Why You Deny Climate Change

[TheDancinMonarch]

No doubt. But few if any, no, none caused by human actions over the 4.5 billion years.

That's a moot point considering our technology, population, & energy needs were insignificant until the last century or so years. We've reached a point where humans can (significantly) affect the environment.

There's some great studies on how think tanks (mostly from coal) have been able to make people believe the hard science behind this stuff is largely wrong, and with great success nonetheless. Money talks.

Given all of the climate changes that the earth has undergone in its' history, without benefit of human interaction, isn't there the just remotest possibility that what we are undergoing today is just a natural phenomenon?
I know it's more fun to create strawman enemies.

And it was science that taught us of the history of the earth and mans' part of that history.

Now I have to go and see if we can secure our 18th loss in this dismal season. Hopefully the bay and harbor won't engulf my home while I'm gone. That would be the ultimate insult.

[kalm]

That's a moot point considering our technology, population, & energy needs were insignificant until the last century or so years. We've reached a point where humans can (significantly) affect the environment.

There's some great studies on how think tanks (mostly from coal) have been able to make people believe the hard science behind this stuff is largely wrong, and with great success nonetheless. Money talks.

Given all of the climate changes that the earth has undergone in its' history, without benefit of human interaction, isn't there the just remotest possibility that what we are undergoing today is just a natural phenomenon?
I know it's more fun to create strawman enemies.

And it was science that taught us of the history of the earth and mans' part of that history.

Now I have to go and see if we can secure our 18th loss in this dismal season. Hopefully the bay and harbor won't engulf my home while I'm gone. That would be the ultimate insult.

Sure it's possible. But it doesn't sound like you want to even consider the effects of industrialization. You've evidently see the evidence and it's case closed.

[JohnStOnge]

There's some great studies on how think tanks (mostly from coal) have been able to make people believe the hard science behind this stuff is largely wrong, and with great success nonetheless.

There's no "hard science" behind this stuff. It's all observational study. I know I'm a broken record on that sort of thing but it's the truth. Refer again the the IPCC statement that unequivocal attribution of climate change to any cause would require experiments that are not possible to conduct.

"Hard science" dealing with cause and effect involves controlled experimentation. That's not what's happening here.

[travelinman67]

Sure it's possible. But it doesn't sound like you want to even consider the effects of industrialization. You've evidently see the evidence and it's case closed.

Klam...you really need a life-changing experience.

You've become an ideological robot. It this case, when science doesn't support the scheme, the donk programmers use the "Conk-money-as-boogeyman" play. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases amount for 1/1000th of 1% of total global greenhouse gases. Read expandspanos' post a few back...it's a rare time I agree with his information.

BTW:SourceWatch exhausted the "Koch as evil overlords" theory several years ago.

Humanity may have bad habits, but the natural systems set us straight everytime.

[JohnStOnge]

Look guys, there are lots of levels here.

First of all, there is one certainty: Fossil fuels provide a relatively cheap, effective energy source. We will have to move away from them at some point as they run out. But, right now, there is nothing present nor is there anything on the horizon that represents a viable candidate or viable candidates to replace them.

Then there's the cause and effect hypothesis. As I said, inferring cause and effect with statistical data requires controlled experimentation. As the IPCC concedes, that's not possible in this case.

Next there's the question of the accuracy and precision of the models under the assumption that there is a cause and effect relationship. The models are not validated in the strictest sense. We are being asked to make decisions the basis of what unvalidated models project as happening 50 and 100 years from now.

Then there's the question of whether or not we would be, on balance, better of worse off if the models are correct.

Me, I believe that underlying all of this is a "preservationist" bias among environmental scientists including climate scientists. There is, I think, a tendency to want to believe that things would be better if they were as they were if humankind was not present. I think, for instance, they they go into analysis of whether we'd be better off or worse off, on balance, if the mean temperature rises by a degree or so wanting to show that we'd be worse off.

That belief is based largely on having been in the biological and environmental sciences community for about 30 years now. I have seen the mentality. I understand if you don't believe me. But my position has nothing to do with people funding efforts to undermine the anthropogenic climate change mantra.

[SeattleGriz]

No doubt. But if you're skeptical of AGW, you should be equally skeptical of those spending $100's millions trying to convince you it isn't true. No excuse, I'm going to go for a long drive in the country.

More like billions. The last time I checked up on the totals, the AGW group spent more than 2,000 times the money to prove than the Deniers.

[TheDancinMonarch]

Given all of the climate changes that the earth has undergone in its' history, without benefit of human interaction, isn't there the just remotest possibility that what we are undergoing today is just a natural phenomenon?
I know it's more fun to create strawman enemies.

And it was science that taught us of the history of the earth and mans' part of that history.

Now I have to go and see if we can secure our 18th loss in this dismal season. Hopefully the bay and harbor won't engulf my home while I'm gone. That would be the ultimate insult.

Sure it's possible. But it doesn't sound like you want to even consider the effects of industrialization. You've evidently see the evidence and it's case closed.

Was industrialization a factor in other heating/cooling cycles of the earth? So why do we look at that first now?

Hell. We have never been 2-18 in hoops. Maybe that's a factor in the climate. It's certainly making me hot. At least under the collar.

[D1B]

Sure it's possible. But it doesn't sound like you want to even consider the effects of industrialization. You've evidently see the evidence and it's case closed.

Klam...you really need a life-changing experience.

You've become an ideological robot. It this case, when science doesn't support the scheme, the donk programmers use the "Conk-money-as-boogeyman" play. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases amount for 1/1000th of 1% of total global greenhouse gases. Read expandspanos' post a few back...it's a rare time I agree with his information.

BTW:SourceWatch exhausted the "Koch as evil overlords" theory several years ago.

Humanity may have bad habits, but the natural systems set us straight everytime.

Boilerplate conkspeak.

[Grizalltheway]

Sure it's possible. But it doesn't sound like you want to even consider the effects of industrialization. You've evidently see the evidence and it's case closed.

Was industrialization a factor in other heating/cooling cycles of the earth? So why do we look at that first now?

Hell. We have never been 2-18 in hoops. Maybe that's a factor in the climate. It's certainly making me hot. At least under the collar.

What the fuck are you on about?

[kalm]

Klam...you really need a life-changing experience.

You've become an ideological robot. It this case, when science doesn't support the scheme, the donk programmers use the "Conk-money-as-boogeyman" play. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases amount for 1/1000th of 1% of total global greenhouse gases. Read expandspanos' post a few back...it's a rare time I agree with his information.

BTW:SourceWatch exhausted the "Koch as evil overlords" theory several years ago.

Humanity may have bad habits, but the natural systems set us straight everytime.

Boilerplate conkspeak.

No shit.

I truly hope you were laughing when you made that post. From SourceWatch...a few mintues back:

I’m troubled by the gaping contrast between their political rhetoric and their own experience. Through the right-wing groups that they control and fund, and through their own statements, they describe an American economy that is so overrun with rules and regulations, so handicapped by high taxes and so deeply hostile to the interests of the wealthy that it has become difficult if not impossible to do business. . . .

Yet as the chart above demonstrates, despite the crippling restrictions allegedly placed on capitalism, the two brothers have somehow managed to more than quintuple their combined wealth, from roughly $7.5 billion to $50 billion, over the last seven years. In the last three years alone, most of it during the presidency of the much-despised Kenyan Marxist usurper destroyer of America, they have increased their wealth by a remarkable $20 billion. That three-year increase alone is more than 200,000 times the median household wealth in this country.[5]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Brothers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

No doubt. But if you're skeptical of AGW, you should be equally skeptical of those spending $100's millions trying to convince you it isn't true. No excuse, I'm going to go for a long drive in the country.

More like billions. The last time I checked up on the totals, the AGW group spent more than 2,000 times the money to prove than the Deniers.

Link? I multiplied the $500,000,000 spent by the deniers in the article by 2000 and it gave me 1e+12. Fucking lib's are loaded!

[AZGrizFan]

Boilerplate conkspeak.

No shit.

I truly hope you were laughing when you made that post. From SourceWatch...a few mintues back:

I’m troubled by the gaping contrast between their political rhetoric and their own experience. Through the right-wing groups that they control and fund, and through their own statements, they describe an American economy that is so overrun with rules and regulations, so handicapped by high taxes and so deeply hostile to the interests of the wealthy that it has become difficult if not impossible to do business. . . .

Yet as the chart above demonstrates, despite the crippling restrictions allegedly placed on capitalism, the two brothers have somehow managed to more than quintuple their combined wealth, from roughly $7.5 billion to $50 billion, over the last seven years. In the last three years alone, most of it during the presidency of the much-despised Kenyan Marxist usurper destroyer of America, they have increased their wealth by a remarkable $20 billion. That three-year increase alone is more than 200,000 times the median household wealth in this country.[5]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Brothers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

i
Is it so difficult to understand that those WITH money stand to make MORE money because they can take advantage of others' misfortune during the "down" times? Or is that just too fucking complicated for you?

[kalm]

No shit.

I truly hope you were laughing when you made that post. From SourceWatch...a few mintues back:





http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Brothers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

i
Is it so difficult to understand that those WITH money stand to make MORE money because they can take advantage of others' misfortune during the "down" times? Or is that just too fucking complicated for you?

Oh Relax... I just used it to rebuff t's source watch claim.

[Seahawks08]

Relevant:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... -of-doubt/

[Ibanez]

Sure it's possible. But it doesn't sound like you want to even consider the effects of industrialization. You've evidently see the evidence and it's case closed.

Was industrialization a factor in other heating/cooling cycles of the earth? So why do we look at that first now?

Hell. We have never been 2-18 in hoops. Maybe that's a factor in the climate. It's certainly making me hot. At least under the collar.

Obviously no b/c industrialization didn't exist in the middle ages. I'm sure that we are in the midst of the Earth's natural climate change, but our 100+ yrs of industry has done harm.

[kalm]

Relevant:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... -of-doubt/

I didn't watch the interview but read a couple of the interviews. One from a climate scientist who was FOIA'd after a certain CC article of his came out. He talks about the paradigm shift in the debate over the last few years, basically driven by right wing funding and not science. The other was Americans For Prosperity president Tim Phillips who's supposedly the Karl Rove of the Climate Change debate who pretty much dodges the science (smart as he's not a scientist) and focuses on the ideology of skepticism and economics.

Oh...and I also learned of the NIIPC. T-man, have you attended their conferences? For your benefit, I SourceWatched NIIPC and it took me the the Heartland Institute's page.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... ate_Change_(2009" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

[∞∞∞]

Relevant:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... -of-doubt/

Just got done watching that and it's eye-opening. Amazing how scientists (from nations all over the world) are being marginalized by groups where the only criteria to become an official opinion in their "scientific" community is having a Bachelors of Science. The one dude with a B.S. in Physics (not even an M.S. or PhD) that regularly speaks as an "expert" on the falsities of climate change was frightening.

[ASUG8]

I tend to think it's a combination of both natural and man made phenomena. On the one hand we have natural forces (shorter term) like La Nina, El Nino, and longer term trends that caused the Ice Age and the eventual thaw. It's tough to determine if you're in a long term trend while you're in it.

On the other hand mass industrialization, deforestation, paving, etc. certainly haven't done us any favors from an environmental perspective. I'm encouraged by sustainable forestry efforts, minimized environmental impact mining, and exploration of alternative clean energy sources to include nuclear. China and India are at least a half century behind the US in responsible environmental practices, but I hope they can fast track some of those ideas as they have with their ability to manufacture.

[kalm]

I tend to think it's a combination of both natural and man made phenomena. On the one hand we have natural forces (shorter term) like La Nina, El Nino, and longer term trends that caused the Ice Age and the eventual thaw. It's tough to determine if you're in a long term trend while you're in it.

On the other hand mass industrialization, deforestation, paving, etc. certainly haven't done us any favors from an environmental perspective. I'm encouraged by sustainable forestry efforts, minimized environmental impact mining, and exploration of alternative clean energy sources to include nuclear. China and India are at least a half century behind the US in responsible environmental practices, but I hope they can fast track some of those ideas as they have with their ability to manufacture.

Good post.

[YoUDeeMan]

I tend to think it's a combination of both natural and man made phenomena. On the one hand we have natural forces (shorter term) like La Nina, El Nino, and longer term trends that caused the Ice Age and the eventual thaw. It's tough to determine if you're in a long term trend while you're in it.

On the other hand mass industrialization, deforestation, paving, etc. certainly haven't done us any favors from an environmental perspective. I'm encouraged by sustainable forestry efforts, minimized environmental impact mining, and exploration of alternative clean energy sources to include nuclear. China and India are at least a half century behind the US in responsible environmental practices, but I hope they can fast track some of those ideas as they have with their ability to manufacture.

Well, China and India are already losing market share to other slave labor pits...and those places have the same issues with resources, pollution, and growing middle classes. We're just shifting the crap down the line.

[ASUG8]

Well, China and India are already losing market share to other slave labor pits...and those places have the same issues with resources, pollution, and growing middle classes. We're just shifting the crap down the line.

True, but there is no way that China and Indian pollution levels are sustainable to providing a healthy reliable workforce so their hands will be forced. Again, I think it will take decades for those two countries to get even close to current US standards, and to your point by then itwill have shifted and we'll be worried about Uganda, Paraguay, etc.

[SeattleGriz]

More like billions. The last time I checked up on the totals, the AGW group spent more than 2,000 times the money to prove than the Deniers.

Link? I multiplied the $500,000,000 spent by the deniers in the article by 2000 and it gave me 1e+12. Fucking lib's are loaded!

I will have to dig, but I looked into it because at the time Newsweek ran an article talking about how the deniers had spent X million while neglecting to mention the proponents had spent over Y billion in funding.

That is where the factor of 2000 came from.

EDIT: Found a link corroborating what I talked about.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 0434.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the ranking member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 billion to a paltry $19 million for skeptics — yes, that is billion to million — see below. )

[kalm]

Link? I multiplied the $500,000,000 spent by the deniers in the article by 2000 and it gave me 1e+12. Fucking lib's are loaded!

I will have to dig, but I looked into it because at the time Newsweek ran an article talking about how the deniers had spent X million while neglecting to mention the proponents had spent over Y billion in funding.

That is where the factor of 2000 came from.

EDIT: Found a link corroborating what I talked about.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 0434.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the ranking member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 billion to a paltry $19 million for skeptics — yes, that is billion to million — see below. )

[JohnStOnge]

ust got done watching that and it's eye-opening. Amazing how scientists (from nations all over the world) are being marginalized by groups where the only criteria to become an official opinion in their "scientific" community is having a Bachelors of Science. The one dude with a B.S. in Physics (not even an M.S. or PhD) that regularly speaks as an "expert" on the falsities of climate change was frightening.

I realize that it's a characteristic of our "credentialing" culture but I think you make a big mistake in assuming one person is correct on a scientific issue and another person is wrong because the 1st person has a particular degree and the second person does not. Like Ph.D vs. BS. You need to look at what they actually say.

Of course I don't have a graduate degree so maybe you can say that's the reason I'm saying that. But I have had to deal so many times with Ph.Ds that don't know what the hell they're talking about over the years that I could not even begin to count the instances. You can believe that or not.

For your own sake, ignore the letters after the name and focus on the actual substance of what is said. Do your best to determine if what is said has merit or not. Like when I say that a controlled experiment is necessary to infer cause and effect. It's not just me saying that. You can find that in statistics books. And as I mentioned earlier you can find language in the IPCC Physical Science Basis Report conceding that they can't really unequivocally attribute any particular climate change to anything without controlled experimentation.

[JohnStOnge]

Watching that PBS thing. Doubt I'll have time to watch it all right now. But I've already come across it creating a false impression. At about the 6:30 mark they start talking about the 2007 IPCC Physical Science Basis report. They say that one conclusion reported in the report is that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." And that is true. But then they went on to say "and that human activity is mostly the cause."

To provide an accurate impression, they should have mentioned that the report indicated that it is not possible to unequivocally attribute that warming to anything but that the scientists involved think it's likely that human activity has had an effect.

I'm sorry, but as soon as you honestly report that the IPCC said (correctly) that it's not possible to unequivocally attribute any particular climate change to any particular cause that completely changes the impression. And if you don't report that you're not honestly reporting. If you're going to refer to terminology like "unequivocal" when referring to warming you really do need to honestly say that the "unequivocal" thing the IPCC said doesn't apply, according to the same IPCC, to evidence for humans being the cause.