That's a well worn straw man. Most of us so called "deniers" accept that the earth is warming. We just disagree on the magnitude of the warming. And we don't trust models that say the surface temperature should be warming at an accelerating rate as CO2 concentration increases.

Kano: "Concensus is nearly always proven wrong (the Earth revolves around the sun, bloodletting cures diseases) I much prefer to go by the evidence. In another 20yrs I guess all those institutions will look pretty stupid, and the credibilty of science and scientists will be at a all time low."

Gee, another 20 years? What branches of science have proven wrong in the last 20 years?

The last 40? The last 60?

It's clearly true that medicine has improved, as has our understanding of geology and astronomical physics. But in most cases, the new knowledge has surplanted things that we didn't understand, and were guessing at.

Our technology has increased many fold.

It wasn't much more than 60 years ago that the transistor was invented.

Virtually all of our analysis today wouldn't be possible without that.

Clearly it's getting better, but to compare science today with a geocentric universe is delusional.

Believing and denying are definitely not the same thing. I don't believe in anything. I believe that I am probably married to my wife but I have to leave some doubt since I have seen too many movies such as The Matrix and have to acknowledge that she could be a clever computer animation but if so, my hats off to the geeks on that one.

Anyhoo, I certainly don't deny that the planet has warmed in the last 100 years or so. I don't even deny that our CO2 emissions probably resulted in warming. I have heard of settled science but I can't quite wrap my brain around accepted science. I have to ask, who accepted it. Is it like an Academy Award where someone gets up and gives an acceptance speech and thanks their mother and Angelina Jolie?

OK, I think maybe I get the gist of what acceptance is supposed to mean. I love science. I love biology. I accept that many theories are the best explanation for certain natural phenomena but I don't accept those theories as fact. Does that mean I deny them? My level of skepticism varies from theory to theory but since I am skeptical of all of them, I don't really deny any of them. I am just skeptical.

I don't understand the reason for blocking you. Dook blocks me and to me it just makes him look like he can't defend his position. I admit, there are probably consequences to not blocking someone who can then do some things an unblocked person couldn't but I am not sophisticated enough on YA to understand them nor am I that interested frankly. I wish YA would simply remove the ability to block but that is just my opinion.

Had an interesting discussion about "changing" attitudes on climate change (through another board). The final take home message was to listen to others, understand their points ... and not necessarily argue them but work together to find common ground (e.g. few argue that pollution is bad, monopolies on energy is bad, etc.) From these common grounds find solutions that benefit all, so address both concerns of finance, environment, economy, self-interests, the community etc. etc.

So instead of either side focusing on our differences perhaps it is time we started worrying about our common issues, and by working towards solutions for them we'll start to address the bigger issues (the differences) that divide us at the moment.

denial is a common response when people are faced with unknown or information not consistent with their worldview. Deniers see it as an imposition to their life, so it's easier to deny the facts. Psychology textbooks are full of examples if you really want to dig down into it.

Concensus is nearly always proven wrong (the sun revolves around the earth, bloodletting cures diseases) I much prefer to go by the evidence.

In another 20yrs I guess all those institutions will look pretty stupid, and the credibilty of science and scientists will be at a all time low.

What science has been proven wrong? here you go

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/0...

Alchemy, geocentric universe, eugenics, flat earth were also accepted sciences. You're in the same company.

The fossil fuel industry has trillions of dollars worth of fossil fuel reserves at stake. That is more than enough to buy the US Congress and Murdoch's "news" empire which reassures stupid people that ignorance of science doesn't matter because science is a hoax.

Again, inspired by jello, who answers my questions sometimes, but has me blocked so that I cannot even post a comment on his answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Mainstream_scientific_position.2C_and_challenges_to_it

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries."

Every national science academy, even of countries we don't like, says global warming is caused by our burning fossil fuel, and is a problem.

Why is it that people are so adamant in their denial?

It's accepted science around the world.

Even in countries that don't get our government grants.

And don't make money, manufacturing and/or installing solar panels and the like.

Why do people deny that it's warming?

Clearly it is.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

conspiracy freaks lack something in their life so they like to feel a little more important by thinking they are right and most everyone else is wrong