Why do so many people deny climate change

[bripat9643]

A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.

ANyone who believes there won't be less money in their pockets is an economic ignoramus. The IPCC is proposing $73 trillion in taxes. How is that not going to reduce the money in my pocket? Wind and solar cost many multiples of what coal fired power plants can produce electricity at. How is that not going to reduce the money in my pocket? Since the year 2000 the price of electicity in German has doubled. 200,000 people had their power cut off because they couldn't afford to pay their power bill. You have to be an idiot to believe that the schemes of the AGW cult will not reduce your standard of living.

 

[itfitzme]

A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.

True. Obama's friends know that efforts to mitigate climate change will result in more money in their pockets.

Maybe you can explain how a carbon tax leaves my pockets unharmed?

Because you wouldn't get any of it regardless.

 

[bripat9643]

A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.

True. Obama's friends know that efforts to mitigate climate change will result in more money in their pockets.

Maybe you can explain how a carbon tax leaves my pockets unharmed?

Maybe you can explain how it has anything to do with your pocket?

Are you actually claiming that taxes don't affect the amount of money you have to spend?

 

[bripat9643]

A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.

True. Obama's friends know that efforts to mitigate climate change will result in more money in their pockets.

Maybe you can explain how a carbon tax leaves my pockets unharmed?

Because you wouldn't get any of it regardless.

ROFL! Where does the money come from if not out of my pocket?

Do you actually understand what a tax is?

 

[itfitzme]

Well, now that just wouldn't be correct.

Sure it is. I don't debate or refute the projections of this chart that was posted at all. All I am saying is that the data and modeling used to make these projections are short sighted. These people need to take logic classes. Most people that debate AGW do not deny that warming is occurring, they just have issues as to how precisely we can determine the driving force.

Correlation DOES NOT prove Causation.

Did you look at the charts I posted?

What do you notice about them? That's right, they can both be correct, (the graphs I posted,) and in line with the chart that was just posted. They are congruent. Look at the date range. You will notice that dates for the temperature ranges I posted are much longer. Why do AGW theorists want to take such a short sighted view of the Earth's temperature fluctuations? One has to wonder if they have a hidden agenda, or if they are just ignorant.

So what does that tell us? It tells us that Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a good theory for explaining what we see occurring in nature. Why? Because long terms global temperature fluctuations have been occurring long before heavy industry, energy use, and mass transportation was engaged in by our species.

Why do AGW supporters refuse to see the obvious right in front of their faces, even when their own charts and models show what is essentially truth?

I don't know anyone who believes that the proof of AGW is based on correlation.

It is based on far more than just that.

Still, the fact remains that correlation is required. If it wasn't correlated then it wouldn't be true. But the fact is that it is.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, now that just wouldn't be correct.

Sure it is. I don't debate or refute the projections of this chart that was posted at all. All I am saying is that the data and modeling used to make these projections are short sighted. These people need to take logic classes. Most people that debate AGW do not deny that warming is occurring, they just have issues as to how precisely we can determine the driving force.

Correlation DOES NOT prove Causation.

Did you look at the charts I posted?

What do you notice about them? That's right, they can both be correct, (the graphs I posted,) and in line with the chart that was just posted. They are congruent. Look at the date range. You will notice that dates for the temperature ranges I posted are much longer. Why do AGW theorists want to take such a short sighted view of the Earth's temperature fluctuations? One has to wonder if they have a hidden agenda, or if they are just ignorant.

So what does that tell us? It tells us that Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a good theory for explaining what we see occurring in nature. Why? Because long terms global temperature fluctuations have been occurring long before heavy industry, energy use, and mass transportation was engaged in by our species.

Why do AGW supporters refuse to see the obvious right in front of their faces, even when their own charts and models show what is essentially truth?

I don't know anyone who believes that the proof of AGW is based on correlation.

Look in the mirror, numskull. That's bascially the only argument the AGW cult has: correlation

 

[bripat9643]

Sure it is. I don't debate or refute the projections of this chart that was posted at all. All I am saying is that the data and modeling used to make these projections are short sighted. These people need to take logic classes. Most people that debate AGW do not deny that warming is occurring, they just have issues as to how precisely we can determine the driving force.

Correlation DOES NOT prove Causation.

Did you look at the charts I posted?

What do you notice about them? That's right, they can both be correct, (the graphs I posted,) and in line with the chart that was just posted. They are congruent. Look at the date range. You will notice that dates for the temperature ranges I posted are much longer. Why do AGW theorists want to take such a short sighted view of the Earth's temperature fluctuations? One has to wonder if they have a hidden agenda, or if they are just ignorant.

So what does that tell us? It tells us that Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a good theory for explaining what we see occurring in nature. Why? Because long terms global temperature fluctuations have been occurring long before heavy industry, energy use, and mass transportation was engaged in by our species.

Why do AGW supporters refuse to see the obvious right in front of their faces, even when their own charts and models show what is essentially truth?

I don't know anyone who believes that the proof of AGW is based on correlation.

It is based on far more than just that.

Still, the fact remains that correlation is required. If it wasn't correlated then it wouldn't be true. But the fact is that it is.

Unfortunately for the AGW cult, there has been no correlation for the last 15 years.

 

[Politico]

OMG OMG. Today I got up and it was cold. Now yesterday it was warm. Even stranger. The day before it was warm and raining....at THE SAME TIME. Definitely something going on.

 

[bripat9643]

I love this statement "Correlation DOES NOT prove Causation." because it couldn't be more wrong.

Correlation is required to prove causation..

It's a necessary condition, but not a sifficient condition. The great science expert might want to look that up because he obviously doesn't know what it means.

The chart you presented is from whom? Some Christian Fundamentalist nutbag that has some fantasy that God will save the planet and humans can't possibly cause climate change..

Ad hominem argument. Another logical fallacy.

I just research. You presented the bs. Two graphs that don't agree. One is by a wack job. Sorry if I can't accept the wackjob data.

You don't "research." You mine propaganda mills.

You posted another variation of the Hockey Stick graph - a proven fraud. Your data is even less credible.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.

True. Obama's friends know that efforts to mitigate climate change will result in more money in their pockets.

Maybe you can explain how a carbon tax leaves my pockets unharmed?

Because you wouldn't get any of it regardless.

You're right, it would take money out of my pocket, not add any.
Obama cronies will benefit.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sure it is. I don't debate or refute the projections of this chart that was posted at all. All I am saying is that the data and modeling used to make these projections are short sighted. These people need to take logic classes. Most people that debate AGW do not deny that warming is occurring, they just have issues as to how precisely we can determine the driving force.

Correlation DOES NOT prove Causation.

Did you look at the charts I posted?

What do you notice about them? That's right, they can both be correct, (the graphs I posted,) and in line with the chart that was just posted. They are congruent. Look at the date range. You will notice that dates for the temperature ranges I posted are much longer. Why do AGW theorists want to take such a short sighted view of the Earth's temperature fluctuations? One has to wonder if they have a hidden agenda, or if they are just ignorant.

So what does that tell us? It tells us that Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a good theory for explaining what we see occurring in nature. Why? Because long terms global temperature fluctuations have been occurring long before heavy industry, energy use, and mass transportation was engaged in by our species.

Why do AGW supporters refuse to see the obvious right in front of their faces, even when their own charts and models show what is essentially truth?

I don't know anyone who believes that the proof of AGW is based on correlation.

It is based on far more than just that.

Still, the fact remains that correlation is required. If it wasn't correlated then it wouldn't be true. But the fact is that it is.

Correlation IS NOT REQUIRED.. There is NO reason in the universe to suspect that the stimulus to the climate system or any of the complex myriad of variables in the climate "black box" needs to look exactly like the output.. That is counter-indicated by all we know about complex system behaviour..

You know what thread to comment about this on --- don'tcha??

 

[itfitzme]

True. Obama's friends know that efforts to mitigate climate change will result in more money in their pockets.

Maybe you can explain how a carbon tax leaves my pockets unharmed?

Because you wouldn't get any of it regardless.

You're right, it would take money out of my pocket, not add any.
Obama cronies will benefit.

You don't get any now so you can't lose what you don't get. How hard is this to understand?

Your entire concept is based on faulty assumptions. You are full of assumptions.

Who are these "Obama cronies" that you imagine and assume?

How about Monsanto

5 Ways Monsanto Wants to Profit Off Climate Change | Mother Jones

"5 Ways Monsanto Wants to Profit Off Climate Change - The agriculture giant has a variety solutions for mitigating and adapting to global warming."

Monsanto Co Contributions to Federal Candidates | OpenSecrets

Senate
Total to Democrats: $15,500
Total to Republicans: $16,000

House
Total to Democrats: $36,000
Total to Republicans: $103,500

Recipient Total
Aderholt, Robert B (R-AL) $6,000
Bishop, Sanford (D-GA) $1,000
Bustos, Cheri (D-IL) $5,000
Camp, Dave (R-MI) $2,500
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) $4,500
Clay, William L Jr (D-MO) $10,000
Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) $3,000
Conaway, Mike (R-TX) $10,000
Costa, Jim (D-CA) $1,000
Crawford, Rick (R-AR) $1,000
Davis, Rodney (R-IL) $3,500
Gardner, Cory (R-CO) $3,000
Gibson, Chris (R-NY) $1,000
Graves, Sam (R-MO) $2,000
Griffin, Tim (R-AR) $2,000
Hartzler, Vicky (R-MO) $1,000
Hudson, Richard (R-NC) $1,000
LaMalfa, Doug (R-CA) $1,000
Long, Billy (R-MO) $1,000
Lucas, Frank D (R-OK) $5,000
Luetkemeyer, Blaine (R-MO) $2,500
Nunes, Devin (R-CA) $2,500
Nunnelee, Alan (R-MS) $1,500
Owens, Bill (D-NY) $1,500
Peterson, Collin (D-MN) $3,500
Rogers, Hal (R-KY) $1,000
Roskam, Peter (R-IL) $2,500
Schock, Aaron (R-IL) $1,000
Schrader, Kurt (D-OR) $1,000
Scott, Austin (R-GA) $2,000
Shimkus, John M (R-IL) $2,000
Simpson, Mike (R-ID) $10,000
Smith, Adrian (R-NE) $7,500
Smith, Jason (R-MO) $5,000
Stutzman, Marlin (R-IN) $2,000
Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS) $10,000
Thompson, Glenn (R-PA) $1,000
Valadao, David (R-CA) $3,500
Wagner, Ann L (R-MO) $10,000
Womack, Steve (R-AR) $2,500
Yoder, Kevin (R-KS) $2,500\


Senate

Total to Democrats: $15,500
Total to Republicans: $16,000
Recipient Total
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $1,500
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) $5,000
Heitkamp, Heidi (D-ND) $1,000
Kingston, Jack (R-GA) $5,000
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $2,000
McCaskill, Claire (D-MO) $5,000
Pryor, Mark (D-AR) $6,000
Shelby, Richard C (R-AL)

It is just all too complex for you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because you wouldn't get any of it regardless.

You're right, it would take money out of my pocket, not add any.
Obama cronies will benefit.

You don't get any now so you can't lose what you don't get. How hard is this to understand?

Your entire concept is based on faulty assumptions. You are full of assumptions.

Who are these "Obama cronies" that you imagine and assume?

Damn you're stupid.

A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.

A common suggestion is a crbon tax. A carbon tax will result in less money in my pocket.

Who are these "Obama cronies" that you imagine and assume?

George Kaiser and Steve Westly were a couple.

 

[itfitzme]

For instance; the medical device tax does not mean that healthcare costs will rise. That is a mistaken assumption.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In Need of a New Hip, but Priced Out of the U.S.

"An artificial hip, however, costs only about $350 to manufacture in the United States, according to Dr. Blair Rhode,"

"So why are implant list prices so high, and rising by more than 5 percent a year? In the United States, nearly all hip and knee implants — sterilized pieces of tooled metal, plastic or ceramics — are made by five companies, which some economists describe as a cartel. Manufacturers tweak old models and patent the changes as new products, with ever-bigger price tags."

The equilibrium price for depends on numerous factors, not of which are guaranteed to be predominant in any given market.

 

[itfitzme]

You're right, it would take money out of my pocket, not add any.
Obama cronies will benefit.

You don't get any now so you can't lose what you don't get. How hard is this to understand?

Your entire concept is based on faulty assumptions. You are full of assumptions.

Who are these "Obama cronies" that you imagine and assume?

Damn you're stupid.

A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.

A common suggestion is a crbon tax. A carbon tax will result in less money in my pocket.

Who are these "Obama cronies" that you imagine and assume?

George Kaiser and Steve Westly were a couple.

common suggestion is a crbon tax. A carbon tax will result in less money in my pocket.

Prove that, because you are assuming.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because you wouldn't get any of it regardless.

You're right, it would take money out of my pocket, not add any.
Obama cronies will benefit.

You don't get any now so you can't lose what you don't get. How hard is this to understand?

Your entire concept is based on faulty assumptions. You are full of assumptions.

Who are these "Obama cronies" that you imagine and assume?

How about Monsanto

5 Ways Monsanto Wants to Profit Off Climate Change | Mother Jones

"5 Ways Monsanto Wants to Profit Off Climate Change - The agriculture giant has a variety solutions for mitigating and adapting to global warming."

Monsanto Co Contributions to Federal Candidates | OpenSecrets

Senate
Total to Democrats: $15,500
Total to Republicans: $16,000

House
Total to Democrats: $36,000
Total to Republicans: $103,500

Recipient Total
Aderholt, Robert B (R-AL) $6,000
Bishop, Sanford (D-GA) $1,000
Bustos, Cheri (D-IL) $5,000
Camp, Dave (R-MI) $2,500
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) $4,500
Clay, William L Jr (D-MO) $10,000
Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) $3,000
Conaway, Mike (R-TX) $10,000
Costa, Jim (D-CA) $1,000
Crawford, Rick (R-AR) $1,000
Davis, Rodney (R-IL) $3,500
Gardner, Cory (R-CO) $3,000
Gibson, Chris (R-NY) $1,000
Graves, Sam (R-MO) $2,000
Griffin, Tim (R-AR) $2,000
Hartzler, Vicky (R-MO) $1,000
Hudson, Richard (R-NC) $1,000
LaMalfa, Doug (R-CA) $1,000
Long, Billy (R-MO) $1,000
Lucas, Frank D (R-OK) $5,000
Luetkemeyer, Blaine (R-MO) $2,500
Nunes, Devin (R-CA) $2,500
Nunnelee, Alan (R-MS) $1,500
Owens, Bill (D-NY) $1,500
Peterson, Collin (D-MN) $3,500
Rogers, Hal (R-KY) $1,000
Roskam, Peter (R-IL) $2,500
Schock, Aaron (R-IL) $1,000
Schrader, Kurt (D-OR) $1,000
Scott, Austin (R-GA) $2,000
Shimkus, John M (R-IL) $2,000
Simpson, Mike (R-ID) $10,000
Smith, Adrian (R-NE) $7,500
Smith, Jason (R-MO) $5,000
Stutzman, Marlin (R-IN) $2,000
Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS) $10,000
Thompson, Glenn (R-PA) $1,000
Valadao, David (R-CA) $3,500
Wagner, Ann L (R-MO) $10,000
Womack, Steve (R-AR) $2,500
Yoder, Kevin (R-KS) $2,500\


Senate

Total to Democrats: $15,500
Total to Republicans: $16,000
Recipient Total
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $1,500
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) $5,000
Heitkamp, Heidi (D-ND) $1,000
Kingston, Jack (R-GA) $5,000
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $2,000
McCaskill, Claire (D-MO) $5,000
Pryor, Mark (D-AR) $6,000
Shelby, Richard C (R-AL)

It is just all too complex for you.

Yeah, we know, Monsanto is evil.

I didn't see anything about them getting tax dollars in your article.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't get any now so you can't lose what you don't get. How hard is this to understand?

Your entire concept is based on faulty assumptions. You are full of assumptions.

Who are these "Obama cronies" that you imagine and assume?

Damn you're stupid.

A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.

A common suggestion is a crbon tax. A carbon tax will result in less money in my pocket.

Who are these "Obama cronies" that you imagine and assume?

George Kaiser and Steve Westly were a couple.

common suggestion is a carbon tax. A carbon tax will result in less money in my pocket.

Prove that, because you are assuming.

Raising the cost of gasoline, diesel, coal and natural gas won't take money out of my pocket?

You're funny.

 

[itfitzme]

Damn you're stupid.

A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.

A common suggestion is a crbon tax. A carbon tax will result in less money in my pocket.

Who are these "Obama cronies" that you imagine and assume?

George Kaiser and Steve Westly were a couple.

common suggestion is a carbon tax. A carbon tax will result in less money in my pocket.

Prove that, because you are assuming.

Raising the cost of gasoline, diesel, coal and natural gas won't take money out of my pocket?

You're funny.

You are assuming that the cost of gasoline, diesel, coal and natural gas will go up.

Your assumption that the price of a barrel of oil will simply increase is hilarious. You're just full of assumptions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

common suggestion is a carbon tax. A carbon tax will result in less money in my pocket.

Prove that, because you are assuming.

Raising the cost of gasoline, diesel, coal and natural gas won't take money out of my pocket?

You're funny.

You are assuming that the cost of gasoline, diesel, coal and natural gas will go up.

Yes, I'm assuming that when government adds a tax that prices will go up.

For instance, here in Chicago, cigarette taxes increased $1.00 per pack in March.

The total combined federal, state, county and local tax on cigarettes is up to $6.67 per pack.

Do you think that raised the price?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

common suggestion is a carbon tax. A carbon tax will result in less money in my pocket.

Prove that, because you are assuming.

Raising the cost of gasoline, diesel, coal and natural gas won't take money out of my pocket?

You're funny.

You are assuming that the cost of gasoline, diesel, coal and natural gas will go up.

Your assumption that the price of a barrel of oil will simply increase is hilarious. You're just full of assumptions.

Your assumption that the price of a barrel of oil will simply increase is hilarious.

I didn't mention oil. I guess it would depend on the point where the tax is levied.

Do you assume an added tax of, hell, shoot for the moon, $1 a gallon, won't raise the price of gas?