Why You Deny Climate Change

[AZGrizFan]

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.

Oh yeah, great post. It doesn't stand a chance in hell of happening, but great post nonetheless.

[∞∞∞]

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 to 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.

This isn't something you're going to convince me on and clearly I'm not going to do the same for you. I've probably read 100+ books and another 100+ studies and dissertations on it so yes, I have actually focused on the actual substance of what's said. My major was Environmental Engineering until ODU decided to consolidate it into Civil and I didn't want to do that. I love the Earth and I want us to invest in its future...this is a topic I'm extremely passionate about and it bothers me when people throw aside the hard work of a lot great scientists who genuinely care like it's trash. And for what, to hurt my generation and their children so people today don't have to tax themselves or make inconvenient changes to their lifestyles? An "oops, we were wrong" is not going to cut it in the end...hell most of the deniers (and scientists) will probably be dead by the time climate-change really begins affecting our children so why should they care, right? Economists always talk about how policies are hurting future generations economically, but when people whom have dedicated their lives say something similar that's backed up by science, they're wrong? Society is based on trust and the fact that we trust others know what they're doing. I understand that there's got to be a social, economic, and environmental balance, but the levels of denial and hate are getting ridiculous.

On a side note, I wish Al Gore never made an Inconvenient Truth and I wish he was never the face of man-made climate change. That man has ruined everything with his political agenda. We were making great progress and suddenly that idiot showed up and it became a decisive issue.

[AZGrizFan]

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 to 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.

This isn't something you're going to convince me on and clearly I'm not going to do the same for you. I've probably read 100+ books and another 100+ studies and dissertations on it so yes, I have actually focused on the actual substance of what's said. My major was Environmental Engineering until ODU decided to consolidate it into Civil and I didn't want to do that. I love the Earth and I want us to invest in its future...this is a topic I'm extremely passionate about and it bothers me when people throw aside the hard work of a lot great scientists who genuinely care like it's trash. And for what, to hurt my generation and their children so we don't tax ourselves or make inconvenient changes to our lifestyles? An "oops, we were wrong" is not going to cut it in the end...hell most of the deniers (and scientists) will probably be dead by the time climate-change really begins affecting our children so why should they care, right? Economists always talk about how policies are hurting future generations economically, but when people whom have dedicated their lives say something similar that's backed up by science, they're wrong? Society is based on trust and the fact that we trust others know what they're doing. I understand that there's got to be a social, economic, and environmental balance, but the levels of denial and hate are getting ridiculous.

Honestly, Trip, if we don't solve our insatiable need to spend money we don't have the world as we know it won't be around long enough to worry about the effects of global warming anyway.

[JohnStOnge]

This isn't something you're going to convince me on and clearly I'm not going to do the same for you.

What do you think of the fact that the IPCC Physical Science Basis Report says that unequivocal attribution with respect to climate change would require controlled experiments that are not possible to conduct? And that is a fact. It does say that.

[∞∞∞]

This isn't something you're going to convince me on and clearly I'm not going to do the same for you.

What do you think of the fact that the IPCC Physical Science Basis Report says that unequivocal attribution with respect to climate change would require controlled experiments that are not possible to conduct?

Nothing. I think nothing. I'm getting angry on the internetz right now so I'm gonna take a step back.

Good night JSO. Enjoy the beautiful night sky that we're blessed to have wherever you are.

[kalm]

This isn't something you're going to convince me on and clearly I'm not going to do the same for you.

What do you think of the fact that the IPCC Physical Science Basis Report says that unequivocal attribution with respect to climate change would require controlled experiments that are not possible to conduct? And that is a fact. It does say that.

Controlled Experiment!

[kalm]

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 to 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.

This isn't something you're going to convince me on and clearly I'm not going to do the same for you. I've probably read 100+ books and another 100+ studies and dissertations on it so yes, I have actually focused on the actual substance of what's said. My major was Environmental Engineering until ODU decided to consolidate it into Civil and I didn't want to do that. I love the Earth and I want us to invest in its future...this is a topic I'm extremely passionate about and it bothers me when people throw aside the hard work of a lot great scientists who genuinely care like it's trash. And for what, to hurt my generation and their children so people today don't have to tax themselves or make inconvenient changes to their lifestyles? An "oops, we were wrong" is not going to cut it in the end...hell most of the deniers (and scientists) will probably be dead by the time climate-change really begins affecting our children so why should they care, right? Economists always talk about how policies are hurting future generations economically, but when people whom have dedicated their lives say something similar that's backed up by science, they're wrong? Society is based on trust and the fact that we trust others know what they're doing. I understand that there's got to be a social, economic, and environmental balance, but the levels of denial and hate are getting ridiculous.

On a side note, I wish Al Gore never made an Inconvenient Truth and I wish he was never the face of man-made climate change. That man has ruined everything with his political agenda. We were making great progress and suddenly that idiot showed up and it became a decisive issue.

Good post!

[AZGrizFan]

This isn't something you're going to convince me on and clearly I'm not going to do the same for you. I've probably read 100+ books and another 100+ studies and dissertations on it so yes, I have actually focused on the actual substance of what's said. My major was Environmental Engineering until ODU decided to consolidate it into Civil and I didn't want to do that. I love the Earth and I want us to invest in its future...this is a topic I'm extremely passionate about and it bothers me when people throw aside the hard work of a lot great scientists who genuinely care like it's trash. And for what, to hurt my generation and their children so people today don't have to tax themselves or make inconvenient changes to their lifestyles? An "oops, we were wrong" is not going to cut it in the end...hell most of the deniers (and scientists) will probably be dead by the time climate-change really begins affecting our children so why should they care, right? Economists always talk about how policies are hurting future generations economically, but when people whom have dedicated their lives say something similar that's backed up by science, they're wrong? Society is based on trust and the fact that we trust others know what they're doing. I understand that there's got to be a social, economic, and environmental balance, but the levels of denial and hate are getting ridiculous.

On a side note, I wish Al Gore never made an Inconvenient Truth and I wish he was never the face of man-made climate change. That man has ruined everything with his political agenda. We were making great progress and suddenly that idiot showed up and it became a decisive issue.

Good post!

It's not "science", trip. Without controlled experiments, it's still theory. And a deeply flawed theory at that.

[LeadBolt]

Only 2 of 10 top air polluting countries worldwide had emissions go down over last year data is available, US and Germany. 85% of the increase in global emissions came from China and India, that are exempt from pollution treaties. Only 12% or so of global emissions come from US, so we can't really effect anything by reducing our life style.

We have best emission reduction technology in the world. The only way I see to change global emissions is by increasing production of North American fossil fuels and exporting to developing nations in return for them buying and using our emission reduction technology in return for us driving down their price of energy.

This would have the impact of freeing up discretionary income world wide leading to a world wide economic boom, drying up funding of our enemies and minimizing emissions.

It may or not may reverse global climate change as it is not proven to be caused by fossil fuel consumption, but it would be a way to reduce pollution without reducing the standard of living in the developed world and holding down the developing world. A rising tide lifts all ships!

[YoUDeeMan]

And for what, to hurt my generation and their children so people today don't have to tax themselves or make inconvenient changes to their lifestyles? An "oops, we were wrong" is not going to cut it in the end...hell most of the deniers (and scientists) will probably be dead by the time climate-change really begins affecting our children so why should they care, right?

Assuming the Earth's temperature will go up X degrees...what the hell are you rambling on about? What specific "affects" will be so bad that your children will suffer?

Are you living on the coast of Bandladesh?

Seriously, WTF are you worried about? Do you think we can't grow food in parts of Canada that will warm up? Do you think that transportation costs won't go down once the arctic seas are open? Do you think Siberia won't grow food? Do you not believe New Hampshire can't produce better wine with longer, warmer summers?

All of this hysteria...for what?

[kalm]

And for what, to hurt my generation and their children so people today don't have to tax themselves or make inconvenient changes to their lifestyles? An "oops, we were wrong" is not going to cut it in the end...hell most of the deniers (and scientists) will probably be dead by the time climate-change really begins affecting our children so why should they care, right?

Assuming the Earth's temperature will go up X degrees...what the hell are you rambling on about? What specific "affects" will be so bad that your children will suffer?

Are you living on the coast of Bandladesh?

Seriously, WTF are you worried about? Do you think we can't grow food in parts of Canada that will warm up? Do you think that transportation costs won't go down once the arctic seas are open? Do you think Siberia won't grow food? Do you not believe New Hampshire can't produce better wine with longer, warmer summers?

All of this hysteria...for what?

Well for one, there's the threat of crop failure and mass migration to avoid the heat and flooding. Do you really want people from the American South and other third world countries invading your homeland?

[kalm]

Only 2 of 10 top air polluting countries worldwide had emissions go down over last year data is available, US and Germany. 85% of the increase in global emissions came from China and India, that are exempt from pollution treaties. Only 12% or so of global emissions come from US, so we can't really effect anything by reducing our life style.

We have best emission reduction technology in the world. The only way I see to change global emissions is by increasing production of North American fossil fuels and exporting to developing nations in return for them buying and using our emission reduction technology in return for us driving down their price of energy.

This would have the impact of freeing up discretionary income world wide leading to a world wide economic boom, drying up funding of our enemies and minimizing emissions.

It may or not may reverse global climate change as it is not proven to be caused by fossil fuel consumption, but it would be a way to reduce pollution without reducing the standard of living in the developed world and holding down the developing world. A rising tide lifts all ships!

But then the price of cheap Chinese goods will go up and they'll have to move production...again. This whole globalization is a bitch once you realize that pollution, improved standard of living, and higher wages are world wide phenomena. It's tough being a colonial power these days.

[LeadBolt]

Only 2 of 10 top air polluting countries worldwide had emissions go down over last year data is available, US and Germany. 85% of the increase in global emissions came from China and India, that are exempt from pollution treaties. Only 12% or so of global emissions come from US, so we can't really effect anything by reducing our life style.

We have best emission reduction technology in the world. The only way I see to change global emissions is by increasing production of North American fossil fuels and exporting to developing nations in return for them buying and using our emission reduction technology in return for us driving down their price of energy.

This would have the impact of freeing up discretionary income world wide leading to a world wide economic boom, drying up funding of our enemies and minimizing emissions.

It may or not may reverse global climate change as it is not proven to be caused by fossil fuel consumption, but it would be a way to reduce pollution without reducing the standard of living in the developed world and holding down the developing world. A rising tide lifts all ships!

But then the price of cheap Chinese goods will go up and they'll have to move production...again. This whole globalization is a bitch once you realize that pollution, improved standard of living, and higher wages are world wide phenomena. It's tough being a colonial power these days.

Fail! Not if we flood the world with increased fossil fuels AND the technology to burn them more effectively. Try to stop only spout idealogical rhetoric and think for a change. We are not a colonial power and this will raise the standard of living around the globe as energy prices fall.

[Baldy]

Assuming the Earth's temperature will go up X degrees...what the hell are you rambling on about? What specific "affects" will be so bad that your children will suffer?

Are you living on the coast of Bandladesh?

Seriously, WTF are you worried about? Do you think we can't grow food in parts of Canada that will warm up? Do you think that transportation costs won't go down once the arctic seas are open? Do you think Siberia won't grow food? Do you not believe New Hampshire can't produce better wine with longer, warmer summers?

All of this hysteria...for what?

Well for one, there's the threat of crop failure and mass migration to avoid the heat and flooding. Do you really want people from the American South and other third world countries invading your homeland?

Turnabout is fair play. Refugees from various People's Republics throughout various northern US territories have been escaping to the south for years now. It's time for them to go home.

[kalm]

But then the price of cheap Chinese goods will go up and they'll have to move production...again. This whole globalization is a bitch once you realize that pollution, improved standard of living, and higher wages are world wide phenomena. It's tough being a colonial power these days.

Fail! Not if we flood the world with increased fossil fuels AND the technology to burn them more effectively. Try to stop only spout idealogical rhetoric and think for a change. We are not a colonial power and this will raise the standard of living around the globe as energy prices fall.

Who are we to force cheap and clean energy down someone else's throat? What are ya a lib?

[LeadBolt]

Fail! Not if we flood the world with increased fossil fuels AND the technology to burn them more effectively. Try to stop only spout idealogical rhetoric and think for a change. We are not a colonial power and this will raise the standard of living around the globe as energy prices fall.

Who are we to force cheap and clean energy down someone else's throat? What are ya a lib?

I just want to make it make economic sense to them, increase world wide disposable income, reduce emissions and kick sand in the face of our enemies, not give money to green energy charlatans....

[ASUG8]

Good post.

Oh yeah, great post. It doesn't stand a chance in hell of happening, but great post nonetheless.

That was me posting in a "glass half full" mode.

[GannonFan]

Well for one, there's the threat of crop failure and mass migration to avoid the heat...

When does mass migration move from hotter climates to colder climates? We have an entire generation of old people in this country that disproves that theory every year, unless all of sudden Green Bay has replaced Phoenix as the destination of choice of our senior citizens.

[kalm]

Well for one, there's the threat of crop failure and mass migration to avoid the heat...

When does mass migration move from hotter climates to colder climates? We have an entire generation of old people in this country that disproves that theory every year, unless all of sudden Green Bay has replaced Phoenix as the destination of choice of our senior citizens.

When the potable water runs scarce, crops fail, and jobs leave.

But I was being somewhat tongue in cheek.

[AZGrizFan]

Oh yeah, great post. It doesn't stand a chance in hell of happening, but great post nonetheless.

That was me posting in a "glass half full" mode.

Well, you can just stop that shit right now.

[SeattleGriz]

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;

Pussy.

[JohnStOnge]

Back to another level of this: The conclusion that the net effect of climate change along the lines of that projected by the models would be negative should the climate scientists prove to be correct. Of course the IPCC report on that question suggests it will be negative. The report is at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... tents.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

But I believe that the community of scientists involved is generally biased. It goes in wanting to show that the net will be negative. Just my opinion, but I think I can point to examples of things consistent with my belief.

Take for instance the discussion of food safety in the "Human Health" Chapter. It's at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... 8-2-4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. There is a glaring omission: No mention of foodborne viral disease.

That's important because viral pathogens do better in cold weather. If you go to http://www.ub.edu/microbiologia/viruse/papers/GOY6.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and look at Table 6 you will see that heat is a factor in the inactivation of viral pathogens in the environment. The risk of fooborne illness of viral etiology is greater in cold weather. And viral foodborne disease is not uncommon.

In the United States, for example, norovirus is believed to be the most common cause of foodborne illness and there is a distinct seasonal trend whereby norovirus outbreak frequency peaks during the winter (see images at bottom of post). To me, if you're really doing a balanced, unbiased assessment of net effects of an anticipated temperature change and you're talking about food safety you're not going to completely omit consideration of impacts on the incidence of disease caused by viral pathogens. Did they do that on purpose? I can't read minds. But I can tell you that anybody involved in trying to control foodborne disease knows that viral pathogens are a huge problem.

And by the way I didn't spend hours scouring that report for an indication of bias. I haven't looked at it much. I just went directly to a section dealing with something I know something about. And right away I saw that they completely ignored impacts of viral diseases. It was not hard to find.

Images from http://www.cdc.gov/features/dsnorovirus/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnStOnge]

Continuing on the general theme: For me the part of all of this that raises real skepticism is the impacts assessment.

As I've written before I do believe that human activity causes the atmosphere to be warmer than it otherwise would be. My objections in that area involve disagreeing with what I believe to be an exaggeration of the certainty associated with the conclusion and a need to be emphasize things like the fact that there are limitations here because controlled experiments can't be conducted. Also objections to the impression of certainty associated with unvalidated models.

The impacts assessment thing, to me, is worse. We are being asked to believe that the way things were prior to the industrial revolution were just perfect. Optimum climate situation. Couldn't be any better and if the global temperature changes any it's a disaster. They're asking us to believe that in the context of circumstances where it's believed that the planet has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now during the tenure of life on this planet. In fact, they're asking us to believe that even though it's believed that the atmosphere was substantially warmer during the overwhelming percentage of the tenure of life here than it will be 100 years from now if they're correct in their projections. Life went on throughout. Also they're asking us to believe that our extremely adaptable species can't effectively deal with it.

And of course I think that they are biased in their assessment of net effects. There would be pluses and minuses associated with the changes they project if those projections are correct and, as illustrated in my previous post, I think they put more emphasis on the minuses.

[kalm]

So you could say it's the "Scientific ANTI Industrial Complex?"

Speaking of Norovirus, one morning, about eight years ago, I started getting the shits. I had them all day long and I could feel every last ounce of water going out of me. I took Pepto, Immodium, and tried to drink water and gatorade to stay hydrated, but I was literally blasting everything out within 10 minutes of consumption.

At one point I stood up from the toilet after another round, immediately got dizzy, then passed out. My wife heard me hit the deck in the bathroom and started yelling at me to wake up. I managed to come to, stood up, and made it about 10 feet down the hallway before I passed out a second again. This time as I was falling I hit my face on our stone fireplace hearth. So there I am lying on the floor with a bloody face and broken front tooth as the paramedics arrive. About that time, the wife and the oldest son who was 3 at the time start projectile vomiting and shitting everywhere.

All three of us were hospitalized until late in the evening. We were told that a Norwalk (layman for norovirus) outbreak had hit the area, especially at Gonzaga where over 60 students had been hospitalized.

I looked like a hockey player for two weeks until they fixed my tooth. Coincidentally, I took one of the kids to a random dentist appointment. We pay out of pocket for dentistry and I didn't understand why the receptionist kept pushing the state low income dental plan paperwork in front of me until I got in the car and saw my broken tooth in the mirror.

I still have floaties in my vision to this day from the head trauma of hitting the hearth.

Nasty shit, that norovirus.

[travelinman67]

...I still have floaties in my vision and ramble nonsensical liberal rhetoric to this day from the head trauma of hitting the hearth.

Nasty shit, that norovirus.

FIFY