• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The psychology of climate change denial

ataraxia said:
I know. And that may be the problem. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Click to expand...
I am attempting to phrase my skepticism in a way that most people can understand, and run the numbers for themselves.
I have seen people glaze over when I start talking about the physics and quantum states, it is not productive
to the conversation.
No! To Finally drive a stake into the heart of the abomination of science that is AGW, will require a dismissal
simple enough for the common person to understand.
 
ataraxia said:
The warning statements on climate change come from every single scientific organization on the entire planet. You don’t see that the things they say work every day? Or do you understand every single aspect of everything they say and the things to use? Why is it this particular issue I wish all the sudden you’re a big skeptic?
Click to expand...

You want to believe some but not all scientists. When did you verify that every single scientific organization on this entire planet believes what you say you believe?

We have some super intelligent scientists who think the alarm over climate is totally misplaced. Don't those count?
 
Robertinfremont said:
Climate is very long range. And climate has always been long range. So over the short periods, which is weather, how can you allege we deny climate?
Click to expand...

If you are not denying the science of climate change, then I guess we don’t have a problem.
 
Robertinfremont said:
You want to believe some but not all scientists. When did you verify that every single scientific organization on this entire planet believes what you say you believe?

We have some super intelligent scientists who think the alarm over climate is totally misplaced. Don't those count?
Click to expand...

No. They’re a small minority. There are small groups of “super intelligent scientists” who question lots of mainstream science, from denying basic evolutionary biology to denying the smoking/cancer link.

Why do they do it? All sorts of reasons. Some of them are just a little kooky and strange and eccentric. Some of them think that because there are scientists they can have all sorts of legitimate opinions in fields outside of their own. And some of them are just corrupt and get paid to do so.

Regardless of the reasons in motivations, if we were to listen to them all, we would have to throw out all modern science.
 
Last edited:
Robertinfremont said:
Climate changes all the time.
Click to expand...

So does the human body. But if nine out of 10 of cancer specialists are telling you that that little lump on the side of your neck should be looked at more carefully, I would still listen up and take it seriously.
 
ataraxia said:
The warning statements on climate change come from every single scientific organization on the entire planet. You don’t see that the things they say work every day? Or do you understand every single aspect of everything they say and the things to use? Why is it this particular issue I wish all the sudden you’re a big skeptic?
Click to expand...
The scientific consensus is not a warning, but a simple statement that it has warmed over the last century,
and that Human activity is likely involved. A few of the organizations coach their statements into a warning,
but it is subjective interpretation of the data.
Actually we do not see the predicted high levels of amplified feedbacks ever, they are not evident in the record.
Sure some could pick a 20 year time window, and say "LOOK", but it is not consistent.
Science works, because others can run the same experiment and come up with similar results, verifying the work.
The has been no experiment to ether show or verify, that the predictions of amplified feedbacks work.
 
ataraxia said:
No. They’re a small minority. There are small groups of “super intelligent scientists” who question lots of mainstream science, from denying basic evolutionary biology to denying the smoking/cancer link.

Why do they do it? All sorts of reasons. Some of them are just a little kooky and strange and eccentric. Some of them think that because there are scientists they can have all sorts of legitimate opinions in fields outside of their own. And some of them are just corrupt and get paid to do so.

Regardless of the reasons in motivations, if we were to listen to them all, we would have to throw out all modern science.
Click to expand...

It is a false analogy to compare climate to smoking.

Actually the so called alarmist group make stuff up. Such as saying 1 degree warmer is bad.

Also your typical poster never has studied either weather or climate other than the daily forcast.

Give you a good example. The alarmists refuse to discuss clouds and those impacts.
 
ataraxia said:
So does the human body. But if nine out of 10 of cancer specialists are telling you that that little lump on the side of your neck should be looked at more carefully, I would still listen up and take it seriously.
Click to expand...

I know a lot about climate. And next to nothing about Cancer. I wish more posters did as I did and actually study this topic.
 
ataraxia said:
No. They’re a small minority. There are small groups of “super intelligent scientists” who question lots of mainstream science, from denying basic evolutionary biology to denying the smoking/cancer link.

Why do they do it? All sorts of reasons. Some of them are just a little kooky and strange and eccentric. Some of them think that because there are scientists they can have all sorts of legitimate opinions in fields outside of their own. And some of them are just corrupt and get paid to do so.

Regardless of the reasons in motivations, if we were to listen to them all, we would have to throw out all modern science.
Click to expand...

Smoking and Evolution have absolutely nothing to do with climate of this earth.

I question the motives of the paid scientists profiting off their work.

Professor Judith Curry was a devout believer until she studied it much more. Professor Lindzen has told us for decades not to keep worrying.
 
Robertinfremont said:
It is a false analogy to compare climate to smoking.

Actually the so called alarmist group make stuff up. Such as saying 1 degree warmer is bad.

Also your typical poster never has studied either weather or climate other than the daily forcast.

Give you a good example. The alarmists refuse to discuss clouds and those impacts.
Click to expand...

Tell everyone here your personal expertise as a climatologist and where you got your advanced degrees



Watch this folks
 
Robertinfremont said:
I know a lot about climate. And next to nothing about Cancer. I wish more posters did as I did and actually study this topic.
Click to expand...

f0cd07c02a970c00787277dfab2018db.jpg
 
ataraxia said:
Your pointing to satellite photos of ice or river flow patterns in Greenland, or whatever else it is that’s impressing you, as evidence that should make it “bleedingly obvious” to anyone who looks at it that there is no icemelt or climate change, and you don’t need any special training or you can just listen to some guy on an Internet chat site who says they took some physics classes and sounds all “sciency”, is no different. I know you don’t see it when you look. It must seem like they are making stuff up, maybe to make money or just put you on or something. But it is “just how it is”, as you say.
Click to expand...

In proper science who says it does not matter.

The argument is everything.
 
longview said:
The scientific consensus is not a warning, but a simple statement that it has warmed over the last century,
and that Human activity is likely involved.
Click to expand...

This is a popular misconception, and is incorrect.

This is a joint statement from all of the science academies of the G8+ countries:

"Since 2005, the Academies of Science for the G8+5 countries have called on world leaders to limit the threat of climate change. We have advised prompt action to deal with the causes of climate change and cautioned that some climate impacts are inevitable. However, progress in reducing global greenhouse gas emission has been slow...

As the concentration of greenhouse gases increases, these impacts become more severe and spread both geographically and sectorally. To stabilize the climate, absorption capacity of the earth, which is less than half of current emissions. Immediate large-scale mitigation action is required. At the 2007 Heiligendamm Summit, G8 leaders agreed to seriously consider halving global emissions by 2050. We urge G8+5 leaders to make maximum efforts to carry this forward and commit to these emission reductions. "
https://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/climatechangestatement.pdf
 
Tim the plumber said:

In proper science who says it does not matter.

The argument is everything.
Click to expand...

So "proper scientist" must be whoever is the best salesman to the uneducated and scientifically illiterate lay public.

Hmmm, somehow that doesn't sound right.
 
Tim the plumber said:

I will admit you have read it better than I did. I could not spot anywhere where is says what the total precipitation was nor the outflow nor the net change in Gt.
Click to expand...

Where is your evidence it is not melting? Let's take a deep dive into that
 
I have been called a denier because I say who cares if the planet's climate is changing? Humans that's who. The biggest parasite ever known to the globe.

Does the last of any species mourn it's extinction? Does the Elk or Rat care if the oceans rise? Or it gets hotter? Nope they adapt or die out.

Maybe we should concentrate our efforts on sensible ways to reduce our population before the planet does it for us. Worrying about the weather is a waste of time.
 
ataraxia said:
This is a popular misconception, and is incorrect.

This is a joint statement from all of the science academies of the G8+ countries:

"Since 2005, the Academies of Science for the G8+5 countries have called on world leaders to limit the threat of climate change. We have advised prompt action to deal with the causes of climate change and cautioned that some climate impacts are inevitable. However, progress in reducing global greenhouse gas emission has been slow...

As the concentration of greenhouse gases increases, these impacts become more severe and spread both geographically and sectorally. To stabilize the climate, absorption capacity of the earth, which is less than half of current emissions. Immediate large-scale mitigation action is required. At the 2007 Heiligendamm Summit, G8 leaders agreed to seriously consider halving global emissions by 2050. We urge G8+5 leaders to make maximum efforts to carry this forward and commit to these emission reductions. "
https://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/climatechangestatement.pdf
Click to expand...
You missed the next paregraph.
In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reaffirmed that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems. Average global temperatures increased by 0.74ºC between 1906-2005 and a further increase of 0.2ºC to 0.4ºC in the next 20 years is expected.
Click to expand...
They are simply saying that they agree with the IPCC, that it has warmed over the last century 1906-2005, and that there is an anthropogenic component.
That the warming is dangerous and a threat is subjective.
The prediction of .2C in 20 years is on track, but temps have been falling since 2016, so if may not make the lower end of that prediction.
 
ataraxia said:
The consensus is that no formal scientific organization anywhere which claims climate change is not happening, or that we should blow it off as no big deal.

If there is one, let me know. I’ll wait.

If you think there is one,
Click to expand...

I’m still waiting.
I asked “ what is this consensus agreed upon by every scientific organization?”

When you say there is consensus, that doesn’t define anything. Are you saying there’s consensus that the climate is different today than yesterday and it will be different tomorrow? You don’t need science for that, cavemen knew the climate was constantly changing.

Please explain the consensus that every scientific organization agrees with.
 
Robertinfremont said:
It is a false analogy to compare climate to smoking.
Click to expand...

Nah. It turns out many of the so-called "scientists" hired by big oil to deny climate change today are the same recycled group that were hired by big tobacco to deny the smoking/cancer link.
Merchants of Doubt – How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

Also your typical poster never has studied either weather or climate other than the daily forcast.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about the typical poster. Posters talking to each other are just the blind leading the blind. We are talking about the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet.

Give you a good example. The alarmists refuse to discuss clouds and those impacts.
Click to expand...

You don't know anything about clouds. You are as qualified to discuss clouds as you are qualified to discuss what specification on jet engines should be used in the latest commercial aircraft.
 
longview said:
You missed the next paregraph.

They are simply saying that they agree with the IPCC, that it has warmed over the last century 1906-2005, and that there is an anthropogenic component.
That the warming is dangerous and a threat is subjective.
The prediction of .2C in 20 years is on track, but temps have been falling since 2016, so if may not make the lower end of that prediction.
Click to expand...

This proves that it is not declining temperatures they want, but something else. I think it is control over humans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom