obviously false. Use reliable sources, and you'll enjoy a better standard of debate. The problem for sceptics is that very, very little real science agrees with you, so there aren't many reliable sources for you to access.

You think the matter of skepticism is settled. You've dictated that it's due to politics only. You haven't read a single piece of science we've presented that casts doubt on AGW.

Some science...but very little. Most of the "science" presented by sceptics here is just stuff from blogs and newspaper - you know that as well as I do.

 

[PMZ]

To answer the OP, people deny climate change for political reasons, and political reasons only.

So it's "settled", huh?

You guys really should stop making such absolute statements. They always turn around and bite you on the behind.

I don't deny climate change. I deny that man has had any appreciable impact on climate change.

See? You even got THAT wrong.

Certainly literacy is also a factor, and it is clear that some of our sceptics on this board simply cannot read and write well enugh to read science or news concerning science. Most can, however.

That faux superiority is getting pretty old -- especially from someone who refuses to acknowledge science that counters his dogma.

Note: For someone claiming to be literate, there sure are a lot of misspellings in your post.

If we list the 5 - 10 most commonly cited 'issues' with climate change, they are all political.

They are also arguments which the posters themselves frequently know not to be true, and in that this topic may be unique. Every week we see posters claiming that scientists only do what government wants them to do - and then going strangely quiet when reminded that scientists in most conservative countries also back AGW.

Such arguments are simple non sequitors, tossed out purely as an excuse to justify denying science.

There is a postive side to this in that (on this board) there are probably only one or two posters who genuinely do not understand or believe in AGW. There are simply 20 or so who will not admit to it.

That's the problem: You don't want anyone to understand it -- you want everyone to believe in it. Accept it. Endorse it. Above all, don't question it.

Those of us who value science and the scientific method simply can't do that. We have to speak up when we see science being perverted and bastardized for political ends.

Your problem is NOT that skeptics don't understand. Your problem is that skeptics understand all too well.

Scientists want everyone capable of contributing to do so. Conservatives have been taught that everyone is equally capable of contributing to the science. While that's a a laughable proposition, conservatives fall for it every time.

 

[daveman]

Between then and now they'll run on CNG.

CNG has far less power than gasoline or diesel.

But we're running out of gasoline and diesel and not natural gas.

How much is left?

More evidence that the world is not as you wish it was.

How about you ASK what I wish the world is, instead of assuming based on your bigotry? Then we can compare my wishes to reality.

Pffft. For several hours, you weren't an ass. I guess all good things come to an end.

 

[PMZ]

To answer the OP, people deny climate change for political reasons, and political reasons only.

So it's "settled", huh?

You guys really should stop making such absolute statements. They always turn around and bite you on the behind.

I don't deny climate change. I deny that man has had any appreciable impact on climate change.

See? You even got THAT wrong.

Certainly literacy is also a factor, and it is clear that some of our sceptics on this board simply cannot read and write well enugh to read science or news concerning science. Most can, however.

That faux superiority is getting pretty old -- especially from someone who refuses to acknowledge science that counters his dogma.

Note: For someone claiming to be literate, there sure are a lot of misspellings in your post.

If we list the 5 - 10 most commonly cited 'issues' with climate change, they are all political.

They are also arguments which the posters themselves frequently know not to be true, and in that this topic may be unique. Every week we see posters claiming that scientists only do what government wants them to do - and then going strangely quiet when reminded that scientists in most conservative countries also back AGW.

Such arguments are simple non sequitors, tossed out purely as an excuse to justify denying science.

There is a postive side to this in that (on this board) there are probably only one or two posters who genuinely do not understand or believe in AGW. There are simply 20 or so who will not admit to it.

That's the problem: You don't want anyone to understand it -- you want everyone to believe in it. Accept it. Endorse it. Above all, don't question it.

Those of us who value science and the scientific method simply can't do that. We have to speak up when we see science being perverted and bastardized for political ends.

Your problem is NOT that skeptics don't understand. Your problem is that skeptics understand all too well.

You keep using the word ''settled''. Some is, some isn't, and scientists can tell the difference. That’s a fundamental truth of science.

 

[rdean]

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.

what i find intrusting is that the warmers... deny the earth. They deny what the earth has done since the earth was formed.

The earth has always warned and cooled. That little fact has nothing to do with politics or humans for that matter.

anyone with a science background.... knows that little fact about the earth. The earth warms and cools.

sadly... politicians don't understand it very well at all.

Sadly, "warms and cools" is as deep as it goes for mindless right wingers.

 

[rdean]

To answer the OP, people deny climate change for political reasons, and political reasons only.

So it's "settled", huh?

You guys really should stop making such absolute statements. They always turn around and bite you on the behind.

I don't deny climate change. I deny that man has had any appreciable impact on climate change.

See? You even got THAT wrong.

That faux superiority is getting pretty old -- especially from someone who refuses to acknowledge science that counters his dogma.

Note: For someone claiming to be literate, there sure are a lot of misspellings in your post.

If we list the 5 - 10 most commonly cited 'issues' with climate change, they are all political.

They are also arguments which the posters themselves frequently know not to be true, and in that this topic may be unique. Every week we see posters claiming that scientists only do what government wants them to do - and then going strangely quiet when reminded that scientists in most conservative countries also back AGW.

Such arguments are simple non sequitors, tossed out purely as an excuse to justify denying science.

There is a postive side to this in that (on this board) there are probably only one or two posters who genuinely do not understand or believe in AGW. There are simply 20 or so who will not admit to it.

That's the problem: You don't want anyone to understand it -- you want everyone to believe in it. Accept it. Endorse it. Above all, don't question it.

Those of us who value science and the scientific method simply can't do that. We have to speak up when we see science being perverted and bastardized for political ends.

Your problem is NOT that skeptics don't understand. Your problem is that skeptics understand all too well.

You keep using the word ''settled''. Some is, some isn't, and scientists can tell the difference. That’s a fundamental truth of science.

I don't believe anything is ever "settled" in science. I remember when no one believed black holes were possible or that the Universe is still expanding.

But evolution and Climate Change are about as close as you can get. Some minor details may change, some aspects may be debated, but the general premise stays the same.

 

[Saigon]

Daveman -

Why would I not support that? That's a fine idea, and I hope they can make it work efficiently and economically -- WITHOUT government subsidies.

Why....coal never has. (See my sig line).

I don't support ongoing subsidies either - but I have no problem with feed-in tariffs as countries transition from the old to the new.

btw. There is only one definition for literacy. If you think Skooks or Frank are literate, you need to check a dictionary.

 

[daveman]

The operative word is yet.

Indeed. Yet here, too, the government is trying to pick winners and losers.

And it's failing.

Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door.

Give taxpayer money to big party donors, and the taxpayers get screwed.

I think that one of the things that keeps you out in the weeds...

What keeps me out in the weeds, as you term it, is realism.

...is the idea that future energy is a simple problem with one not yet invented solution. I see no evidence of that.

I have never said anything remotely like that.

It's a very complex problem worthy of a global scientific organization...

Let me guess: The IPCC.

...the best of government and business and responsible private citizens. But, none of those contributors are perfect. In fact their all made up of mere humans. But we won't be given any breaks by mother nature. The difficulty of the problem is just what is.

Your and my choice is simple. Contribute to either the problem if that's all you can do, or to the solution if you are able.

Your attitude is that you see anything that doesn't exactly parallel your proposed solution as being part of the problem.

It's a closed-minded and narrow view. Your way or the highway. You're either with us or against us.

I'm guessing you criticized George Bush for that attitude.

Problems can have many solutions. Just because you don't like some of them based on emotion reasons doesn't mean they're not viable.

 

[PMZ]

CNG has far less power than gasoline or diesel.

But we're running out of gasoline and diesel and not natural gas.

More evidence that the world is not as you wish it was.

But we're running out of gasoline and diesel

How much is left?

Nobody knows. What we do know is that we took the easy stuff first. What's left is the most expensive in every respect to harvest and use. And the demand from third world countries is growing at the same rate that our demand grew when we were developing. That’s why big oil has instructed you to act the way that you are. There is nothing more profitable than high demand, low supply of a hard to produce commodity. Think diamonds.

 

[Saigon]

I don't believe anything is ever "settled" in science. I remember when no one believed black holes were possible or that the Universe is still expanding.

But evolution and Climate Change are about as close as you can get. Some minor details may change, some aspects may be debated, but the general premise stays the same.

That is very well said.

I don't like the word "settled", but I think the overwhelming scientific evidence is fairly clear on most of the major aspects of AGW. There is still one way to go in some aspects, though.(e.g. oceanic pH change).