Have you ever met a climate change denier?

trollism wrote:

Pollly P wrote:

All I had to do was look what that chart showed for 1998 and the first decade of this century. Just looking at that proved that chart is a joke.

You still jibbering about 1998?

Look at that chart from 1998 on and look how it shows the temp constantly rising:

Now look at historical temps - specifically, 1998 versus the years after and you can see that chart is junk:

Cornell grad_ wrote:

Have you ever met a climate change denier?

Sure. I'm related to some, and I used to be one.

[NOTE: I've also met some trolls. Well played, OP.]

Having an Ivy League education and a willingness to use it--unlike, apparently, Mr. Johnson--I took some time a few years ago and looked up some of the research on the topic. (Actual research/abstracts, that was--not blog or discussion-board posts.) Didn't take long, actually--just a few hours total on a vitally important topic.

That search made it clear that a) current warming of Earth is a fact; b) human agency is a major factor in the rapidity of the warming; and c) the current warming matters more than the many previous warmings in Earth's existence because *now* there are more than 7 billion people on the planet, and about half of them live in what are defined as coastal areas--and those people can/will be enormously affected by AGW's effects.

[Small additional note: in the course of that research I also found that human population is NOT increasing "exponentially," and hasn't been for decades.]

Fat hurts wrote:

The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.

1) The scientific community does NOT overwhelmingly accept global warming.

2) All of the past predictions by the global warming alarmists have been shown to be wrong.

Blah Blah. wrote:

1) The scientific community does NOT overwhelmingly accept global warming.

2) All of the past predictions by the global warming alarmists have been shown to be wrong.

Thanks for the link(s) supporting your statements. Oh, wait--there weren't any.

Doesn't matter--if you make a statement on the topic, that should be good enough for anyone, amirite?

Just the fact that the Lysenkoists had to concoct the invective "climate change denier" is proof of it's inherent fraudulence.

Then again, that's par for the course for so-called "Progressives".

Global Warming Dupes - LOL

I don't know folks but I've heard that all of the leading climate change deniers are getting paid large salaries by the fossil fuel industry. Don't know if it's true but a lot of people are saying in

Hitchens wrote:

I don't know folks but I've heard that all of the leading climate change deniers are getting paid large salaries by the fossil fuel industry. Don't know if it's true but a lot of people are saying in

Top people. Top. Believe me!

Met one? I am one. It's all BS.

Hitchens wrote:

I don't know folks but I've heard that all of the leading climate change deniers are getting paid large salaries by the fossil fuel industry. Don't know if it's true but a lot of people are saying in

How can I get some of this money?

A person wrote:

I suggest you look at this intuitive comic for some easy to digest information.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

This is a great chart that is very clear with the timeline.

Thanks for the chart wrote:

A person wrote:

I suggest you look at this intuitive comic for some easy to digest information.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

This is a great chart that is very clear with the timeline.

Just a shame that the chart is wildly inaccurate. But it sure does look purdy.

Pollly P wrote:

trollism wrote:

You still jibbering about 1998?

Look at that chart from 1998 on and look how it shows the temp constantly rising:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Now look at historical temps - specifically, 1998 versus the years after and you can see that chart is junk:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

Where is the junk? Both go up by the same amount. If you're wondering why the line doesn't jump around like the data points, that's likely because he used curve fitting. I made a plot used a 4th degree polynomial fit with the data from 1880-2015 and looks the same as his. You're welcome to try.

Warning you may have to rotate your head sideways to view the same way.

A person wrote:

Pollly P wrote:

Look at that chart from 1998 on and look how it shows the temp constantly rising:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Now look at historical temps - specifically, 1998 versus the years after and you can see that chart is junk:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

Where is the junk? Both go up by the same amount. If you're wondering why the line doesn't jump around like the data points, that's likely because he used curve fitting. I made a plot used a 4th degree polynomial fit with the data from 1880-2015 and looks the same as his. You're welcome to try.

http://i.imgur.com/bEXVzUA.jpg

Warning you may have to rotate your head sideways to view the same way.

His chart shows a temperature increase of 1 degree Centigrade between 1998 and present. That is waaaaaayyy off. His curve fitting looks to be including speculative temps.

rojo wrote:

Cornell grad_ wrote:

Have you ever met a climate change denier?

Did I ever coach you at Cornell? Please email if so. I've never taken a course on the subject and would like to hear someone smart give me the facts. So please email me.

Until I get the facts from you, I guess my main thought on climate change is this. I'm worried about us all dying in a heat wave - a nuclear heat wave. The people who think we'll all die due to global warming clearly don't understand statistics. The odds of a nuclear holocaust wiping us all out in the next 200 years are way greater than climate change killing us in 1000.

And I doubt I'll be alive to see either occur.

I thought about writing a post explaining how you've rationalized inaction based upon a strawman scenario that has not been seriously proposed by the scientific community.

Upon consideration, I appreciate the candid acknowledgement that the objective facts don't really affect your perspective to the extent that they are not imminently catastrophic to you personally. We could all probably save a lot of time if everyone were so blunt.

On the off chance that you really do want an expert summary from someone at Cornell, maybe someone here can help:

Is their anyone who doesn't believe in global warming and who doesn't support Trump. I'm connecting the dots here.

If you don't believe in global warming I am betting that you support Trump. I bet no one will say they don't believe in global warming AND they don't support Trump.

In both cases you must suspend logical thinking.

science wrote:

Is their anyone who doesn't believe in global warming and who doesn't support Trump. I'm connecting the dots here.

If you don't believe in global warming I am betting that you support Trump. I bet no one will say they don't believe in global warming AND they don't support Trump.

In both cases you must suspend logical thinking.

I wish the Democrats were as concerned about the unsustainability of the US budget deficit as they are about the threat of climate change. Perhaps that's a way to negotiate for addressing both problems.

It may be due to being from shithole Texas. Oil money up the wazooo so strong you have to find any reason you can to not acknowledge the truth