Game over.
It's also funny how climate fanatics think the weather can be controlled by fiscal policy and relocating industry to the far east ! Maybe warmers should wear a tin foil hat, it might help.
What percentage of people here deny the climate?
What percentage of people here deny warming of the atmosphere since 1880? (Remember two of the specially qualified scientists in a 97% survey did not agree to that.)
What percentage of people here deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
What percentage of people here deny that man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere?
What percentage of people here deny that man is causing all the recent warming?
What percentage of people here deny that RSS shows flatlining temperatures for 17 years while CO2 is at its highest for a few hundred years?
I have no strong political or religious associations. When I start looking at Global Warming I expected to find a couple of interesting web sites that explained it all to me and I could then move on to something else. However, my interest was peeked. Why did people who might know the answers seldom give a straight one? Why did experts so quickly resort to ad hom attacks? If the science was so settled and well understood why could I not get a simple answer? Why would publically funded scientists be so unwilling to share data when often it was supposed to be a condition of publication - even when threatened with FOI requests?
Things did not add up. The more I looked the less convincing it all sounded. The answers were starting to sound political as in: "I have seen no evidence of ...". That means, I know it is happening but I have instructed my department to keep any evidence away from me. So we get: "Is consistent with ...", "up to", "could be as much as" etc.
It seems there has just been a paper claiming that sea level rise is now slowing. How will this be spun by those saying the heat is now in the oceans? It is better than watching a movie!
Probably very few, if the world had actually warmed as predicted over the last ten years, hurricane intensity would have increased, the tropical mid troposphere hot spot actually existed as predicted by climate models, the Arctic was close to becoming ice free as predicted during summer. the Stratosphere shows AGW cooling and the list goes on and on of failed projections and predictions. If even half of these predictions would have materialized then I think most people would believe that the climate is very sensitive to CO2 concentrations, and perhaps CO2 emissions should be regulated, but all the evidence clearly points against it. And on the contrary it seems increasingly clear that for this planet to support 10 billion humans in the future atmospheric CO2 levels must rise or there will not be enough food to support the bio system. How anyone could believe the logic, that "CO2 is a greenhouse gas and there is more in the atmosphere because of humanity, therefore AGW is true", how could you just believe that when there is a mountain of measured evidence against it.
"Why can't it simply be a troublesome heat-trapping gas?" If you are going to criticize us deniers, the least you can do is get your fact straight. The overwhelming number of "deniers" admit that adding co2 will cause the planet to warm. What we "deny" that adding co2 will cause a substantial and catastrophic warming.
"Most people know full well that scientists are intelligent, and science is widely accepted as valid when it brings good news." Personally, if you believe the climate science community, that has spent the past couple of decades accusing people who do not agree with them as being "deniers" and anti science, to admit that they are wrong, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy.
ALL climate deniers do so out of ideology. In fact I think most of them even know they're lying. It's a Republican Party thing. If 'The Democrat Party' insists global warming is a threat, then it must be wrong.
Have you ever heard the theory that there's no real shortage of oil? That there are massive pools of oil just beneath the crust and what we've taken out of the ground is just a tiny fraction, and the oil is seeping upwards into existing oil pools and refilling them? I've heard this from several people over the last few years. And I ask them 'Hey, where did you hear that?' And they say 'Everyone knows!'
Then I realized that all the people I've heard this from were fundamentalist Christians! They say 'God wouldn't let us use up all the oil on earth. It says in Genesis that he will take care of us, that there will always be air and water and food and oil.'
So I did some Googling and I found the 'Abiotic Oil Theory', a long-discredited theory that oil is not made from millions of years of plant life in the days when our atmosphere had very little oxygen, but that it was created when the earth formed. I got the idea that this theory is now taught in churches. Of course it fits in perfectly with the GOP doctrine that we can use all the fossil fuels we want with no negative consequences, that this is what God wants us to do, and that we don't need to waste money looking for new energy sources.
Science totally contradicts the abiotic oil theory and supports global warming. But religion (either fundamentalist Christianity or neoconservative belief) simply rejects science when it's found to conflict.
It is very difficult to give an accurate estimate of lying deniers but it would be very low.
Deniers don't have the same motivation as warmers who are trying to save the planet. A small lie to get folks to save the world is quite acceptable to them. The percentage of warmer liars is generally given as 97% and they call it a concensus but that is of political not ideological purity.
Scientists might be intelligent, but it is their integrity I question,
I am a denier I am neither christian, republican capitilist or any other political type, I am a cynic who refuses to believe anything until I have sussed it out for myself
Depends on how you define "lying".
I suspect a relatively small percentage of denialists are really, truly intentionally lying. Maybe 10%. Some of those are the Big Names lying to protect their income sources (think lie campaigns by Big Oil and so forth). Some of those are the ideologically motivated.
A much larger percentage are... intentionally and willfully ignorant. Kind of doing the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "La, la, la, I can't hear you" when someone says something they don't want to believe is true. Whether this is the semi-reasonable people who claim that "The overwhelming number of "deniers" admit that adding co2 will cause the planet to warm" (despite all the people here loudly proclaiming that there is no warming, or that CO2 has no effect), or the ones who think that "God has his hands on the thermostat", or whatever. A lot of that is ideologically motivated, I suspect, but it's not in the strictest sense lying. Probably at least 75% of "skeptics" fall into this category at one time or another.
The truly and legitimately unaware are probably a much smaller fraction.
I see by this thread that the Hippy Warmists-Alarmists continue to be in panic mode, by the way they are piling on with such ad homs as...."stupid"....."deniers".... "liars".....etc.
We taxpayers are tired of being robbed of $Trillions of dollars to 'cure' a non-existent illness.
I'm still ticked off about the corn-ethanol debacle......So-called 'Scientists' assured us that adding ethanol to gasoline would be better for the environment. Then, after politicians were duped into it and made use of the stuff mandatory.....scientists at Stanford University determine that ethanol is more toxic than regular gasoline.
And....get this.....we taxpayers are still subsidizing the stuff and continue to be forced to use it.
The science about global cooling and acid rain was widely accepted too once but what happened to that?
I suspect it could be as high as 75%. Most people know full well that scientists are intelligent, and science is widely accepted as valid when it brings good news. When bad news arrives, are we to believe that guys who only cared about CO2 in beer foam are suddenly smarter than climatologists? It seems unlikely that even they believe their stories.
Plus, does anyone really think there's a vast conspiracy to pretend CO2 is a heat-trapping gas in order to "control" the population and/or raise taxes? Why can't it simply be a troublesome heat-trapping gas? CO2 has been studied as far back as 1859 (John Tyndall) and its properties were strongly confirmed in the 1890s by Svante Arrhenius. If there's a really conspiracy to raise taxes or burden Joe Bob's Auto Repair with more regulations, time machines must be involved.
Al Gore wasn't even born before a huge body of knowledge on CO2 was compiled. Leave him out of it. He made a preachy documentary but he didn't invent the heat-trapping properties of CO2.
Come on, deniers (I mean skeptics) be honest about your true motives for just a second.
Ideological conviction as a motive for anti-science deception is indicated in this important background study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_o... But the authors there are referring to a handful of mostly talented (though politically motivated and generally dishonest) scientists, who in the 1980s and '90s were the pioneers of denial.
The 8th hand dumbed-down regurgitations of misunderstood copies of cherry-picked for ignorance selections of their of now 20+ year old myths http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument... that you can mostly see on Yahoo Answers represent a quantum level of stupidity lower. The anti-science dupes here are far too feebleminded to even have much of an idea of science or ideology, let alone articulate credible lies about it. They are little more than echo chambers. The anti-science blogosphere, generally, is less dumb than its lowest IQ level examples here, but not greatly so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Climate-Chan...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cha...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mckib...
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming...
Who denies climate?
BTW, it's getting cooler--or do you deny that?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
What caused this? It is just as steep as YOUR interval, Realist.
Global warming causes global cooling.
I'm cold.
There are two types of deniers.
1. Those who have been deceived.
2. Those who are indeed lying.
And all the evidence is that carbon dioxide is indeed a troublesome heat trapping gas.
Fg5
No, the data denies that.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
Yes, Purity of Essence.
Check out Hey Dook's video:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
====
Fg56Jker34 ----
>>BTW, it's getting cooler--or do you deny that?<<
Of course I deny that it is getting cooler. I’m not sure how stupid someone has to be in order to think it is getting cooler – Exactly, how stupid are you?
my guess is, many deniers are conservatives who are also christian fundamentalists
