Why do so many people deny climate change

[daveman]

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...

You don't get to dictate what is and isn't science.

I know that comes as a shock to you. Take a deep breath.

 

[PMZ]

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.

We still haven't found HOW gravity propagates, or why the Sun's corona is millions of degrees hotter than the surface or what something as large as the Moon is doing in orbit around the Earth, but we know for certain that a test tank filled with 800PPM of CO2 will show an 8 degree higher temperature than a test tank filled with regular air.

Oh no, wait, we don't have ANY experiments on adding CO2 to a test tank.

Sorry

You assume that you have been given the responsibility, by God I suppose, to certify what is reliably known vs under study. Personally, in the arena of climate science, I can't imagine a less qualified person to be given that job.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So now conservatives are "revolutionaries".

Left-wingers can't decide whether conservatives want to maintain the status quo or whether they are dangerous radicals. Liberals simply take any word that has negative connotations with the public and apply it to conservatives.

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

I'll try and post this at a level you might be able to follow - is the amount of oil left limitless?

It's pretty close. With new recovery methods the amount of recoverable oil is 6.2 trillion barrels - enough to last hundreds of years.

That is good news - so how many years of oil does the US have left underground, based on current usage and on what can be viably extracted?

 

[bripat9643]

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...

You don't get to dictate what is and isn't science.

I know that comes as a shock to you. Take a deep breath.

You've hit the nail on the head there. These warmist cult members believe they dictate what constitutes science. The scary part is the fact that when presented with an obviously flawed experiment that supposedly demonstrated the greenhouse effect, they didn't have a clue.

 

[bripat9643]

Todd -

I'll try and post this at a level you might be able to follow - is the amount of oil left limitless?

It's pretty close. With new recovery methods the amount of recoverable oil is 6.2 trillion barrels - enough to last hundreds of years.

That is good news - so how many years of oil does the US have left underground, based on current usage and on what can be viably extracted?

several hundred years worth.

 

[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?

You mean everyone knows but us how much is left?

Then you won't have any problem telling us, will you?

I mean that everyone but Todd knows that the US has very limited amounts of domestic oil left.

It isn't just what oil Venezuela and Iran have left that matters here, is it?

 

[PMZ]

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.

We still haven't found HOW gravity propagates, or why the Sun's corona is millions of degrees hotter than the surface or what something as large as the Moon is doing in orbit around the Earth, but we know for certain that a test tank filled with 800PPM of CO2 will show an 8 degree higher temperature than a test tank filled with regular air.

Oh no, wait, we don't have ANY experiments on adding CO2 to a test tank.

Sorry

On other threads, and on the Internet, are any number of lab demonstrations of the longwave absorption of CO2. Of course one has to look for them.

 

[daveman]

Dave -

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

I was responding to what you posted. You made an absolute statement, that all skepticism is political, so I asked you if that was settled.

Stop trying to run away from your statement. You made it, it's there for the world to see, and it's silly to pretend you didn't make it.

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.

The current trend is no warming. Can you acknowledge 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.

Like I said: You're not reading what's presented.

You're suffering from the "consensus" delusion. You even ignore the studies that show the "consensus" is made up.

But, hey, it's not like you're open-minded or anything.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

We still haven't found HOW gravity propagates, or why the Sun's corona is millions of degrees hotter than the surface or what something as large as the Moon is doing in orbit around the Earth, but we know for certain that a test tank filled with 800PPM of CO2 will show an 8 degree higher temperature than a test tank filled with regular air.

Oh no, wait, we don't have ANY experiments on adding CO2 to a test tank.

Sorry

You assume that you have been given the responsibility, by God I suppose, to certify what is reliably known vs under study. Personally, in the arena of climate science, I can't imagine a less qualified person to be given that job.

Oh, and you think you're qualified? Are you one of the witless cult members who thought an obviously flawed experiment validated the theory of greenhouse gases?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

We still haven't found HOW gravity propagates, or why the Sun's corona is millions of degrees hotter than the surface or what something as large as the Moon is doing in orbit around the Earth, but we know for certain that a test tank filled with 800PPM of CO2 will show an 8 degree higher temperature than a test tank filled with regular air.

Oh no, wait, we don't have ANY experiments on adding CO2 to a test tank.

Sorry

On other threads, and on the Internet, are any number of lab demonstrations of the longwave absorption of CO2. Of course one has to look for them.

However, you have already demonstrated that you aren't capable of differentiating between the valid ones and abracadabra.

 

[daveman]

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.

It would be laughable, if anyone had made it.

But then, your side believes that actors and singers are experts in geopolitics -- if they say things you agree with.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

You mean everyone knows but us how much is left?

Then you won't have any problem telling us, will you?

I mean that everyone but Todd knows that the US has very limited amounts of domestic oil left.

It isn't just what oil Venezuela and Iran have left that matters here, is it?

We have tons of oil left, if the government would allow energy companies to drill for it. At the urging of environmental numskulls, Obama is moving quickly to place most of our reserves off limits.

 

[daveman]

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 wouldn't use the word if you guys didn't all the time to try to silence debate. I keep saying science is NEVER settled.

 

[Sallow]

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

So now conservatives are "revolutionaries".

Left-wingers can't decide whether conservatives want to maintain the status quo or whether they are dangerous radicals. Liberals simply take any word that has negative connotations with the public and apply it to conservatives.

He probably meant to post "reactionary" which is appropriate.

But never let a good "gotcha' go..right?

 

[PMZ]

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.

Nobody knows.

Then you shouldn't make the claim you did.

That there's an end to fossil fuels?

There is nothing more profitable than high demand, low supply of a hard to produce commodity. Think diamonds.

You think there's a low supply of diamonds? LOL!

By definition the supply is held to much less than demand. It's called business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others.

 

[daveman]

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).

Yes, I see you bitterly clinging to that discredited notion.

Tax breaks that other companies enjoy as well are not coal subsidies.

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.

Feed-in tarrifs ARE subsidies.

Feed-in tariff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A feed-in tariff (FIT, standard offer contract[1] advanced renewable tariff[2] or renewable energy payments[3]) is a policy mechanism designed to accelerate investment in renewable energy technologies. It achieves this by offering long-term contracts to renewable energy producers, typically based on the cost of generation of each technology.[1][4]​

A horse of a different color would smell as sweet, or something like that.

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

They have a reasonable command of the English language, and can get their ideas across.

So it looks like I was right: You mean "liturgy", not "literacy".

 

[daveman]

That’s why big oil has instructed you to act the way that you are.

Oh, just stop it. You don't make yourself look like an independent thinker by parroting your own programming.

 

[bripat9643]

So now conservatives are "revolutionaries".

Left-wingers can't decide whether conservatives want to maintain the status quo or whether they are dangerous radicals. Liberals simply take any word that has negative connotations with the public and apply it to conservatives.

He probably meant to post "reactionary" which is appropriate.

But never let a good "gotcha' go..right?

So he's illiterate on top of being a scientific ignoramus?

 

[PMZ]

Todd -

I'll try and post this at a level you might be able to follow - is the amount of oil left limitless?

It's pretty close. With new recovery methods the amount of recoverable oil is 6.2 trillion barrels - enough to last hundreds of years.

Define recoverable. When used by big oil it typically means at any cost, monetarily and environmentally, and of any quality, and requiring any degree of refinement, and from any other source country.