You'll find denialists who are unintelligent and/or mentally challenged in some way.
You'll find denialists who are being led astray by some charismatic "Pied Piper" who they agree with on other issues.
You'll find denialists who are just being willfully blind because they don't want to face the consequences of the truth.
You'll find denialists who are honestly and sincerely misinformed, because they went to school 40 years ago and haven't cracked a book or looked at a science website since.
And, at least on a place like Y!A, you'll probably find at least a few "denialists" who do know better, and are just trolling.
You deny what you don't believe, doesn't matter what 'facts' are presented. If it's cold and dark and raining where you are, why do you believe the sun is still out there somewhere? Because you were educated at some point. Just because you don't see something doesn't mean you won't believe it's possible. Some of us are more critical, skeptical, inconvenienced; some of us stand to lose a lot of money if it's widely accepted, and affects our livelihood. We should all expect and prepare for worse, and hope for better, doing what we can to make a positive difference, respecting contradictory attitudes.
LOL, that was pretty funny. Especially that part about "the science" as if AGW has anything to do with science. Thanks for always providing an entertainingly sarcastic remark.
Stubby,
Maybe the problem is that I have not been bamboozled.
Warmers say AGW causes droughts, but there has been no increase in droughts over the last 60 years.
Warmers say AGW causes crop losses, but the crop production has been increasing faster than population, so they certianly cannot show a decrease.
Warmers say AGW causes extreme weather, but no increase in number of hurricanes, amount of droughts and lack of goof flood data makes me question if they have any evidence supporting this claim. A question I have asked many time with no good answer.
You seem to think asking for more evidence than models of models of models of models is anti-scientific. The truth is that SCIENCE is the study of nature via observation and experimentation. You will note that modeling is not contained. When your modeling does not match observation and experimentation, then I am not inclined to agree.
Alph,
Jello just does not buy that you can predict 100 years into the future and NOT 5 years. I don't think you can either. Indeed for all purely statistical models the uncertainty increases as time moves on. You all are using some hybrid of a statistical and physical model. You want to capture the uncertainty that statistical models, but account for the general change in the energy balance. I get WHY you are doing it. I even applaud the new attempt. BUT, your methodology is far from tested. You are likely not accounting for all the uncertainty and you certianly are not accounting for bias.
There is a difference between accepting "science" (by which I hope you mean the results of experimentation and observation, otherwise you are just talking crap), and accepting the results of modeling as true.
You haven't figured out if the earth is warming or cooling yet. You haven't figured out if the ice is expanding or shrinking. You haven't figured out that Gore is lying about CO2 controlling the temperature. You haven't figured out that the Dorkster is a fool and you even get BAs from him. Ha! Ha! How slow can you get? You are not only slow, your actions have proven your brain isn't even in gear. If it is, it must be in reverse. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Nice try but you are dealing with real intelligent people here, Your feeble attempt at denigrating true scientists (which is clearly against community guidelines.) has backfired and exposed you as the true slow thinker. But you won't catch on for about a year, at the rate that you think. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Who put you up to this, the Dorkster? It figures.
Higher science scores lead to less climate change concern
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/32...
After all, it's not the skeptics that are having so much trouble reading the last 18 years of global temperature records:
According to RSS Satellite data there has been no warming for more than 18 years.
Well it is quite obvious that deniers think, you cannot deny something without a reason which means you have to have thought about it first.
Not the same with AGW believers they don't even have to thinks about it, just repeat what they have been told, that requires very little intelligence.
I'll accept your premises if you can tell us what the climate will be in 5 years, and show us how you got to your conclusion. If you can't, well, this was a bad choice of posts for you, which would just prove that the slower thinkers are the believers.
I think most skeptics are far more intelligent than alarmists like yourself. Alarmists tend to be very unquestioning and uncritical. They would be ones giving away all their bank account information after receiving an email from a Nigerian prince.
That could be true for some but having a high IQ doesn't mean you're smart just as having a low IQ doesn't necessarily mean you're dumb on a particular subject or topic.
But, they have their priorities askew.
Many, if not all, are political conservatives who don't really understand science and how it works but since they've been exposed to conservative talk show hosts and blogs they've learned how to 'sound smart'.
They tend to think there is 'conservative science' and 'liberal science' when there is actually only science and pseudoscience.
They've been bamboozled...
I have had long had the suspicion, based on the inherent mental capacities, incipient senility and ingrained science-hatred of some of our "True Scientists," that vicarious revenge against teachers who flunked them long ago plays a role in postings in this category.
There's a common joke / bit of wisdom.
"He who laughs last, thinks slowest."
Does that apply to what people think about global warming.
Is it just going to take some folks many more years to see and understand the science?
Might that be an indication of how difficult school was for them?
It's a question of capacity rather than speed. I think the PC term is developmentally delayed. My sister is a developmentally delayed culinarian. Interpretation: she can't cook.
Clearly jello has not learned the difference between weather and climate. Not slow, just refuses to learn
If we "think" at any speed, it's way more than Marxist Democrat idiots who are incapable of any "thinking."
They don't think at all, they just repeat what their handlers tell them to
you just keep right on believing that
There is no science only theories.
No.
