Why do so many people deny climate change

[Abraham3]

Since more people die from cold, a warming world would result in fewer climate related deaths.

In the common patois:

That's been 'proven' wrong. Try again

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_Hot_weather_or_cold_weather_cause_more_deaths

 

[Abraham3]

As the old saw says, when you find yourself in a hole, first, stop digging.

Denying statistics is not a defense for denying science. It's an explanation as to why you don't understand science. Not understanding science is an explanation as why it's meaningless to you. The fact that it's meaningless to you is only a statement about you. It has nothing to do with the validity of science.

Sorry Paddy, but this was fooking brilliant.

 

[Abraham3]

The fact is that the IPCC doesn't have a clue what the temperature of the Earth's climate will be in 2050. Their guess so far have been abysmally wrong. Based on their track record they aren't experts. They are charlatans.

''The fact is that the IPCC doesn't have a clue what the temperature of the Earth's climate will be in 2050. Their guess so far have been abysmally wrong. Based on their track record they aren't experts. They are charlatans.''

I nominate this paragraph as most revealing of denialism.

BriPat apparently does know the weather coming in 2050 because he knows that the probability distribution of the IPCC will be wrong.

Now hold your horses for just a minute. He has not said (here) that they are wrong. He has simply said they have been guesses, that they have a bad record of accuracy and they they are charlatans. None of those are supportable assertions, but he has not claimed to know the weather in 2050.

 

[Abraham3]

They ignore evidence that refutes their theories and falsify data to support it.

What evidence would that be?

 

[Abraham3]

What sort of educated debater makes use of such a multiply-flawed argument?

You really think a scientific organization would put a railroad engineer/soft porn writer in charge? You just keep giving more and more about yourself away and you just keep looking smaller and smaller.

While you continue to use completely fallacious arguments in what purports to be a debate.

 

[PMZ]

The fact is that the IPCC doesn't have a clue what the temperature of the Earth's climate will be in 2050. Their guess so far have been abysmally wrong. Based on their track record they aren't experts. They are charlatans.

''The fact is that the IPCC doesn't have a clue what the temperature of the Earth's climate will be in 2050. Their guess so far have been abysmally wrong. Based on their track record they aren't experts. They are charlatans.''

I nominate this paragraph as most revealing of denialism.

BriPat apparently does know the weather coming in 2050 because he knows that the probability distribution of the IPCC will be wrong.

Now hold your horses for just a minute. He has not said (here) that they are wrong. He has simply said they have been guesses, that they have a bad record of accuracy and they they are charlatans. None of those are supportable assertions, but he has not claimed to know the weather in 2050.

How else would he know that the IPCC probability distribution for climactic temperature in 2050 is wrong?

 

[PMZ]

And, yes, it's easily possible that all the so-called "climate scientists" working for the IPCC are wrong and I'm right.

Possible, yes. Easily possible, no.

Interesting statistical challenge. The probability of an educated forecast being correct vs a random WAG.

I guess the variable would be in the word ''educated''. Considering that the IPCC is the most climate science educated body in the world, I would assume that the odds in their favor would be in the range of astronomical.

But, you're right. Nothing in the future is guaranteed.

 

[bripat9643]

And, yes, it's easily possible that all the so-called "climate scientists" working for the IPCC are wrong and I'm right.

Possible, yes. Easily possible, no.

Meaningless. Either they can be wrong, or they are infallible. In the former case, you can't claim AGW is a fact because they say so.

 

[PMZ]

And, yes, it's easily possible that all the so-called "climate scientists" working for the IPCC are wrong and I'm right.

Possible, yes. Easily possible, no.

Meaningless. Either they can be wrong, or they are infallible. In the former case, you can't claim AGW is a fact because they say so.

Any successful venture must be based on the best informed future vision. You trying to sell that less probable insight is better than more probable, is, in a word, ridiculous.

 

[Impenitent]

Bullcrap. Harry Hess had to refer to plate tectonics in a poem as late as 1962. They didn't finally obliterate the old guard of the geology field till J. Tuzo Wilson described the transverse faults and their method of operation, plus how they would be found, that the old guard finally scurried off and hid.

The point is that the claim that "In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary" is wrong. And by the way, your point doesn't refute mine. Congratulations.

You claimed that the theory of Plate Tectonics was widely accepted in the 1960's and that is patently untrue. It wasn't until the 1970's that it was accepted science wide. That's how powerful the ruling class of the old geologists was. The warmers are the exact same way. They ignore evidence that refutes their theories and falsify data to support it.

They are exactly the same as those intellectually dishonest bastards that held up tectonic theory for over 30 years. Congrats you're a dinosaur headed for extinction... yet again.

Speaking of plate tectonics, it is neither understood, nor accepted where it counts, and that is by high ranking Republican Congressmen!

Here is Joe Barton, influential on environmental and energy committees, showing his incredible misunderstand of geology, and climate science:

Rep. Joe Barton Denies Plate Tectonics; Thinks He?s a Genius

 

[orogenicman]

All the geologists in 1950 were dead wrong about continental drift. That fact alone should make anyone pause before claiming some theory is true because authorities 'X,' 'Y' and 'Z' says it's true.

So the hundreds of scientists who have contributed to the latest IPCC report are all wrong but you are right.

Oh, and please explain to us how all the geologists in 1950 were wrong about continental drift, but all the geologists today making essentially the same claims are not?

They aren't making the same assertion, nimrod. All modern geologists accept the theory of continental drift. In 1950 they all rejected it.

That is absolutely untrue.

And, yes, it's easily possible that all the so-called "climate scientists" working for the IPCC are wrong and I'm right.

This explains why you Republicans are keeping the government shut down - because everyone is wrong but you. Not a brilliant campaign strategy, if I do say so myself.

 

[orogenicman]

I know, but what's funny is when they do that in this case, they open themselves up to a crushing defeat. It is VERY well known just how vociferously the entrenched geologists were AGAINST Wegener's theory.

Find any National Geographic Atlas from the mid 1960's and they are STILL promulgating the shrinking Earth theory of mountain building. It is quite comical in light of what was already known about plate tectonics.

These clowns are EXACTLY the same.

What is comical is that you think that the vast majority of geologists in the 1960s subscribed to the shrinking Earth hypothesis, or even the more widely accepted expanding Earth hypothesis championed by Paul Dirac, Pascual Jordan, and later by Samuel Warren Carey and others. The fact is that both of these ideas were easily shown to violate the laws of thermodynamics, a fact that was well understood by many in the geologic community, so was finally rejected for all time when plate tectonics was proposed and finally accepted. Yes there are still stragglers who simply won't let it go, much like there are crackpots who think that global warming is a conspiracy by government scientists in order to gain government grants.

The primary argument against Wegener's theory was that it lacked a mechanism. Plate tectonics finally gave us the requisite mechanism - mantle convection.

The fact is that in 1950 the scientific community rejected the theory that the continents moved. So the consensus was wrong. However, you claim that the theory of AGW is right because the consensus endorses it, but you're too damn stupid to see the problem with your "logic."

The fact is that Carey introduced Plate tectonics in 1957. The fact is that the earlier rejection of continental drift was primarily because for the theory to be valid there had to be a mechanism. No one could offer such a mechanism, so by and large it was rejected. Still, British geologist Arthur Holmes not only championed continental drift in the 1940s, in 1944 he offered up convection as the driving mechanism. But it didn't receive widespread attention because of the war. The fact is that in 1975 a consensus (by The International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, and the American Geophysical Union) on Plate Tectonics was arrived at, and prior theories (i.e., earth shrinking and Earth Expansion) were rejected.

Oh, and I made no such claim that AGW is right because there is a majority consensus. There is a majority consensus because it is right. See the difference?

 

[orogenicman]

A certain number of people will die from heat in any given year. If you raise the temperature that number will increase. The additional deaths would be due to the increased temperature. A 2C increase in the world's average temperature WILL kill people. It will also cause some serious consequences along the lines of rising sea level, melting ice, lost drinking water supplies, lost irrigation water supplies, increased incidence of severe weather... but you knew all this. You just wanted to say something different and I suspect that nothing we show you in the way of supporting evidence will change what you say here. That would be too embarrassing. No one wants to admit they were wrong in public. So you'll just keep saying "it won't make a difference". I guess that makes talking with you a compete waste of time. Genug.

ps: people who, in a discussion of the natural sciences, demand proof of issues under discussion have clearly indicated that they have insufficient knowledge of science to hold up their end of the discussion.

Since more people die from cold, a warming world would result in fewer climate related deaths.

A warming world will increase the incidents of malaria, typhoid, various mosquito-borne hemorrhagic fevers, West Nile virus, diarrhea (one of the largest killers in the third world) and other "tropical" diseases.

 

[orogenicman]

Bullcrap. Harry Hess had to refer to plate tectonics in a poem as late as 1962. They didn't finally obliterate the old guard of the geology field till J. Tuzo Wilson described the transverse faults and their method of operation, plus how they would be found, that the old guard finally scurried off and hid.

The point is that the claim that "In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary" is wrong. And by the way, your point doesn't refute mine. Congratulations.

You claimed that the theory of Plate Tectonics was widely accepted in the 1960's and that is patently untrue. It wasn't until the 1970's that it was accepted science wide. That's how powerful the ruling class of the old geologists was. The warmers are the exact same way. They ignore evidence that refutes their theories and falsify data to support it.

They are exactly the same as those intellectually dishonest bastards that held up tectonic theory for over 30 years. Congrats you're a dinosaur headed for extinction... yet again.

Here is what I said for those with alzheimers or else don't have the ability (or are too lazy) to go back and refresh their memories by reading what was actually said:

Incorrect. Continental drift was already widely accepted by then due to the discovery of global oceanic rifting. What it needed was a mechanism. When Wadati–Benioff zones (what we today call subduction zones) were discovered, the mechanism of mantle convection was formulated, and today we call the totality of the theory plate tectonics. Also I said later, "The point is that the claim that "In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary" is wrong. And by the way, your point doesn't refute mine. Congratulations."

 

[itfitzme]

And, yes, it's easily possible that all the so-called "climate scientists" working for the IPCC are wrong and I'm right.

No. With all consideration, it is not possible that you are correct. There is a statistically insignificant probability that some words you spew might appear to correlate to some minor process in reality. Even so, that won't make you correct in any manner except some minor happenstance.

We know what the probabities of the IPCC statements are as they publish them as "highly likely", "very likely", etc. They are 100% correct in all cases, even in the unlikely case that the unlikely event occurs.

 

[orogenicman]

What sort of educated debater makes use of such a multiply-flawed argument?

You really think a scientific organization would put a railroad engineer/soft porn writer in charge? You just keep giving more and more about yourself away and you just keep looking smaller and smaller.

You guys put a massage therapist and an ex-dj in charge of your arguments. At least our guys are real scientists.

 

[SSDD]

Since more people die from cold, a warming world would result in fewer climate related deaths.

In the common patois:

That's been 'proven' wrong. Try again

Does Hot weather or cold weather cause more deaths

Wiki? Once again, I am laughing in your face. Only the worst sort of tragically stupid idiot relies on wiki, and only the basest of fools uses it regularly. Is there anything that you warmers don't lie about?

http://geosciences.msstate.edu/faculty/dixon/reprints/2005bams.pdf

Of the datasets identified in this study, the one that appears to be least influenced by the above limitations is gross mortality. However, the gross mortality data must be detrended in order to remove a persistent winter-dominant death maximum.

The Health Benefits of a Warmer Climate

Cold Weather vs. Warm Weather: Which Kills More People?

Heat or Cold: Which Is More Deadly?

 

[SSDD]

While you continue to use completely fallacious arguments in what purports to be a debate.

There is nothing fallacious about the argument. I do find it funny that you keep dodging an answer. Lets look at some scientific organizations and see what sort of people they put in charge.

The American Medical Association - James L. Madara, MD
The American Chemical Society - Marinda Li Wu, Ph.D
The Royal Society of Medicine -Professor Sir Michael Rawlins (Doctor and renowned researcher)

And the list just goes on and on. I can't really find any real scientific body that has put a railroad engineer/soft porn writer in charge. So again, what sort of body is the IPCC if it has put a railroad engineer/soft porn writer in charge....certainly not a real scientific body.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The point is that the claim that "In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary" is wrong. And by the way, your point doesn't refute mine. Congratulations.

You claimed that the theory of Plate Tectonics was widely accepted in the 1960's and that is patently untrue. It wasn't until the 1970's that it was accepted science wide. That's how powerful the ruling class of the old geologists was. The warmers are the exact same way. They ignore evidence that refutes their theories and falsify data to support it.

They are exactly the same as those intellectually dishonest bastards that held up tectonic theory for over 30 years. Congrats you're a dinosaur headed for extinction... yet again.

Speaking of plate tectonics, it is neither understood, nor accepted where it counts, and that is by high ranking Republican Congressmen!

Here is Joe Barton, influential on environmental and energy committees, showing his incredible misunderstand of geology, and climate science:

Rep. Joe Barton Denies Plate Tectonics; Thinks He?s a Genius

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnk0tIqsbYM]Congressman asks Admiral if the island will tip over by adding troops! - YouTube[/ame]

Lots of stupid politicians out there.

 

[Abraham3]

Rajendra K. Pachauri
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born 20 August 1940 (age 73)

Nainital, United Provinces, British Raj (now Uttarakhand, India)

Nationality Indian
Alma mater North Carolina State University and La Martiniere Lucknow
Occupation Chief, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Director General, TERI, Head Yale Climate and Energy Institute

Religion Hindu
Spouse(s) Saroj Pachauri
Children Daughter Rashmi Pachauri-Rajan.[1]

Rajendra Kumar Pachauri (born 20 August 1940) has been serving as the chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007[2][3] during his tenure. He has also been the director general of TERI, a research and policy organization in India, and chancellor of TERI University; besides being the chairman of the governing council of the National Agro Foundation (NAF), as well as the chairman of the board of Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate and Society. Pachauri has been outspoken about climate change. He has been appointed as Senior Adviser to Yale Climate and Energy Institute (YCEI) from July 2012 prior to which he was the Founding Director of YCEI (July 2009 – June 2012).

Pachauri was born in Nainital, India. He was educated at La Martiniere College in Lucknow[4] and at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar. He belongs to the Special Class Railway Apprentices, 1958 Batch, an elite scheme which heralded the beginning of mechanical engineering education in India.[5] He began his career with the Indian Railways at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi. He joined the North Carolina State University in Raleigh, USA, where he obtained an MS in Industrial Engineering in 1972, and a Ph.D. with co-majors in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974.[6] His doctoral thesis was titled, A dynamic model for forecasting of electrical energy demand in a specific region located in North and South Carolina.[7] He lives in Golf Links, New Delhi.[8] He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment.[9]

And if you've never written any soft porn in your day, I have to ask you what you did with your testicles.

Actually, I haven't the faintest idea what you refer to with your "soft-porn" comment. The man's a hindu. They're not particularly known for excess lasciviousness.

And I don't know where you got YOUR information, but characterizing the man as a railroad engineer seems slightly prejudiced. Let's put all that text in nice clear tabular form:

Initial engineering education from the Indian Railway Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering
MS in Industrial Engineering
PhD in Industrial Engineering
PhD in Economics

Director General The Energy and Research Institute (TERI)
Chancellor, TERI University
Chairman, Governing Council, National Agro Foundation
Chairman of the Board, Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate and Society
Founding Director and Senior Adviser to Yale Climate and Energy Institute
and, since 2002, Chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)