Have you ever met a climate change denier?

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.

The concern about climate change has never been about us all dying from the the gradual or sudden warming. That has never been on anyone's radar.

The Overexplainer wrote:

rojo wrote:

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.

The concern about climate change has never been about us all dying from the the gradual or sudden warming. That has never been on anyone's radar.

LOL, rewriting history. Remember when climate change was called global warming...that was because of the concern about us all dying from the the gradual or sudden warming.

random4 wrote:

The Overexplainer wrote:

The concern about climate change has never been about us all dying from the the gradual or sudden warming. That has never been on anyone's radar.

LOL, rewriting history. Remember when climate change was called global warming...that was because of the concern about us all dying from the the gradual or sudden warming.

Al Gore? No

Conspiracy? No

Old Earth? No

Oh what the hell, let's just flat out lie.

Climate change believers are almost as stupid as the people who believe that the Earth is round.

Disco Gary...

If climatology is a "fascist movement," why does the Pentagon say in its Quadrennial Defense Review that Global Warming will destabilize developing nations and lead to increased warfare around the globe?

Why was July the hottest month ever recorded in the history of Meteorology?

Why is the Northwest Passage largely open in summer now?

Why are large tracts of forest in Alaska dying from an infestation of bark-beetles, that previously, could not survive the cold that far North?

Why are large areas of permafrost melting and releasing methane?

Why are the oceans currently acidifying at a rate faster than during the Late Permian Mass Extinction of ~300 million years ago, in which an estimated 70 to 90% of life on Earth perished?

Why are coal ash nanoparticles preferentially enriched with heavy metals?

When nanoparticles penetrate the cell walls of mitochondria in the human lung, why do they cause oxidative stress that can lead to cancer?

Nature's biodiversity--its rainforests, its bleaching and stressed coral reefs--are viewed as storehouses of counterintuitive chemical compounds, substances that could aid biochemists in developing new categories of drugs and treatments to help humanity. One example is an anti-coagulant used in heart surgery that is derived from the saliva of the canine hookworm--an extremely nasty parasite. Another--the Guggul Tree of India, contains sap that has cholesterol-lowering properties. Another--a sea sponge found in the Caribbean, is a source for anti-Leukemia & Lymphoma drugs. If Global Warming proceeds unchecked and results in a series of cascading mass extinctions that deprive humanity of this resource, does it matter? Is it a good thing?

Do indigenous cultures in rapidly degrading Arctic areas who have lived in adaptive genius and relative peace for millennia--the Inupiat, the Inuit, the Sami, and Vilui Sakha--deserve any consideration at all?

I could go on. I've gone this far hoping that reason, logic and PRUDENCE mean as much to you as they do to me. But they don't do they? I mean, what evidence could I possibly show you that would make you reconsider your position? Because this isn't a discussion or a debate at all. It's just a deeply ingrained and ruinous inability within yourself to care about others, to care about the future. I ask you to consider these projected and already documented impacts, but name-calling and derision is all you've got.

You know, Mr. Natural Selection himself, Charles Darwin, was actually a very moral man. He initially trained as a minister and his wife was deeply Christian, and though he lost religious faith he maintained a strong ethical concern for others. He delayed publishing "On the Origin of the Species" about 25 years, out of concerns for how his theory would be misused by others. Darwin founded a welfare group--the Down Friendly Society--which provided a social safety net for sick or injured workers. Once "Origin" was published, others (Hubert Spencer and his "Social Darwinists") did in fact weaponize Darwin (and Wallace's) theory and used it to justify an inhuman philosophy of "survival of the fittest."

It's no different now. The struggle to do something about Global Warming is being implemented by rational people who accept the Laws of Physics and have seen the accumulating evidence as an existential threat to humanity, society, and the Natural World. Those who obstruct action, the Kochs, Bush, Exxon, Fox News, Trump, the Republicans, have spent millions on disinformation campaigns, have lied and broken campaign pledges, have censored climate scientists and demonized them and even tried to prosecute them, have set up closed-empirical loops in the media for Gary to feed on. Both animals and actual human beings are present in this fight, however the clock is ticking down and the atmosphere is loading with CO2. I don't know. Will young people rise up and do something in time?

US Taxpayer wrote:

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.

The US budget deficit is in pretty good shape right now and is very sustainable.

But even if it wasn't, money is just made up numbers that we all bow to.

A threat of climate change is a physical uncomfortable situation that no sum of money could battle.

Those deposits are being taken from under the ground, put back on the surface, and into the atmosphere.

NotA1%er wrote:

More than 99 of 100 scientists agree that climate change is real and is largely due to human use of fossil fuels. The 1%er is paid by big oil but even the big oil companies have had memos leaked back as far as the 1970s showing that they knew there was an atmospheric change caused by their own products.

.

SAlly V wrote:

Everything you said after you initial statement is moot because your initial statement is just crap. Show where 99 of 100 scientists agree. EFFING SHOW IT! Or quit making these asinine claims. So tiring.

random4 wrote:

LOL, rewriting history. Remember when climate change was called global warming...that was because of the concern about us all dying from the the gradual or sudden warming.

Global warming can be a part of climate change.

I'm a Democrat! No facts, no logic, just name calling! You're a racist if you disagree with me!

Uppity Blogger wrote:

I'm a Democrat! No facts, no logic, just name calling! You're a racist if you disagree with me!

Ummm...nothing?

Come on, folks! Say something...anything? The null post is not very interesting.

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

If you’ve ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you’ve probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual–and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?

Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like “climate change is real.”

Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn’t use fossil fuels?

What you’ll find is that people don’t want to define what 97% agree on–because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.

It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels–which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.

Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.

On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.

John Kerry pulled the same stunt when trying to tell the underdeveloped world that it should use fewer fossil fuels:

And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse.

In Kerry’s mind, 97% of climate scientists said whatever Kerry wants them to have said.

Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.

But it gets even worse. Because it turns out that 97% didn’t even say that.

Which brings us to the next question:

2. How do we know the 97% agree?

To elaborate, how was that proven?

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

Alex Epstein is founder of the Center for Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

Of course global warming is BS. Anyone who can think independently can see this.

Felix4gold wrote:

Small Oil wrote:

Huh, so the democrats are the ones that make scientists then. I didn't know that.

Don't make them, but they sure fund the one's that support their political agenda on climate change.

Sure sounds like a lot of work just to get a few votes and donations, having to run all over the world finding and funding scientists that support their political agenda, and then hope it actually turns into votes by American voters, especially since the scientists already recognize climate change. Actually I don't even understand how this would even work given how elaborate it is. I don't think you've thought this out very well.

Cornell grad_ wrote:

Have you ever met a climate change denier?

Well, I dont buy in to it. I also work in marketing and know a few people who did marketing for An Inconvenient Truth, which is one of the greatest marketing plays in the history of modern US. It's a case study now. Why? Because they saw the market and they exploited the hell out of it.

That being said, I do believe in being a conservative with the environment and not exploiting the land, water, or air. I also am a vegetarian who tries hard to only eat organic. I also have my own vegetable garden and have composted in the past.

But Climate change is a fad for sheep.

say no to the left wrote:

Cornell grad_ wrote:

Have you ever met a climate change denier?

Well, I dont buy in to it. I also work in marketing and know a few people who did marketing for An Inconvenient Truth, which is one of the greatest marketing plays in the history of modern US. It's a case study now. Why? Because they saw the market and they exploited the hell out of it.

That being said, I do believe in being a conservative with the environment and not exploiting the land, water, or air. I also am a vegetarian who tries hard to only eat organic. I also have my own vegetable garden and have composted in the past.

But Climate change is a fad for sheep.

Al Gore

These US governments must really have their hands full managing all of these agendas. Maintenance on the moon hoax must be a nightmare to maintain over the 47 years it's been going on, between internal papers and the gazillions of people that have been keeping a secret all this time. Then they've got these fake assassinations to hide and all the crap that goes with that, and those planes and towers shit. Then there's things like hiding ufo's in bunkers, staging entire schools of mass murders, faking earthquakes, making real earthquakes where they can never happen, conjuring up hurricanes, putting who knows what everyone's drinking water.

No wonder you can't get a pothole filled when you need it.

Here's why I think John Q. Public feels it's okay to weigh in with uneducated opinions on some sciences, but not all:

A lot of people never took physics (or advanced math), not even in high school; but they've seen pictures of physics equations (e.g.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b4/df/c8/b4dfc89b60e3858c6387228d0d2b39c0.jpg

), and they know that it's beyond them. So they hold off on that, or at least restrict themselves to philosophical (rather than scientific) objections to things like big bang theory.

[Similarly, people don't have much to say about chemistry: many took it in high school, but not too many in college--and, again, people can see that it's beyond their ken:

http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2009/39/aa12269-09/img172.png

]

But biology, on the other hand? Well, shoot, almost everybody took it in high school, and lots took it in college (and some even got high grades). They've seen plants and animals all their lives, and even looked through microscopes; so regardless of the *actual* complexity of the topics, they feel entitled to "contrarian" positions on things like evolution, and the safety/efficacy of vaccines (especially because almost everyone's had experience with those ow-y shots).

And weather? Come on! Let's skip the fact that an education in climate science comprises coursework in calculus/analytic geometry, physics, statistics, chemistry, probability, geography, geology--even chaos theory--everybody has looked at a thermometer! So people feel their opinions on the subject--even if they don't have the scientific background--are entitled to just as much respect as the opinions of those who have had the education, and have made climate science their life's work.

Hint for those uneducated in the requisite fields: your opinions of Schroedinger's Equation (physics) and evolutionary theory (biology) do NOT merit respect. And neither do your opinions about climate science.

Its not CLIMATE CHANGE! IT IS GLOBAL WARMING, to destroy the earth, as GORE said, about what...a few months ago was to happen. We have had climate change always, for the last million years. When are you white liberal boys gonna stop listening to this liberal progressive crap. Its getting way old now don't you think.