Nothing will convince them.
Climate change is inconvenient for people, and many people simply WILL NOT accept anything that inconveniences them past a certain intangible point. Not only does global warming force change in our way of life (how we do business, grow food, harvest resources, develop cities, etc.) it also challenges religious and philosophical values. Christians are told in the Bible that Earth was created for them to use in any way they chose, that it is their rightful and divine right to spread all over it, raise huge populations, change the landscape to their needs, and "succeed" or "win" or whatever the point is supposed to be. Nowhere is a limit mentioned, nowhere does it say we have to cooperate with nature for survival; it says we are meant to dominate it. Global warming casts doubt on Christians, and in Christianity anything that makes you doubt your faith is from the Devil. Therefore, GW is the Devil's tool and not true. As people, we don't like having our world views challenged, because it makes us feel insecure. Some people try to get past this and keep an open mind, while others cope by VEHEMENTLY DENYING whatever they don't like. This behavior is increasingly supported by the trend of choosing your facts. Now with the internet and so much info available everywhere, there is almost always some legitimate fact that can be tailored to suit your beliefs. If you gave me enough time, I could probably write a pretty damn convincing essay about how it's OK to eat babies, and support my argument with actual facts that I found, removed from context, and tailored to my needs.
So, as your best answerer said, nothing will convince the hard deniers. Ever.
I hear how many scientists disagree with me constantly on this board. I have also chatted with the climate "scientists" like Pegminer and Gary F. Suffice it to say, I am not impressed.
I work in a highly regulated and scientific field. We don't EVER talk about consensus, we talk about statistical significance.
Warmers claim AGW will kill crops, yet our crop production has been increasing faster than the population.
Warmers claim that temperatures are going to increase in an EXPONENTIAL fashion, yet for the past 15 years, we have not even seen a statisticaly significant rise in temps.
Warmers claim that AGW is going to cause droughts, but there has been no increase in droughts over the last 60 years.
Warmers claim that AGW is going to cause more hurricanes, but we have not seen in increase in hurricanes. Sure, we are better able to track them over the sea, but look at the number of hurricanes hitting the US. No increase at all.
With the exception of this branch of pseudo-science, the natural state of science is to be skeptical. To have skepticism rewarded with claims of "anti-science" or "science denier" really shows that the issue at hand has more to do with politics than it does science. They do not throw insults wildly and they most certainly do not pretend that consensus means a thing.
Oh, and a little honesty would certainly help.
Edit:
Pegminer,
You wonder why I am not impressed with you? Look at your pathetic non-response. You have no answer to ANYTHING I have stated. All you have is pathitc accusations of lying, that you have no evidence to support, and some assinine claim that you understand statstics while you claim that the AGW predictions can be modeled with a line.
You don't deal with the facts, you insult and belittle people who simply disagree with you. You know very well that my stance on AGW is not a "denial of science". You know very well that what the media reports is an exaggeration of what the scientists are stating which is also an exaggeration of what is actually occurring.
But go on and tell people how I lie. I said what you called a "lie" right above. THing is only in your mind is that even a lie.
And note that I did not say deluded, psychopathic, lying, violent mind, DID I??? DID I????
You are here representing climate science and acting like a fool.
And BTW, you think it is alright to generalize that "deniers" are violent based upon one person??? Is that your case?
You whine about how I have treated you, while ignoring that I treat you better than you treat me. No matter. You refuse to learn. I tell you specifically I will be acting towards you exactly as you act towards me and entirely let you escalate. No more. You are too stupid to learn. Henceforth, your insults will simply be met with "This is a climate 'scientist', it should be no wonder why I doubt that they are unbiased and capable of scientific inquiry."
Climate change is not a charade, the charade is the claim that we are the cause and the threat of bad weather occuring should be enough to scare you into believing stopping the use of fossil fuel will prevent bad weather from occuring.
Show how a 10% increase in CO2 levels over the past 26 years has had a direct affect on global temperatures. The past 26 years has shown a next to zero increase in temperatures according to UAH satellite measurements (it actually has dropped by 0.08C during that time). Glaciers have been melting for the past 20,000 years.
Logarithmic or not, CO2 should have more of a direct "effect" on temperatures than what is showing up on temperature anomalies.
To show how disingenuous the science can be through media outlets, they have recently claimed that August 2014 was the warmest "ever recorded" since 1880. What they don't tell you is that ocean winds have diminished to record lows, which gives ocean-surface temperatures an extra "boost" instead of mixing that energy. Winds are showing a drastic 4% to 5% decrease on the oceans. If we think that a global average temperature rise of 0.87C over 353 years is significant, then we should also consider what significantly affects temperature. Wind affects temperature greatly!!!
You seem to be confusing climate change with global warming. You are also looking at a very short timescale. If you go back farther in time you will see that warming and cooling have happened for ever without any help from mankind.
So, to prove your point you need to show that not only is warming happening but that man is causing it. For instance, one of these warming trends could have been caused by man and the other could not.
What you laughingly call 'evidence' is not evidence at all. If some ice melts somewhere (btw it isn't) where is your proof that it's the fault of some power station in England or some cars in the states. You don't have any do you?
What you are doing is adding 2 plus 2 and getting 10.
And don't you just love the so called cure, restrict freedoms, raise living costs and export industry to far east, wow that'll certainly make the weather sit up and take notice won't it?
Also if you had any real substance to your argument you wouldn't need to throw in that quick Jewish holocaust slur to add weight to your non argument would you ?
Environmentalists don't tell the truth, they make the strongest case they can for their cause. This is the reason why all the doomsday scenarios that environmentalists have predicted over the years don't come true.
1) post your source for the 98% metric
2) no one knows EXACTLY how climate works, not even close. not even close to close.
3) Please post the difinitive evidence of the human actions that are accelerating the change in climate
4) climate had been chaning since there has been climate, it is just heading towards something that is not nice for humans
Charles you are mislead and propagandized. Why not take a second to look at the actual data instead of simply believing everything the propagandists say?
There is NO **man-made** Global Warming and there has never been any. There is also NO so called 97% consensus. The paper that touted that is probably the most laughable lie ever told by Alarmists and is not worth the paper it was written on. Read all about it here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/05/w...
What global warming? It's been cooling for at least 12 years according to HadCrut3 & HadCrut4 is nearly flat. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
According to RSS Satellite data there has been no warming for almost 18 years. And there never was much to begin with.
None of that is happening . The AGW is a end of world cult .
Despite numerous papers and measurements indicating rising temperatures and seemingly infinite photographs showing glaciers shrinking and once perennially snowcapped mountains completely bare. Paired with a 98% agreement among people who dedicated their entire lives specializing in knowing exactly how the climate works. Many people still think climate change is a charade.
My question is that if all this is still not enough evidence, what would it actually take to convince the deniers? Just assuming it could actually happen, what would deniers need to see in order to be convinced? How would they/you be able to tell?
Heres the data you asked for. I thought it was a simple question really. IF climate change was real, how would you know?
IPCC admits no global warming. The predictions from the IPCC were 117 with 114 far wrong predictions. Are you willing to put your faith and change your life on a theory that has slightly better than a 2% correct prediction rate.
If global warming is happening why aren't there any accurate predictions?
If it's fact it should be easy to make accurate predictions.
I neeed you to CHANGE IT. if you can change the global climate in my lifetime I will believe it . hay just snap your fingers or something. and CHANGE IT. go ahead you can do it.
The public (especially but not only in the USA) needs to be become better educated about the circa 25 year old campaign of anti-science deception, lies, and trickery mounted by the fossil fuel industry, their astroturf front organizations, such as Marshall and Heartland, their hired hacks such as Wattsup, the tiny handful of amoral scientists who aid and abet them, and the politicians, mainly among Republicans in the US House of Representatives, who take campaign funding from the fossil fuel industry in return for endorsing this anti-science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cha...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_o...
http://www.lyrabooks.com/exposing-the-cl...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartla...
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/H...
only when one of their lords admit it
and that's never going to happen as long as they are paid to lie
What would it take, !THE TRUTH! all the time I see people talking about all the science and the evidence (just like you) but they never show it, just allude to it, now look at Maxx's answers he shows fact and figures, so who am going to believe? someone who talks about mythical evidence, or someone who shows it.
Good question. I'll look for answers. In vain, I expect.
al gore's inconvenient truth is filled with errors
Charlie, you may be sincere in your question and you bottom comment indicates that. But you see there are a lot of Gore kissing con artists who have a proven record of denying the facts and outright lying. A true scientist has no use for liars. They not only uses smooth tantalizing words to sway the unwary but they are a waste of time to true scientists.
First of all, true scientists do not lie. They may be mistaken, as everyone is time to time, but that is different than an outright lie.
Now as you say, some of these scientists have dedicated their life to the pursuit of solving this Climate Change crises. So let us closely examine the lives of a couple of these scientists.
Jimmy Hansen: Look him up. He at one time was a programmer for H. H. Lamb who tried to make us believe that here was an impending Ice Age. Look it up. Don't believe me, look it up. Jimmy went before Congress in the late 1980s and convinced members of Congress that we are in danger of Global Warming. Timothy Wirth saw to it that Jimmy's testimony was given in late July and had all the windows opened and other things to defeat the air conditioning. Timothy laughs about it to this day. Jimmy Hansen from Denison, Iowa grew up in a rural farm community. He was a mediocre scientist at best, He went to Iowa U where Van Allen was a professor and wasn't even good enough to get into one of his classes. However, when he graduated, without a Climate Science degree because there was no such thing at the time, he found out that there was money and prestige to be made for a mediocre scientist who would do the bidding for the environmental con artists at the time. Look at Jimmy's record. He advanced the political faction of Global Warming, none of his actions advanced science. In fact the opposite, he corrupted data to prove his political agenda. That is on record. Look it up. Here is one place.
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...
Now another top scientist named Phil Jones has gone on record and even apologized to the English Parliament for his actions of corrupting vital data that went against his nepharist scheme. Here is what he had to say on the matter.
, Phil Jones, 'If they ever find out there's an FOI here in UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than hand it over.'
Previously, he had told someone,"Why should I hand you my data when you're just trying to find something wrong with it?"
Are those the kind of scientist you want to put your trust in? Yes they dedicated their lives for the advancement of GW and CC but, in Jimmy's case, I know he made a very good living by deceiving people. Much more than he would have had he stayed honest. Now he is retired and into full time communist activities promoting CC. Look it up.
Now as to your question, "IF climate change was real, how would you know?" As any person experienced in good science knows, you first define your subject. Look at Climate Change for example. What is its definition? Well go to the UN-IPCC and look up what they have to say on the subject. In essence they say, "Climate Change is a change in climate." Isn't that wonderful! How scientific! I don't know where you were educated, but where I was educated, and it wasn't very far from where Jimmy attended high school, that answer wouldn't muster anything above an 'F' in third grade science. And yet over a trillion dollars have exchanged hands over this worthless definition.
Another reason to consider is that none of Al Gore's or Jimmy Hansen's predictions have proven true. Even though Jimmy has corrupted data to attempt to fool people.
There are many other scientists we could examine but these two top scientists should be enough. Now let us examine what a true productive scientist has to say on this matter.
Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Now there is a dedicated scientist but no one listens to him. Why? Because you can't advance political causes with the truth.
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
Want more?
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
And let us finally look at what the one who shut down Congress' air conditioning has to say.
Quote by Timothy Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Is that the kind of crap you want to believe in, you are not sincere.
You shouldn't worry too much about it. Many of the people that deny global warming are delusional sociopaths. Not only should you not expect them to be convinced, they may very well get violent if you challenge their delusions. These people cannot be convinced by evidence.
EDIT: Raisin Caine says "You wonder why I am not impressed with you" Why would I wonder that? Why should I even care? You seem like one more denial doofus, the only difference is that you claim to have a Ph.D. in statistics, even though all I hear from you is denial blog talking points.
Raisin Caine also says "You whine about how I have treated you..." In what respect do I "whine"? By pointing out when you claim that I've said things that in reality I haven't? You can "treat" me any way you like, but if you lie about me or things I've said, I will point it out.
By the way, it should be EASY for you to provide direct quotes for things that I say--I don't hide my questions and answers, like you do--they're open for all to see, study, and learn from.
Jesus Christ would have to come back from the grave and go door to door, wiping their memories of political indoctrination from their youths before they would be convinced.
no
