Re: The how and why of the denial of human-caused climate change

[Barbarian Mutual]

On Apr 27, 11:47 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> The how and why of the denial of human-caused climate change
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/04/26/3489290.htm
>
> THE CLIMATE ISSUE IS A peculiar thing. Among climate experts,
> there's an extraordinary level of agreement with 97 out of 100
> climate scientists agreeing that humans are causing global
> warming.

Rightist deniers are never concerned with the truth. They could care
less what's causing climate change.

[Wally W.]

First, climates in all areas are always changing. Bringing attention
to a natural occurrence doesn't make it a problem.

Second, global temperatures have been within the normal range of
variability. Again, not a problem.

Third, whatever is "causing climate change" is mostly of academic
interest. Again, not a problem most people care about.

People outside ivory towers have problems unrelated to the
hand-wringing by academics over the imagined problems a century from
now.

Do you care why a particular spotted owl chose one mate over another?
It may be of intense interest to some academic. Not so much to the
rest of us. The same is true for "climate change."

The climate change industry is quite narcissistic, thinking their
little corner of wannabe-science is more important than everything
else.

Didn't Peter Pan wear green?

[2966 Dead]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:29:24 -0400, Wally W. wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:09:41 -0700 (PDT), Barbarian Mutual wrote:
>
>>On Apr 27, 11:47 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>>> The how and why of the denial of human-caused climate change
>>>
>>> http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/04/26/3489290.htm
>>>
>>> THE CLIMATE ISSUE IS A peculiar thing. Among climate experts, there's
>>> an extraordinary level of agreement with 97 out of 100 climate
>>> scientists agreeing that humans are causing global warming.
>>
>>Rightist deniers are never concerned with the truth. They could care
>>less what's causing climate change.
>
> First, climates in all areas are always changing. Bringing attention to
> a natural occurrence doesn't make it a problem.
>

That's always a favorite of denialists: change happens anyway. It's the
RATE of change that's of concern. Accelerating the rate of change can
lead to an ELE. It would be foolish to bring an ELE down on our own
heads.

> Second, global temperatures have been within the normal range of
> variability. Again, not a problem.

Again, rate of change. We're still in the earliest stages, and already
we're seeing dramatic impacts.

>
> Third, whatever is "causing climate change" is mostly of academic
> interest. Again, not a problem most people care about.
>

Appeal to ignorance. That's pretty low.

> People outside ivory towers have problems unrelated to the hand-wringing
> by academics over the imagined problems a century from now.
>

Appeal to anti-intellectualism.

> Do you care why a particular spotted owl chose one mate over another?
> It may be of intense interest to some academic. Not so much to the rest
> of us. The same is true for "climate change."
>

So if you know nothing about it, it can't possibly be important in any
way.

> The climate change industry is quite narcissistic, thinking their little
> corner of wannabe-science is more important than everything else.
>

This from a clown who just declared that what he doesn't know isn't
important.

[Phlip]

On Apr 29, 9:29 am, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:

> First, climates in all areas are always changing. Bringing attention
> to a natural occurrence doesn't make it a problem.

But you understand averages, right?

[Phlip]

On Apr 29, 8:09 am, Barbarian Mutual

Fear makes people stupid & gullible.

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:45:38 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:29:24 -0400, Wally W. wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:09:41 -0700 (PDT), Barbarian Mutual wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 27, 11:47 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>>>> The how and why of the denial of human-caused climate change
>>>>
>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/04/26/3489290.htm
>>>>
>>>> THE CLIMATE ISSUE IS A peculiar thing. Among climate experts, there's
>>>> an extraordinary level of agreement with 97 out of 100 climate
>>>> scientists agreeing that humans are causing global warming.
>>>
>>>Rightist deniers are never concerned with the truth. They could care
>>>less what's causing climate change.
>>
>> First, climates in all areas are always changing. Bringing attention to
>> a natural occurrence doesn't make it a problem.
>>
>That's always a favorite of denialists: change happens anyway. It's the
>RATE of change that's of concern. Accelerating the rate of change can
>lead to an ELE. It would be foolish to bring an ELE down on our own
>heads.

The rate of change has been higher in the past. Again, not necessarily
a problem.

There is no shortage of things that would be foolish:
1. Breeding until every available hectare of land is occupied.
2. Detonating every atomic bomb in existence
3. Shutting down all the power plants.

>> Second, global temperatures have been within the normal range of
>> variability. Again, not a problem.
>
>Again, rate of change.

Again, the rate of change has been higher in the past; not necessarily
a problem.

>We're still in the earliest stages,

Just wait a hundred years ... you'll see.

A lesson learned by Warmists: Don't make predictions that can come
true in your lifetime.

>and already
>we're seeing dramatic impacts.

Such as ...?

>> Third, whatever is "causing climate change" is mostly of academic
>> interest. Again, not a problem most people care about.
>>
>Appeal to ignorance. That's pretty low.

Prioritizing is not ignorance.

>> People outside ivory towers have problems unrelated to the hand-wringing
>> by academics over the imagined problems a century from now.
>>
>Appeal to anti-intellectualism.

Prioritizing is not anti-intellectual.

>> Do you care why a particular spotted owl chose one mate over another?
>> It may be of intense interest to some academic. Not so much to the rest
>> of us. The same is true for "climate change."
>>
>So if you know nothing about it, it can't possibly be important in any
>way.

That is not what I said. I don't care which spotted owl gets "lucky."
Do you?

It matters to the particular spotted owl, the trajectory of the
species, the butterfly effect, etc.

No one has made a case that we need to play match-maker for spotted
owls.

>> The climate change industry is quite narcissistic, thinking their little
>> corner of wannabe-science is more important than everything else.
>>
>This from a clown who just declared that what he doesn't know isn't
>important.

This from someone who didn't comprehend what I wrote.

See the list above:
1. Breeding until every available hectare of land is occupied.
2. Detonating every atomic bomb in existence
3. Shutting down all the power plants.

The danger presented by any of the above is more important than AGW.

There is a longer list:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/05/30/the-top-ten-solutions-to-the-w
So what proposed solutions are at the bottom of the list? At number
30, the lowest priority is a proposal to mitigate man-made global
warming by cutting the emissions of greenhouse gases.

[Wally W.]

Averages over what time frame?

[Phlip]

We can start with Spring of 2012.

[Bill Ward]

4. Giving socialism another chance.

[Wally W.]

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

<http://www.amazon.com/Charles-Mackays-Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions/dp/1905940912/>
First published in 1841, ... "every age has its peculiar folly; some
scheme, project, or fantasy into which it plunges, spurred on by the
love of gain, the necessity of excitement, or the mere force of
imitation." This still holds fast today!

<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/alexander_herzen.html>
It is possible to lead astray an entire generation, to strike it
blind, to drive it insane, to direct it towards a false goal. Napoleon
proved this. -- Alexander Herzen

http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"the strange, self-flagellating notion that is anthropogenic warming."
...
"apocalyptic yearning in the guise of political enlightenment."
...
"suicidally ridiculous."
...
[climate cultists want Man] "to turn his back on the very political,
economic, and scientific institutions that made him so powerful, so
wealthy, so healthy."


<http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/11/might-global-warming-heat-up-the-2012-presidential-campaign/>
It’s pretty well understood that environmental issues aren’t a major
factor in U.S. national elections. Global warming, endangered species,
and pollution aren’t kitchen table concerns like the economy, health
care, and war.

http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the
"Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation.

http://quotationsbook.com/quote/22267/
The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but
that they know so many things that ain't so. - Mark Twain

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres49.html
let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is
fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which
paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. - FDR

[2966 Dead]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:12:50 -0400, Wally W. wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:45:38 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:29:24 -0400, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:09:41 -0700 (PDT), Barbarian Mutual wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Apr 27, 11:47 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>>>>> The how and why of the denial of human-caused climate change
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/04/26/3489290.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> THE CLIMATE ISSUE IS A peculiar thing. Among climate experts,
>>>>> there's an extraordinary level of agreement with 97 out of 100
>>>>> climate scientists agreeing that humans are causing global warming.
>>>>
>>>>Rightist deniers are never concerned with the truth. They could care
>>>>less what's causing climate change.
>>>
>>> First, climates in all areas are always changing. Bringing attention
>>> to a natural occurrence doesn't make it a problem.
>>>
>>That's always a favorite of denialists: change happens anyway. It's the
>>RATE of change that's of concern. Accelerating the rate of change can
>>lead to an ELE. It would be foolish to bring an ELE down on our own
>>heads.
>
> The rate of change has been higher in the past. Again, not necessarily a
> problem.

Actually, massive problem. You really should read up on this. Here's a
good place to start: http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

>
> There is no shortage of things that would be foolish:
> 1. Breeding until every available hectare of land is occupied.

Agreed.

> 2. Detonating every atomic bomb in existence 3. Shutting down all the
> power plants.

So your basic defence is that someone out there might do something really
stupid, and so what you do doesn't matter?

>
>>> Second, global temperatures have been within the normal range of
>>> variability. Again, not a problem.
>>
>>Again, rate of change.
>
> Again, the rate of change has been higher in the past; not necessarily a
> problem.

See above.

>
>>We're still in the earliest stages,
>
> Just wait a hundred years ... you'll see.
>

And I'm sure that whoever has replaced humanity as the dominant species
will find it quite enjoyable.

> A lesson learned by Warmists: Don't make predictions that can come true
> in your lifetime.
>

And yet if scientists weren't worried about just 20 years up the road,
you would be crowing that they were hiding behind predictions nobody
would live to see.

>>and already we're seeing dramatic impacts.
>
> Such as ...?
>

Treeline and permafrost line moving southward over a thousand miles since
1950. Arctic ice cap receding to about 4m sq. kilometres in the late
summer. Insect-borne diseases such as West Nile Virus moving out of the
tropics and into temperate zones. 91% of the world's glaciers receding
and some vanishing altogether. Massive meltback of Antarctic sea ice due
to warmer ocean currents. I could list a dozen more just off the top of
my head.

>>> Third, whatever is "causing climate change" is mostly of academic
>>> interest. Again, not a problem most people care about.
>>>
>>Appeal to ignorance. That's pretty low.
>
> Prioritizing is not ignorance.
>

The Pentagon regards climate change as the greatest short-term security
threat the United States faces, ahead of terrorism or Chinese militancy.
The insurance companies are warning of trillions of dollars in damage in
the next 25 years.

So what is your priority?

>
>>> People outside ivory towers have problems unrelated to the
>>> hand-wringing by academics over the imagined problems a century from
>>> now.
>>>
>>Appeal to anti-intellectualism.
>
> Prioritizing is not anti-intellectual.
>
>
>>> Do you care why a particular spotted owl chose one mate over another?
>>> It may be of intense interest to some academic. Not so much to the
>>> rest of us. The same is true for "climate change."
>>>
>>So if you know nothing about it, it can't possibly be important in any
>>way.
>
> That is not what I said. I don't care which spotted owl gets "lucky." Do
> you?
>

On an individual basis, no. But then, I don't date spotted owls.

> It matters to the particular spotted owl, the trajectory of the species,
> the butterfly effect, etc.
>
> No one has made a case that we need to play match-maker for spotted
> owls.

That's true. Nobody has.

>
>>> The climate change industry is quite narcissistic, thinking their
>>> little corner of wannabe-science is more important than everything
>>> else.
>>>
>>This from a clown who just declared that what he doesn't know isn't
>>important.
>
> This from someone who didn't comprehend what I wrote.
>
> See the list above:
> 1. Breeding until every available hectare of land is occupied.
> 2. Detonating every atomic bomb in existence 3. Shutting down all the
> power plants.
>
> The danger presented by any of the above is more important than AGW.
>

> There is a longer list:
> http://reason.com/archives/2008/05/30/the-top-ten-solutions-to-the-w So
> what proposed solutions are at the bottom of the list? At number 30, the
> lowest priority is a proposal to mitigate man-made global warming by
> cutting the emissions of greenhouse gases.
>

Yeah, libertarians have a knack for underestimate the problems that make
profits for big business.

[Wally W.]

How many averages over six weeks you have in mind?

What do you think averages of temperatures between winter and summer
will demonstrate?

[Bill Ward]

A warming trend that would scare the pants off everyone gullible enough
to believe it.

[Ron Peterson]

On Apr 29, 8:09 am, Barbarian Mutual
<barbarianfinancialservi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Rightist deniers are never concerned with the truth.  They could care
> less what's causing climate change.

The issue is far more complicated than a right/left issue.

Climate change or global warming aren't bad for all parts of the world
or even in the USA.

The fossil fuels are limited in extent, so we will have to go to
renewable energy sources anyway.

Wind power and solar power are becoming more economical, so that
should reduce the dependence on fossil fuels.

The ocean can capture more CO2 from the air by adding small amounts of
nutrients to the ocean increasing the production of fish as an added
benefit.

--
Ron

[JohnM]

On Apr 29, 7:12 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:

> The rate of change has been higher in the past.

You have evidence for that statement, right? Why not share its
citation with us?

[Transition Zone]

On Apr 29, 3:27 pm, Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote:
>
> The ocean can capture more CO2 from the air

That encourages ocean acidification.

[JohnM]

You obviously aren't trying to cherry-pick, are you? Just a little
error in your CnP was it? Here's what you inadvertently missed out
during your quote mining escapade:

"So what proposed solutions are at the bottom of the list? At number
30, the lowest priority is a proposal to mitigate man-made global

warming by cutting the emissions of greenhouse gases. This ranking
caused some consternation among the European journalists at the press
conference. Nobelist and University of Maryland economist Thomas
Schelling noted that part of the reason for the low ranking is that
spending $75 billion on cutting greenhouses gases would achieve almost
nothing. In fact, the climate change analysis presented to the panel
found that spending $800 billion until 2100 would yield just $685
billion in climate change benefits.

Noting that he has been concerned about climate change for 30 years,
Schelling argued that tacking climate change will take public policy
responses such as carbon taxes to address the issue. Schelling added,
"The best defense against climate change in the developing countries
is going to be their own development." He explained that funding
education to create a literate labor force boosts the productivity of
a country enabling economic growth. Economic growth produces wealth
that helps people address and adapt to the problems caused by climate
change. Bjorn Lomborg, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center,
pointed out that funding research and development of low-carbon energy
technologies is ranked at a respectable number 14 out of the 30
solutions considered."

[Transition Zone]

Because deniers have no evidence. Only meaningless dodges and lies.
That's all deniers have.

[2966 Dead]

And CO2 emissions are exceeding earth's ability to sequester them in any
event, which is why CO2 levels are at 393ppm, the highest in at least
800,000 years.

[2966 Dead]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:27:56 -0700, Ron Peterson wrote:

> On Apr 29, 8:09 am, Barbarian Mutual
> <barbarianfinancialservi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Rightist deniers are never concerned with the truth.  They could care
>> less what's causing climate change.
>
> The issue is far more complicated than a right/left issue.
>
> Climate change or global warming aren't bad for all parts of the world
> or even in the USA.

Oh, in the long run the earth benefits from it. Greater areas of jungle
and temperate rainforest, leading in time to ever greater diversity of
life.

But at times of sudden severe climate change, the food chain collapses
and the apex species get wiped out.

We're one of those apex species.

>
> The fossil fuels are limited in extent, so we will have to go to
> renewable energy sources anyway.
>
> Wind power and solar power are becoming more economical, so that should
> reduce the dependence on fossil fuels.
>

In some countries, solar is now cheaper than coal for electric. It's
expected to reach that level in the US by 2014.

Eventually, I see a society where the citizenry is self-sufficient in
power generation, and the grid exists for industry--causing factories to
rise in clusters near power plants.

> The ocean can capture more CO2 from the air by adding small amounts of
> nutrients to the ocean increasing the production of fish as an added
> benefit.

Um, no. It leads to acidification of the upper waters, which not only
knocks out marine life but impedes oxygen production.

[2966 Dead]

It's happened at least 11 times since the atmosphere stabilized to the
oxygen/nitrogren mix we know today. We refer to them as "Extinction
Level Events".

[SNORDO]

"Barbarian Mutual" <barbarianfina...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11468ae1-e257-4aa2...@r13g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

that's because the shitheads are dumber than a herd of turkeys drowning themselves
in a rainstorm


the dickheads don't even realize that the south will get fried first

wait till summer in texass, the rednecks will be turnin brown and we ain't lettin
em move up here

we'll gun em down at the borders

[SNORDO]

"Wally W." <ww8...@aim.com> wrote in message
news:6esqp7pjftvve4i60...@4ax.com...
: On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:45:38 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead wrote:
:





you're an on your knees to your wealthy masters hillbilly cocksucker

just swallow whatever the liars give you and STFU

[SNORDO]

"JohnM" <jmorgan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3475896-cab0-4138...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

why not STFU and stop lookin stupid ??

git off your knees and stop suckin alla them nasty republican dicks too boy

be a man and not a fuckin pussy for your masters for once in your miserable life

[SNORDO]

"2966 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message news:jnkb90$qn0$3...@dont-email.me...

: On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:27:56 -0700, Ron Peterson wrote:
:
: > On Apr 29, 8:09 am, Barbarian Mutual
: > <barbarianfinancialservi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

: >
::
: > The ocean can capture more CO2 from the air by adding small amounts of

: > nutrients to the ocean increasing the production of fish as an added
: > benefit.
:
: Um, no. It leads to acidification of the upper waters, which not only
: knocks out marine life but impedes oxygen production.

:



shouldn't it lead to more oxygen production from increased plant growth

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 21:19:29 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:27:56 -0700, Ron Peterson wrote:
>
>> On Apr 29, 8:09 am, Barbarian Mutual
>> <barbarianfinancialservi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Rightist deniers are never concerned with the truth.  They could care
>>> less what's causing climate change.
>>
>> The issue is far more complicated than a right/left issue.
>>
>> Climate change or global warming aren't bad for all parts of the world
>> or even in the USA.
>
>Oh, in the long run the earth benefits from it. Greater areas of jungle
>and temperate rainforest, leading in time to ever greater diversity of
>life.
>
>But at times of sudden severe climate change, the food chain collapses
>and the apex species get wiped out.
>
>We're one of those apex species.
>>
>> The fossil fuels are limited in extent, so we will have to go to
>> renewable energy sources anyway.
>>
>> Wind power and solar power are becoming more economical, so that should
>> reduce the dependence on fossil fuels.
>>
>In some countries, solar is now cheaper than coal for electric. It's
>expected to reach that level in the US by 2014.

Cite?

>Eventually, I see a society where the citizenry is self-sufficient in
>power generation,

And once again, we'll ride unicorns.

>and the grid exists for industry--causing factories to
>rise in clusters near power plants.

In China?

What few major factories we have in the USA are not mobile.

[Wally W.]

Where has this voice of sanity been?

Finally, someone with all the answers has arrived.

And with such colorful, erudite expression.

[SNORDO]

"Wally W." <ww8...@aim.com> wrote in message

news:lk9sp7ppa2i5uij0d...@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:07:01 -0400, SNORDO wrote:
:
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >that's because the shitheads are dumber than a herd of turkeys drowning

themselves
: >in a rainstorm
: >
: >
: >the dickheads don't even realize that the south will get fried first
: >
: >wait till summer in texass, the rednecks will be turnin brown and we ain't
lettin
: >em move up here
: >
: >we'll gun em down at the borders
:
: Where has this voice of sanity been?
:
: Finally, someone with all the answers has arrived.
:
: And with such colorful, erudite expression.

:


cut to the bottom line is mah motto

[2966 Dead]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:43:17 -0400, Wally W. wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 21:19:29 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:27:56 -0700, Ron Peterson wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 29, 8:09 am, Barbarian Mutual
>>> <barbarianfinancialservi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rightist deniers are never concerned with the truth.  They could care
>>>> less what's causing climate change.
>>>
>>> The issue is far more complicated than a right/left issue.
>>>
>>> Climate change or global warming aren't bad for all parts of the world
>>> or even in the USA.
>>
>>Oh, in the long run the earth benefits from it. Greater areas of jungle
>>and temperate rainforest, leading in time to ever greater diversity of
>>life.
>>
>>But at times of sudden severe climate change, the food chain collapses
>>and the apex species get wiped out.
>>
>>We're one of those apex species.
>>>
>>> The fossil fuels are limited in extent, so we will have to go to
>>> renewable energy sources anyway.
>>>
>>> Wind power and solar power are becoming more economical, so that
>>> should reduce the dependence on fossil fuels.
>>>
>>In some countries, solar is now cheaper than coal for electric. It's
>>expected to reach that level in the US by 2014.
>
> Cite?

Here's a 2010 overview:
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour

However:
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/technology/zero+house+allows+normal
+lifestyle/6539322/story.html

http://www.power-eng.com/news/2012/04/26/panel-proposes-starting-solar-
feed-in-tariff-at-42-yen-per-kwh.html

>
>
>>Eventually, I see a society where the citizenry is self-sufficient in
>>power generation,
>
> And once again, we'll ride unicorns.
>

Well, we know that American right wingers like to sit in puddles of their
own water and splash unhappily and whine that there's nothing to be done
for it.

>>and the grid exists for industry--causing factories to rise in clusters
>>near power plants.
>
> In China?
>

Here.

> What few major factories we have in the USA are not mobile.
>

Factories cannot be built?

Oh, I forgot. You're an American right winger. Nothing is possible.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:09:41 -0700 (PDT), Barbarian Mutual

<barbarianfina...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 27, 11:47 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:

> > The how and why of the denial of human-caused climate change
> >
> > http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/04/26/3489290.htm
> >
> > THE CLIMATE ISSUE IS A peculiar thing. Among climate experts,
> > there's an extraordinary level of agreement with 97 out of 100
> > climate scientists agreeing that humans are causing global
> > warming.

> Rightist deniers are never concerned with the truth. They could care

> [not] less what's causing climate change.

Sociologists have identified five major reasons why denialists
reject the evidenced for human-caused climate change; apathy is
not one of them, but ideological brainwashing certainly is.


--
Denialism: "The employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance
of legitimate debate where there is none."

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:29:24 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:09:41 -0700 (PDT), Barbarian Mutual wrote:
>
> >On Apr 27, 11:47 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> >> The how and why of the denial of human-caused climate change
> >>
> >> http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/04/26/3489290.htm
> >>
> >> THE CLIMATE ISSUE IS A peculiar thing. Among climate experts,
> >> there's an extraordinary level of agreement with 97 out of 100
> >> climate scientists agreeing that humans are causing global
> >> warming.

> >Rightist deniers are never concerned with the truth. They could care

> >less what's causing climate change.

> First, climates in all areas are always changing.

Idiot.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:45:38 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead

<de...@gone.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:29:24 -0400, Wally W. wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:09:41 -0700 (PDT), Barbarian Mutual wrote:
> >
> >>On Apr 27, 11:47 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> >>> The how and why of the denial of human-caused climate change
> >>>
> >>> http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/04/26/3489290.htm
> >>>
> >>> THE CLIMATE ISSUE IS A peculiar thing. Among climate experts, there's
> >>> an extraordinary level of agreement with 97 out of 100 climate
> >>> scientists agreeing that humans are causing global warming.

> >>Rightist deniers are never concerned with the truth. They could care
> >>less what's causing climate change.

> > First, climates in all areas are always changing. Bringing attention to
> > a natural occurrence doesn't make it a problem.

"People have always died. Therefore muder is not a problem."

> That's always a favorite of denialists: change happens anyway. It's the
> RATE of change that's of concern. Accelerating the rate of change can
> lead to an ELE. It would be foolish to bring an ELE down on our own
> heads.

What is "an ELE?"

*CUTS*

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:12:50 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:45:38 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:29:24 -0400, Wally W. wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:09:41 -0700 (PDT), Barbarian Mutual wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Apr 27, 11:47 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> >>>> The how and why of the denial of human-caused climate change
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/04/26/3489290.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> THE CLIMATE ISSUE IS A peculiar thing. Among climate experts, there's
> >>>> an extraordinary level of agreement with 97 out of 100 climate
> >>>> scientists agreeing that humans are causing global warming.
> >>>
> >>>Rightist deniers are never concerned with the truth. They could care
> >>>less what's causing climate change.
> >>
> >> First, climates in all areas are always changing. Bringing attention to
> >> a natural occurrence doesn't make it a problem.

> >That's always a favorite of denialists: change happens anyway. It's the
> >RATE of change that's of concern. Accelerating the rate of change can
> >lead to an ELE. It would be foolish to bring an ELE down on our own
> >heads.

> The rate of change has been higher in the past.

The last time the rate of climate change matched the current one
was ovfer 35,000,000 years.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:27:56 -0700 (PDT), Ron Peterson
<r...@shell.core.com> wrote:

> On Apr 29, 8:09 am, Barbarian Mutual
> <barbarianfinancialservi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Rightist deniers are never concerned with the truth.  They could care
> > less what's causing climate change.

> The issue is far more complicated than a right/left issue.

Certainly the science and evidence are not at all a "right/left"
issue; denying the science and the evidence, sadly, is.

> Climate change or global warming aren't bad for all parts of the world
> or even in the USA.

Very true.

> The fossil fuels are limited in extent, so we will have to go to
> renewable energy sources anyway.

Also very true.

> Wind power and solar power are becoming more economical, so that
> should reduce the dependence on fossil fuels.

Also very true, but it will take another half-century to switch if
we started now.

> The ocean can capture more CO2 from the air by adding small amounts of
> nutrients to the ocean increasing the production of fish as an added
> benefit.

The *LAST* thing we want is to have the world's oceans take up
more CO2. It has already been massively disasterous.

[AGWFacts]

Yes, and it has already been devastating to marine organisms.

[2966 Dead]

Extinction Level Event. There's been at least eleven major such events
in earth's history, all of which involved major climate change. In some
of them we don't know what caused the sudden change, but it clearly
happened.
> *CUTS*