Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I was speaking of this absolute statement of yours:Dave -
So it's "settled", huh?
Try and respond to what I post, and not what you think I might post.
"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?
For 17 years, there has been no warming.
Is that "settled"?
Then I submit you're seeing only what you want to see.However, on this board the argumentation from sceptical posters is almost entirely political. Those are the arguments we see presented here most often.
From your point of view, that's correct. Anything that disputes AGW dogma is automatically a "poor source of information".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.
That's not very open-minded, is it?
Science is not an opinion. We know right science from non science. The more complex it is, the more education is required to know the right stuff.
So you're right.
Anything that disputes AGW science is automatically a "poor source of information".
Exxon?s $100m Algae Investment Falls FlatWhat's the government's track record on green energy investment?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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Thats 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.
Science is not an opinion. We know right science from non science. The more complex it is, the more education is required to know the right stuff.
So you're right.
Anything that disputes AGW science is automatically a "poor source of information".
I take your point, but I disagree with this - I think there is some excellent science out there which challenges the details of climate change; just not the basic trends.
We know human-released CO2 is causing temperatures to rise; but the extent of that rise is still hotly contested and contestable.
Most of our sceptics won't read that material, though, because they will only read the extremist blogs who assure them nothing at all is changing, anyway, ever.
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.
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. Thats 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.
Looky there: EEEEEvil Big Oil looking to make money off of alternative energy.
I'll bet you didn't know about any of that, did you?
What keeps me out in the weeds, as you term it, is realism.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...
I have never said anything remotely like that.
Let me guess: The IPCC.It's a very complex problem worthy of a global scientific organization...
Your attitude is that you see anything that doesn't exactly parallel your proposed solution as being part of the problem....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.
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.
What keeps me out in the weeds, as you term it, is realism.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...
I have never said anything remotely like that.
Let me guess: The IPCC.It's a very complex problem worthy of a global scientific organization...
Your attitude is that you see anything that doesn't exactly parallel your proposed solution as being part of the problem....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.
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.
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?
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.
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. Thats 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.
Todd -
I'll try and post this at a level you might be able to follow - is the amount of oil left limitless?
Science is not an opinion. We know right science from non science. The more complex it is, the more education is required to know the right stuff.
So you're right.
Anything that disputes AGW science is automatically a "poor source of information".
I take your point, but I disagree with this - I think there is some excellent science out there which challenges the details of climate change; just not the basic trends.
We know human-released CO2 is causing temperatures to rise; but the extent of that rise is still hotly contested and contestable.
Most of our sceptics won't read that material, though, because they will only read the extremist blogs who assure them nothing at all is changing, anyway, ever.
Diesel engines are easily converted to CNG with equal efficiency as with diesel fuel.
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.
So now conservatives are "revolutionaries".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.
You mean everyone knows but us how much is left?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?
