They go crazy whenever they are presented with FACTS and EVIDENCE. Alarmists hate facts.
"But...but...but... you can't look at FACTS. You have to look at what the model says. The model says we should have warmed 3C by now. I don't care how much is has warmed, that's not important. What is important is how much the model said it was going to warm."
I would assume the same reason we do, when an editorial comes out the other way.
WHne you think about it, it is rather entertaining.
Take evolution for instance. Now I actually agree with evolution and think the young earth creationists are entirely wrong. BUT, lets actually look at the situation. If someone said that pencil graphite causes cancer and gave a non-scientific reason for this belief, it would not matter one bit to me. If they claimed Bigfoot is real, it would not matter in the slightest to me or most anyone.
Someone claims evolution is wrong though and watch out. That is grounds for ridicule and belittlement. Even though I agree that evolution should be taught in school, I have yet to use the theory in my personal or professional life. A class in logic seems far more useful to me.
It makes me wonder why we argue so fervently about that which is of litlle consequence. I once saw two professors have a screaming match in the hallway over whether empirical bayesian methodology was proper or not. At least AGW has to do with how trillions are spent in the future. But even at that, it is certianly not importnat enough, that we should abandon being cordial to each other, something that I recognize I need to work on as well.
because they they thought they were betting on a sure thing & putting many of their political eggs in the AGW basket was no gamble at all.
Since its been warming for the past 12,000 years its reasonable to assume this trend would continue. So why not use it as a safe tool to push their political agenda.
http://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/2014/06/...
Unfortunately their timing like their predictions couldn't have been been worse.
Ironically the warming trend stopped shortly after they began heavily politically investing in it which must have been very frustrating for them.
Apparently they foolishly didn't have a plan B so they have no other choice than to completely ignore actual thermometer readings & pretend temperatures are rising at the rate they counted on 25 years ago when they first put the plan A ball in motion.
Life lesson # 1= always have a plan B
They got mad when Ridley asked "where the Global Warming was?". He then goes on to tell the truth about temperatures being flat for the past 26 years (depending on what data set they use and how they interpret the data) which is technically correct since the 9 years before the Super El Nino year of 1997-1998 were also flat. It's getting too close to that 30 year temperature data set that they established as a "real" trend in temperatures, which would totally nullify any chance of them gaining meaningful credibility with all of the work they have done (money spent) on GCMs.
As Maxx stated " ... They never want this gravy train to end so that's why they go berserk when anyone, no matter how well qualified makes even the slightest challenge to the Warmist mantra. ... "
Maxx nailed the biggest reason why they get mad!!!
Climate Realist (un-realist actually) - Climate science has been treated as a "new business" where Governments support its existence. It has many "arms" extending from it and a lot of "hands" taking money for scientific marching orders to "investigate this and investigate that". If it is shown that CO2 is not causing as much warming through the scientific process, then there is absolutely no more reason to throw money down this "scientific sink-hole". The bottom line on this matter is temperature. There is no direct correlation to dangerous or catastrophic atmospheric temperature rises due to CO2 warming.
0.87C rise in global temperatures in 353 years? C'mon! Read the fine print in your marching orders! It says "No marching if temperatures aren't reacting as they should. It means we were wrong."
Read Goebbels' quote carefully.
Joseph Goebbels,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Especially the part, "vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent," You can see many examples in your life where where the truth comes out no matter what happens. Oh how different it is for the lie, for it must be protected and amplified and continuously nurtured in order for it to not be revealed as a lie.
And our media goes right along with this philosophy.
Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”
Here is another person who let his agenda slip.
Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
So you can see, simply put, they abhor being exposed as the frauds they are.
Because they believe something can be done about it. They are desperately worried - so worried they're over the edge with fear . They think the world is ending - that makes them act like desperate nuts.
Ian, "Alarmists hate facts. "
Yeah, we prefer hoaxes.
And websites that make up imaginary mumbo jumbo.
And that it's better for all of humanity if the fossil fuel industry is obscenely profitable.
And if all the politicians now in congress stay there -- and do nothing forever.
Global Warming taxpayer funding has become welfare for climate scientists. It's been going on for so long that some scientists may have come into the field and already retired from 'researching' non-existent man-made Global Warming.
They never want this gravy train to end so that's why they go berserk when anyone, no matter how well qualified makes even the slightest challenge to the Warmist mantra.
-----------------------
Mr. Ridley said it best: "They don't want to hear the message that the emperor has no clothes..."
Because we know that if the climate change deniers are wrong the planet may be doomed.
And if we are wrong, the world will have its normal weather anyway.
Logic says to go with the opinion where if it is wrong, the lesser damage will occur.
The deniers are gambling with the future of mankind.
http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-climate-change-crazies/81389263-614C-4486-9B44-0C0E8412D60F.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_VideoModule_1#!81389263-614C-4486-9B44-0C0E8412D60F
That wasn't an editorial, that was an op-ed piece. Editors are supposed to have more sense.
Op-eds stirring controversy sells newspapers.
A low tolerance for fantasy.
there are two types of climate change believers:
1. the leaders -- these people don't really believe. they have a financial incentive to perpetuate the myth. (carbon credits for algore, government grants for researchers and climate scientists)
the leaders go crazy because their golden goose is threatened.
2. the followers -- these people believe because it gives them a platform from which to claim moral superiority over others. (look at me. i'm saving the planet.)
the followers go crazy because their ego is wrapped up in the issue.
It's the denialists who go crazy every time they hear that humans are causing Earth to warm.
zippi
What gravy train? It's the denialists, or at least their leaders, who don't want their gravy train to end when we switch to clean energy.
That's easy. They're liberals! The loons are always trying to silence opposition. They seem to ignore that their global warming icon, Al Gore, has always refused to take on a denier in a debate. He's a fraud and he knows it.
We don't, we have a good laugh at the idiocy of how contrived the denial camp is at misportrayals
Their "science" is more "political science" than real science. Their claims don't stand up to scrutiny.
many have quit looking at the WSJ as any serious journalism.
