Why do so many people "deny" manmade Global Warmng?

[watsup]

his is a problem in accepted name-calling. Very, very few people "deny" the warming. The pathetic activists of AGW have resorted to call everyone who disagrees with their agenda, "deniers."

You have denied that human-produced CO2 is the primary factor in the present global warming, As such, the description fits you whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[watsup]

or are you listening to the lying media that misrepresents what their papers say?

when the activism goes beyond the facts, and lies.

Shouldn't we decide what to do based on facts rather than lies?

these agenda driven people will take a paper than only implies a possibility, and turn around and claim it as fact.

None of what I see has any better evidence than the deception I claim they are guilty of.

ow do you know that? Because some activist told you?

Have you looked at the credentials of the people cited, or the source material of their assessments?

I have. they are not scientists, and the misrepresent the facts.

Their non-scientific interpretation of the facts as they are known.

Could it be considered a “talking point” when you repeat essentially the same message about so-called “lying” numerous times inside a couple of hours while providing nothing by generalization, not specifics, about your accusations. It sure seems like nothing more than a talking point.

 

[longview]

So belief in AGW is not based on data? My assumption is that the bulk of scientists take the evidence on both sides, see the preponderance of it on one side in various studies and articles, the NASA example posted, and draw conclusions. The political divisions, in the US at least, make sense. If AGW is real, we need to change some things, have regulations on businesses, for example. The right doesn’t like that, the left doesn’t mind so much. Why is one more likely to find skeptics at the Heritage Foundation that at the Bookings Institution? Doesn’t it make sense and isn’t it unsurprising that of the developed nations of the world, the most conservative (the US) is the most politically resistant? I read a while ago that the GOP (now only part of it) is the only major Conservative party in the more developed nations that has a significant number of doubters. Just as with smog, the ozone layer, acid rain, politic views affect acceptance or rejection of evidence.

Certainly belief in catastrophic AGW is not based on empirical data!

 

[longview]

Of course that is NASA's position.

You aren't trying to say the people that compiled that aren't stating NASA's position are you?

Do you understand what a conditional statement is? They all begin with “IF” the predictions are correct, without questioning what if the predictions are incorrect!

 

[Nickyjo]

No. The "climate dot NASA" part of their IP address is the only section of theirs I have a beef with.

How did they go wrong?

 

[longview]

“n short, there's no reason to assume that because the sun was responsible for early 20th century, it is responsible for all warming. The evidence strongly suggests that current warming is mainly the result of increasing greenhouse gas levels.”

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century.htmo

My point being that when you paste a graph and make a generalized comment like you did without also citing the reasons underlying the two warming periods, it really has no meaning. You need to provide more background for such posts instead of just letting them hang in the air.

Do you understand that the source of the post 1950 warming was not in question, the graph was to demonstrate that nature warming within the instrument record, make the unprecedented claim of the post 1950 warming invalid?

 

[Nickyjo]

Sorry. I don't see the connection you are trying to make. I see science. Not just nuances.

I was speaking social science, if you will, in describing my theory of a tendency in movements for change to create some extremists on their left or right, and for some of the media or opponents of those movements to focus on the extremists.

 

[watsup]

Do you understand that the source of the post 1950 warming was not in question, the graph was to demonstrate that nature warming within the instrument record, make the unprecedented claim of the post 1950 warming invalid?

What claim is that? Are you saying that there was ZERO warming due to AGW prior to 1950? How does the graph show that? Does the verbiage of the article support that statement? What evidence do you have that there was no AGW warming prior to 1950? And all that you did was to show a graph. How exactly does that support your broader claim?

 

[watsup]

I was speaking social science, if you will, in describing my theory of a tendency in movements for change to create some extremists on their left or right, and for some of the media or opponents of those movements to focus on the extremists.

THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE TEACHING CRT!!!!!!!!!!

 

[longview]

What claim is that? Are you saying that there was ZERO warming due to AGW prior to 1950? How does the graph show that? Does the verbiage of the article support that statement? What evidence do you have that there was no AGW warming prior to 1950? And all that you did was to show a graph. How exactly does that support your broader claim?

The source of the pre 1950’s warming is not important, only that the rate of warming is similar to to post 1950’s warming, which means the post 1950’s warming is not unprecedented!

 

[watsup]

The source of the pre 1950’s warming is not important, only that the rate of warming is similar to to post 1950’s warming, which means the post 1950’s warming is not unprecedented!

It's unprecedented if it is being caused by human-produced CO2. That has never happened before. See post #75.

Here is another paragraph from the article: "Even for a near record-breaking year like 2010 the broader context is more important than a single year. "Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year's ranking are the decadal trends," Hansen said."

NASA GISS: NASA News & Feature Releases: Despite Subtle Differences, Global Temperature Records in Close Agreement

www.giss.nasa.gov

In other words, the planet was warming even though it should have been cooling had only natural sources been present and not AGW.

So now we know why you post graphs without the link to the actual article, so that you can make 'conclusions" that are not in sync with what the article actually says. You and Lord do this time and again.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Do you understand what a conditional statement is? They all begin with “IF” the predictions are correct, without questioning what if the predictions are incorrect!

No they don't all begin with "if". You either didn't actually read it or you are lying about it.

For example:

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because it is unequivocally the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over millennia.1 It is undeniable that human activities have warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land and that widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere have occurred."

Note not one single "if."

Why not actually read?

Or if you did read, why lie about it?

 

[watsup]

Look up the authors of the NASA blog, they are not scientist!

How do you know that they are not scientists? And are you saying that, even if they are not, that scientists don't check for accuracy before the article is posted on the NASA website? You can't actually believe that.

 

[longview]

No they don't all begin with "if". You either didn't actually read it or you are lying about it.

For example:

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because it is unequivocally the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over millennia.1 It is undeniable that human activities have warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land and that widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere have occurred."

Note not one single "if."

Why not actually read?

Or if you did read, why lie about it?

That is because the NASA blog is propaganda not an actual scientific study, so no peer review.
But the data does not lie, the rate of warming since the mid-20th century, is not significantly different than the warming in the early 20th century.

 

[watsup]

That is because the NASA blog is propaganda not an actual scientific study, so no peer review.
But the data does not lie, the rate of warming since the mid-20th century, is not significantly different than the warming in the early 20th century.

Why do you keep repeating the same silliness over and over?

 

[NolanVoyd]

That is because the NASA blog is propaganda not an actual scientific study, so no peer review.
But the data does not lie, the rate of warming since the mid-20th century, is not significantly different than the warming in the early 20th century.

It states the conclusions of peer reviewed studies, i.e. established scientific facts.

It is NASA'S official position on the matter.

Are you seriously trying to argue that that is NOT NASA'S position?

 

[longview]

It states the conclusions of peer reviewed studies, i.e. established scientific facts.

It is NASA'S official position on the matter.

Are you seriously trying to argue that that is NOT NASA'S position?

Did it mention which peer reviewed study?
I have already cited Marcotte, which had a mean resolution of 120 years!

 

[NolanVoyd]

Did it mention which peer reviewed study?
I have already cited Marcotte, which had a mean resolution of 120 years!

Yes.

It is footnoted and sourced.

 

[longview]

Yes.

It is footnoted and sourced.

But what they cited was IPCC AR6, not an actual peer reviewed study.
Again the statement by NASA is that,

The current warming trend is of particular significance because it is unequivocally the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over millennia.1

yet the data from NASA GISS shows a pre 1950 warming rate very similar to the post 1950 warming rate.
Without getting down into the noise, this idea of recent warming being unprecedented, is very limited, as we only have
instrument data back to 1850, and NASA thinks we only have reliable data back to 1880.
The tree ring proxies used for the earlier data, have diverged from modern temperature records.

 

[Mycroft]

That many countries at Glasgow and previous meetings are Marxist, together with all those scientists? Didn’t know that.

This has nothing to do with Marxism. It's about Globalism. And yes...that many countries, including the US right now, are Globalists.

 

[watsup]

But what they cited was IPCC AR6, not an actual peer reviewed study.
Again the statement by NASA is that,

yet the data from NASA GISS shows a pre 1950 warming rate very similar to the post 1950 warming rate.
Without getting down into the noise, this idea of recent warming being unprecedented, is very limited, as we only have
instrument data back to 1850, and NASA thinks we only have reliable data back to 1880.
The tree ring proxies used for the earlier data, have diverged from modern temperature records.

It’s unprecedented because never before has climate change been attributed to the actions of a single species. Please pay better attention.

 

[NolanVoyd]

But what they cited was IPCC AR6, not an actual peer reviewed study.
Again the statement by NASA is that,

yet the data from NASA GISS shows a pre 1950 warming rate very similar to the post 1950 warming rate.
Without getting down into the noise, this idea of recent warming being unprecedented, is very limited, as we only have
instrument data back to 1850, and NASA thinks we only have reliable data back to 1880.
The tree ring proxies used for the earlier data, have diverged from modern temperature records.

They cited a great many sources.

Are you seriously trying to argue that what I cited is not NASA'S position?

 

[Germinator]

Pew Research Center polled 26 nations...
Percent/GW Deniers

A look at how people around the world view climate change
BY MOIRA FAGAN AND CHRISTINE HUANG
APRIL 18, 2019
Substantial shares see climate change as a minor threat or not a threat at all.
Not all people in the surveyed countries consider climate change to be a major threat. A median of 20% across these countries consider global warming a minor threat, while 9% say it is not a threat.

About half or more in Israel and Russia say global climate change is a minor threat or not a threat (58% and 51%, respectively). In the U.S., roughly a quarter (23%) believe climate change is a minor threat, while 16% say it is no threat at all.
____________________________________________________________________________________
That's a whole lot of people that have yet to buy into Manmade Global Warming Armageddon.

one simple reason a whole lot of people that have yet to buy into Manmade Global Warming Armageddon is "over confidence" by people,... basically people way over estimate their abilities it happens all the time in finance (for example)

American Families Overconfident But Underprepared For An Unexpected Death, According To New USAA Data

End-of-life planning is not a popular conversation topic -- so much so that Americans feel more comfortable talking about politics (68%) than about planning for an unexpected death (62%). In a new survey, USAA Life Insurance Company explored how American civilian and military families talk about...

finance.yahoo.com

"personal finance" like "scientific knowledge" is another example of,... The Dunning Kruger Effect





fact of the matter is too many people think they are a "genius" when in reality they have $hit for brains,...

WRT "man made climate change" basically psychology tells us why our brains weren't made to deal with the issue,... actually there is a podcast that is worth listening to on the topic

Losing Alaska

As floods, wildfires, and heatwaves hit many parts of the world, signs of climate change seem to be all around us. Scientists have been warning us for years ...

podcasts.podinstall.com

@15m24s

...You spend some time talking with Daniel Kahneman the famous psychologist who won the Nobel Prize in economics and he actually presented a very pessimistic view that we would actually [NOT] come to terms with the threat of climate change

He said to me that we are as humans, are very poor dealing with issues in the future,... we tend to be very focused on the short term,... we tend to "discount" would be the economic term,... to reduce the value of things happening in the future the further away they are.

He says we are very cost adverse,... that is to say when there are rewards we respond strongly BUT when there's a cost we prefer to push it away,... just as you know when I'm by myself which I leave until the very last minute (like in my tax return, I mean you just don't want to deal with these things).

And he says we're reluctant to deal with uncertainty.

If things are uncertain OR we perceive them to be,... people say well come back and tell me when we're certain.

What he said to me was in his view the climate change is the worst possible combination because it's not only uncertain BUT it's also in the future AND involves costs.

WRT the "science,..." fact of the matter is the data is complex AND too many don't have a clue what it means (or can put things into context),... take the "keeling curve" for example

bottom line,... man made climate change isn't an issue that one nation can solve by itself, it requires everyone on the planet to cooperate

What, exactly, are most people supposed to do about climate change?

I recycle, I combine my trips when driving (not really climate related…a function of expensive gas and time/budget planning…but it means less driving), we reuse and fix items rather than throwing everything out…heck, you can’t even get a straw or a plastic bag without asking…and I have many of my own grocery totes anyway.

Past that, I can’t *do* anything else personally.

Go talk to India and China and get their emissions under control

BBC World Service - The Inquiry, Do climate conferences make a difference?

COP 26 is just around the corner and expectations are high for action

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[longview]

They cited a great many sources.

Are you seriously trying to argue that what I cited is not NASA'S position?

Actually the little 1 at the end of the quote, is the footnote they reference supporting the statement,
and it references IPCC AR6!
What you cited is the position of a group of bloggers who work for NASA, and is their interpretation of what the referenced studies say.
In this case, note the difference between the NASA statement and the actual IPCC AR6 statement.

Observed changes in the atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere and biosphere provide unequivocal evidence 8 of a world that has warmed. Over the past several decades, key indicators of the climate system are 9 increasingly at levels unseen in centuries to millennia, and are changing at rates unprecedented in at 10 least the last 2000 years (high confidence). In the last decade, global mean surface temperature (GMST) 11 was more likely than not higher than for any multi-century average during the Holocene (past 11,700 years) 12 and was comparable to temperatures of the Last Interglacial period (roughly 125,000 years ago). {2.3}

So they are comparing the last decade to a multi-century average, which is really all they have because of the average 120 year resolution.
As we have already seen the rate of warming from 1915 to 1945, was similar to the post 1950 rate of warming.
Hyperbole has a place somewhere, just not in Science!

 

[longview]

bottom line,... man made climate change isn't an issue that one nation can solve by itself, it requires everyone on the planet to cooperate

That is correct, except that it may not need a solution, at all!
We do not emit CO2 because we like to, but because it is a side effect of our demand for energy.
So the solution is not to limit CO2 directly, but to find a way of satisfying our energy demand
at lower cost than how we satisfy that demand with oil based fuels.
Also the cost must be natural, as artificially increasing the cost of oil based fuels through taxation,
would not be a global solution.
We are getting very close to a point, where it will be more profitable for a refinery to make their own hydrocarbon
fuel from atmospheric CO2, Water, and electricity, than from purchased oil.