What Do You Gain By Denying Climate Change?

All conjecture and no facts. Thanks for yet another opinion post.

So tell me. How is it that the relative miniscule amount of CO2 emitted by man is threatening to destroy the planet? How is it that just mans emission are capable of overiding natural feedback loops and are capable of generating such free wheeling, out of control, virtuous loop capable of destroying the entire system. You might be on to solving the barriers to perpetual motion!

 

Hmmm, seems to me that new unproven hypothesis are not proof of anything.

 

The science is ambiguous at best, with a tell tale trend of global warming conclusions gravitating toward the best funded fields of research. Hundreds of scientists have publicly dissented from the global warming hoax and did so in writing.

That would be a significant part of the population, some polls indicating that most people don't believe that man aggravates climate change. Writing off everyone who disagrees as crazy is consistent with the shrill, acrimonious temperament of global warming's most dedicated defenders. And it's just stupid.

Even more whacky than clinging to myths about global warming even though the last 20 years have shown no trend to back it up?

Somehow tangible proof always eludes the GW cultists and they insist their "science" and computer models are accurate even when they are at variance with empirical evidence. There is no net loss of ice shelves, no rise in sea levels, no rise in temperatures, no abnormal fluctuations in weather patterns, no drowning polar bears, or any other standard of comprehensive proof proposed to indicate that there's a rise in global temperatures; much less that man is causing it.

But keep the faith!

 

LOL. Yeah you are an engineer. LOL

Miniscule amount of CO2? How does a miniscule amount. 260 ppm, make the world about 20 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be? How does a miniscule amount of Hydrogen Sulfide kill you?

You do realize that CO2 completely absorbs all of the emitted IR at ground level?

And a 40% increase is not a miniscule amount.

 

Oh please post up the phony baloney list of scientist that have said the science is bogus. I have already shown that many on that list do not exist and most only have a BSc.

Meanwhile the truth is below.

 

Something from Photobucket doesn't hold much weight. Got a link to anything substantial?

 

Quite some time ago I gave you 218 links, either you didn't go to them, or more likely you have a recursive fury toward denial.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23508808

 

LOL, Lewandowsky. Journal admits Lewandowsky paper retracted because it failed. Twice!

 

Based on what I'm reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change I think your colorful little picture is a load of B.S.

 

He can't even tell you where it came from other than Photobucket.

 

It means we are not buying into lies and a political agenda!!!!

 

Like any dedicated Leftist, he's trying to shut down debate. He sent me a PM that read:

Such supercilious snobbery!

 

His level of education is so high that he will believe anything, like Lewandowsky without doing any research on his own. LOL

 

Far be it form me to agree with WWJD but even according to your own source
"Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009[edit]

"A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:


It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[13]" there is no doubt that scientists, particularly scientists specializing in climate studies agree that
A. global warming is taking place. and
B. Man has contributed to it.

The question is how serious the problem is. Many believe that it is NOT as serious as WDJD thinks it is, and that there is really no need for hysteria.

 

That was one excerpt from my source, others show far more ambiguity, especially on polls not exclusive to climate scientists. Even that underscores the problem, that any scientist specializing in climate studies must sing along with the global warming musical or they'll be looking for another job. The same kind of institutionalized monolith exists on the subject of evolution. Few in the scientific community are dismayed that big science is less of a quest for truth and more of body of doctrine inviolate by divergent heretical viewpoints. The Ben Stein documentary "Expelled" really sheds some light on the hostility and persecution that befalls any scientist daring to question the dominant axioms. This isn't science, it's religion....of the worst kind!

 

Well I can see that you try and bait people into calling you an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*), by acting like an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*), but no matter how hard you try, I am not going to call your an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

The paper was retracted because of a frivolous lawsuit. The laws were actually changed recently so that such lawsuits couldn't be brought.

 

^^^^ Such a pontificating dilettante.

Do you know why I get dismissive of you deniers? You bring the same disproven arguments over and over. You never acknowledge anything, and accuse your adversary of doing the same childish things you yourself commit.

 

Well, I have to say I am disappointed by this site. The last site I was on had some pretty dumb posters, making pretty dumb arguments about Climate Change. "How can such a small percentage of the atmosphere make a difference"? "The temperature has always changed". "Man can't make a difference".

Basically the same stuff I am hearing from the deniers here.

This must mean that the deniers only reach a certain level of intelligence, at which point all of their arguments top out. Either that, or they are all getting their propaganda from the same place.

 

Reading problems? No frivolous lawsuit but the paper was junk and you fell for it. I can tell this is an emotional issue for you instead of an intellectual issue.

 

You get dismissive because you don't have an argument other than alarmism based not on proof but on other's alarmism. Your name calling is what is childish. Calling people deniers just because they have not jumped on the alarmist bandwagon then reacting with more name calling. One might think you are treating this like a grade school playground instead of actually involving yourself in debate.

You should try reading a little wider than only alarmist websites and get away from the political meme of CAGW. You are advocating, not debating.

 

Clearly. How unscientific to abandon oneself to the throes of their own irrational emotions. Maybe he'll have some more choice insults to buttress his failing arguments.

 

There were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. The fossilized remains of both don't lie. Something cause the Earth to warm to that extent, man didn't exist and the fossils for oil were still walking around and growing from the ground. So what caused the Earth to warm that much? We know through indisputable fact that there were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. Without absolute proof man is causing the latest warming, you can't rule out that the same process isn't happening again and nothing we can do will matter anyway.

Deforestation is likely a driver of any man made warming far more than any emissions. An area the size of England, Wales and Scotland (50 million acres) is cut down every year around the world. Trees are nature's carbon sinks. When that much carbon sink is removed every year, they are fighting a losing battle by simply controlling emissions. Unless the main thrust of climate change "control" if that's possible, is putting a stop to deforestation, don't bother us with trivial pursuits.

 

A lot of people on the Right, are also relegated to some kind of religious view of what shall be. That is often left out of what is steering the mindset seen in certain commentary.

Some people don't care that we're running things into the ground; "Jesus will come (anyway) and deliver us to a better place. We don't have to worry about the Earth or living here; it'll be okay." That's the kind of thing that swirls in the minds of many with a religious view. Science is nudged to the back-burner and faith is relied upon, so they don't care to consider (as much) the reality that science can/should be applied to the problems we see before us.

I think the saving grace will be the latest generation of adults (and their children). While there is indeed a component of faith with them... it isn't as blinding a factor for them as it is with people of my generation. They are more "real"... as younger people my put it.

 

A lot of people on the left, are also relegated to some kind of warmist religious view of what shall be. That is often left out of what is steering the mindset seen in certain commentary.

Some people don't care that we're running things into the ground; "Al Gore will come (anyway) and deliver us to a better place. We don't have to worry about the Earth or living here; it'll be okay." That's the kind of thing that swirls in the minds of many with a warmist religious view. Logic is nudged to the back-burner and faith in what ever Al Gore tells them is relied upon, so they don't care to consider (as much) the reality that science can/should be applied to the problems we see before us, only their warmist religion of carbon taxation.

If the warmies are serious about warming why a carbon tax instead of a deforrestation tax? For them it's all about the Benjamines. Making money from thin air has been a con mans dream throughout the ages.

 

Yes, I am an engineer and you're not, so I am very much aware of the "if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bull(*)(*)(*)(*)"...and it is clear that you've chosen that path.

Any fool can see through your BS... and it is BS to talk about PPM and then talk about Percentages. I gave you simple questions that can be answered with words and you reply by posting numbers that have no context. Just admit that you can't answer my questions, boi.