Here’s how you school climate deniers: The anti-science movement’s biggest fallacies,

[boomerang]

We can certainly control our contribution.

Of course we can and plenty are. These threads are nothing but screams rooted in anxiety. I have never really understood their purpose. There does not need to be a consensus of any kind for us to continue on the path we're on and have been on nearly all of my life. I think some of it is the adolescent desire for instant gratification. Some of course, is based in the huge need for control that some people possess. But there need not be a consensus here, across the nation or the world. Certainly nobody is going to garner support by referring to people as deniers. It in fact has the opposite effect.

BTW that picture is awesome. I want that as a poster.

It's always a big hit with a certain segment.

 

[IamDavid]

We can certainly control our contribution.

BTW that picture is awesome. I want that as a poster.

We can control our contribution but any "reductions" you or I would make would be totally insignificant to reducing global emissions. I'm not sure of the numbers but my guess is just on shear population growth in Asia the rest of the world could cut personal emissions by 90% and not make a dent over the next 20 years.

This debate is about power and control, nothing more. People like Gore understand this and exploit this to create lemmings out of everyone. Everyone loves to be mindless drones fighting for a cause.

BTW, I voted for Clinton twice, I'm not politically caring in either direction.

 

[Joepublic2]

What about people who don't give a shit about climate change (most people)?

 

[runzwithsizorz]

There is no "debate".

There are facts and there are "individuals" who deny them.

Some of us are old enough to remember science, with it's facts, warned us of an impending ice age.

 

[fskimospy]

Some of us are old enough to remember science, with it's facts, warned us of an impending ice age.

No it didn't.

 

[IamDavid]

No it didn't.

Didn't Time Magazine have a cover story on this?


https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/pollution_sacrifice_democracy.png

 

[IamDavid]

News articles*:
1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 – New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
1970 – Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
1970 – Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1970 – Dirt Will .Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
1971 – Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 – Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1971 – Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)
1971 – Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)
1972 – Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)
1972 – Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
1972 – British expert on Climate Change says Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)
1972 – Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (Portsmouth Times, ‎September 11, 1972&#8206
1972 – New Ice Age Slipping Over North (Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)
1972 – Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)
1972 – Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ‎September 12, 1972&#8206
1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 – Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 – The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)
1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 – New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)
1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1974 – Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)
1974 – Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, ‎December 4, 1974&#8206
1974 – Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, ‎December 5, 1974&#8206
1974 – More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel – ‎December 5, 1974&#8206
1974 – Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 5, 1974)
1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 – Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, ‎March 2, 1975&#8206
1975 – Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator – ‎March 2, 1975&#8206
1975 – Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975)
1975 – New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, ‎March 2, 1975&#8206
1975 – There’s Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, ‎March 2, 1975&#8206
1975 – Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, ‎March 3, 1975&#8206
1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1975 – Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 11, 1975)
1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
1977 – Blizzard – What Happens if it Doesn’t Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977)
1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977)
1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 – We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
1978 – The New Ice Age [Book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978)
1978 – Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978)
1978 – Winters Will Get Colder, ‘we’re Entering Little Ice Age’ (Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978)
1978 – Geologist Says Winters Getting Colder (Middlesboro Daily News, January 16, 1978)
1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, ‎January 17, 1978&#8206
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

 

[fskimospy]

Didn't Time Magazine have a cover story on this?

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/pollution_sacrifice_democracy.png

Time magazine isn't a scientific publication. The majority of climate scientists at the time that article was published said the earth was warming, not cooling.

Climate denier blogs try to dupe the people reading them into believing that the scientific consensus at that time was the opposite of what it is today because they think that helps de legitimize the current consensus.

 

[fskimospy]

You have been duped.

You should read this to actually understand the position of scientists at the time:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

 

[IamDavid]

You have been duped.

You should read this to actually understand the position of scientists at the time:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Off course not.... Rewriting history is a strategy by the same people leading the fights today on both sides.

I like the lose term "scientist" today. How many "Climate" scientist truly are their? From the news media it sounds like we have dozens or hundreds of major universities spitting out highly educated, amazingly brilliant climate scientists. My guess its like any scientific field. Throngs of scientific lemmings following each other because someone said "hey, look over there!".
Take a look at the daily barrage of misinformation, deception and outright bull**** spewed out by the medical profession these days. The human body has far more "scientist" studying it every day yet they can't even come to many consensus on anything. Is salt bad for people? How about trans fats causing cancer? How about cholesterol being bad for you? The list goes on and on...


Again, I don't' dispute a lot of the scientific findings. I dispute the assumptions and accusations that come with them all. It's all positioned to create us against them.

 

[Moonbeam]

The CBD can't face the fact that it is personally responsible for the bodies of the dead rolling over and over down rivers and gullies in Texas flooding. It fears that somebody will tax it to save others. " Let those low land fuckers take care of themselves!"

 

[Joepublic2]

The CBD can't face the fact that it is personally responsible for the bodies of the dead rolling over and over down rivers and gullies in Texas flooding. It fears that somebody will tax it to save others. " Let those low land fuckers take care of themselves!"

So conservatives are personally responsible for localized flooding in certain areas? I assume you can back this up with some data. Maybe you should have went to real college instead of clown college.

 

[Moonbeam]

Off course not.... Rewriting history is a strategy by the same people leading the fights today on both sides.

I like the lose term "scientist" today. How many "Climate" scientist truly are their? From the news media it sounds like we have dozens or hundreds of major universities spitting out highly educated, amazingly brilliant climate scientists. My guess its like any scientific field. Throngs of scientific lemmings following each other because someone said "hey, look over there!".
Take a look at the daily barrage of misinformation, deception and outright bull**** spewed out by the medical profession these days. The human body has far more "scientist" studying it every day yet they can't even come to many consensus on anything. Is salt bad for people? How about trans fats causing cancer? How about cholesterol being bad for you? The list goes on and on...

Again, I don't' dispute a lot of the scientific findings. I dispute the assumptions and accusations that come with them all. It's all positioned to create us against them.

You poor conditioned brain defective. Don't you know the CBD sees the world in terms of us vs. them. You are projecting your defects on others.

 

[LegendKiller]

I don't deny the climate is changing, nor do I deny man is having some effect on the climate. However, what I do *DEBATE* is the attribution.

We cannot even forecast weather 24hours in a local area with a large degree of certainty. Yet we are supposed believe we can create a perfect attribution for man made global warming?

 

[Subyman]

Off course not.... Rewriting history is a strategy by the same people leading the fights today on both sides.

I like the lose term "scientist" today. How many "Climate" scientist truly are their? From the news media it sounds like we have dozens or hundreds of major universities spitting out highly educated, amazingly brilliant climate scientists. My guess its like any scientific field. Throngs of scientific lemmings following each other because someone said "hey, look over there!".
Take a look at the daily barrage of misinformation, deception and outright bull**** spewed out by the medical profession these days. The human body has far more "scientist" studying it every day yet they can't even come to many consensus on anything. Is salt bad for people? How about trans fats causing cancer? How about cholesterol being bad for you? The list goes on and on...


Again, I don't' dispute a lot of the scientific findings. I dispute the assumptions and accusations that come with them all. It's all positioned to create us against them.

FWIW, climate studies cross many fields. My thesis professor was dipping into climate modeling due to the political nature of nuclear. If controlling carbon became a national priority then knowing how the use of nuclear energy could contribute to reducing our carbon dependence was a study worth performing. His model brought together socio-economic studies, climate studies, and energy modeling. Hardly any meaningful studies are done in a departmental vacuum. Everything relies on each other when studying real-world issues. So the number of scientists rubbing up against climate modeling is substantial.

 

[Subyman]

Of course we can and plenty are. These threads are nothing but screams rooted in anxiety. I have never really understood their purpose. There does not need to be a consensus of any kind for us to continue on the path we're on and have been on nearly all of my life. I think some of it is the adolescent desire for instant gratification. Some of course, is based in the huge need for control that some people possess. But there need not be a consensus here, across the nation or the world. Certainly nobody is going to garner support by referring to people as deniers. It in fact has the opposite effect.It's always a big hit with a certain segment.

I have more respect for the nation/people that acknowledges the consequences of their actions and chooses to continue down that path due to a variety of reasons compared to the group that would deny to appease their conscious.

FWIW, I'm of the group that knows there is no going back to a pre-industrial natural cycle. The climate will adjust upwards until we get back to steady state. We will adjust our life style to the new climate. I do not believe we will turn into Venus or any of that crazy stuff some extremists spew. There will be changes, but they will be well within our capacity to adapt.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't deny the climate is changing, nor do I deny man is having some effect on the climate. However, what I do *DEBATE* is the attribution.

We cannot even forecast weather 24hours in a local area with a large degree of certainty. Yet we are supposed believe we can create a perfect attribution for man made global warming?

One has nothing to do with the other. It surprises me that you believe this faulty thinking. The weather tomorrow and the climate direction are based on totally different sets of data and models to analyze them.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The CBD can't face the fact that it is personally responsible for the bodies of the dead rolling over and over down rivers and gullies in Texas flooding. It fears that somebody will tax it to save others. " Let those low land fuckers take care of themselves!"

Wow. Just wow.

 

[boomerang]

I've heard more times than I can recall over the last 40 years that we only had ten years left. That is something that should give people pause. The second time I heard it I knew all I needed to know.

 

[IamDavid]

You poor conditioned brain defective. Don't you know the CBD sees the world in terms of us vs. them. You are projecting your defects on others.

WTF? CBD? Christian Book dealers? Cannabidiol ? Corticobasal degeneration?
You sir are the definition of an internet troll. Please return to masturbating with peanut butter in your mothers basement while watching kiddy porn.

 

[IamDavid]

FWIW, climate studies cross many fields. My thesis professor was dipping into climate modeling due to the political nature of nuclear. If controlling carbon became a national priority then knowing how the use of nuclear energy could contribute to reducing our carbon dependence was a study worth performing. His model brought together socio-economic studies, climate studies, and energy modeling. Hardly any meaningful studies are done in a departmental vacuum. Everything relies on each other when studying real-world issues. So the number of scientists rubbing up against climate modeling is substantial.

Thanks, this is what I assumed. This methodology ends up creating a chain only as strong as its weakest link? I'd be basing my findings off some other studies to further my findings and make me right. The study of human biology has proved this to be true over and over again. The scientific world is to quick to defend each other to outside questions allowing the Gores of the world to use this to their favor.

 

[IamDavid]

FWIW, I'm of the group that knows there is no going back to a pre-industrial natural cycle. The climate will adjust upwards until we get back to steady state. We will adjust our life style to the new climate. I do not believe we will turn into Venus or any of that crazy stuff some extremists spew. There will be changes, but they will be well within our capacity to adapt.

100% agree. We adapt, that's what it is to be human.

 

[Jaskalas]

There is no "debate".

There are facts and there are "individuals" who deny them.

^^^^^^^^^^^
again, this...

Which of you would be so kind as to point us to the correct facts?
Is 2014 "warmest" or is it not?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

100% agree. We adapt, that's what it is to be human.

So say the folks currently denying instead of adapting.

 

[LegendKiller]

One has nothing to do with the other. It surprises me that you believe this faulty thinking. The weather tomorrow and the climate direction are based on totally different sets of data and models to analyze them.

A model is only as good as the goodness of fit of the variables used and the information fed into it. The lack of proper regression variables to get a good R^2 is the death of the model. Furthermore, the inputs into the model, such as accurate temperature data, is key. Otherwise it is a GIGO model.

Our inability to understand exactly what effects local climates is dependent on more variables than we can account for. Thus, local forecasting models are faulty.

As you can see from the climate models thus far, they have *all* been wrong. All of them. There isn't a single one that has even come close to predicting the temp, or the sea rise, or the glacial thickness. None.

Why? Because the science is "settled". Yet the regression sucks balls.


The science is *NOT* settled.