Why do you think people deny science?

[Padawanbater2]

Your argument now has become "you cited Wikipedia so you're wrong!" (refer to post #5 "The arguments always stem from the denial of facts not reason or logic.")

Thank you for proving my point

Wikipedia cites the IPCC, and I've cited the IPCC directly before as well only to be met with, yep, you guessed it - denial. It doesn't matter where the science comes from, if it contradicts your worldview, you reject it

Ironic enough, the IPCC concludes everything in post #17, whether or not you can understand or comprehend the future environmental and economic consequences

"I don't understand it so nu-uh!" isn't a valid argument anywhere but the kindergarten classroom

 

[Dr Kynes]

Your argument now has become "you cited Wikipedia so you're wrong!" (refer to post #5 "The arguments always stem from the denial of facts not reason or logic.")

Thank you for proving my point

Wikipedia cites the IPCC, and I've cited the IPCC directly before as well only to be met with, yep, you guessed it - denial. It doesn't matter where the science comes from, if it contradicts your worldview, you reject it

Ironic enough, the IPCC concludes everything in post #17, whether or not you can understand or comprehend the future environmental and economic consequences

"I don't understand it so nu-uh!" isn't a valid argument anywhere but the kindergarten classroom

no, wikipedia is not "Just as good" as the actual IPCC report, and NO, your wiki-wisdom does not change the opinions found in the IPCC report into fact, nor does wikipedia create fact from opinions which are NOT found in the IPCC report.

ill break this down for you cuz youre slow.

2 years ago:
humans are responsible for "Almost all" of the 1 degree C of observed warming between 1880 and 2000 (thats 120 years)

NOW:
humans are responsible for "~50%" of the 0.4 degree C of warming that happened between 1951 and 2010 (thats 60 years)

so yes, the IPCC no states that humans have caused LESS THAN HALF as much warming as they previously claimed, even under their "Extremely Likely" confidence numbers.

by the time you get down"Almost Certainly" or "Pretty Much Guaranteed" numbers, they blame human activity for LESS THAN HALF of the warming they now claim, which is LESS THAN HALF of the warming they previously claimed...


deal with it

 

[Padawanbater2]

2 years ago:
humans are responsible for "Almost all" of the 1 degree C of observed warming between 1880 and 2000 (thats 120 years)

NOW:
humans are responsible for "~50%" of the 0.4 degree C of warming that happened between 1951 and 2010 (thats 60 years)

Source?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Source?

derp...

IPCC report 4 vs IPPC report 5.

are you getting stupider?

 

[UncleBuck]

"ACC" is a politically motivated untestable hypothesis which is actually promulgated by a few fringe eco-crackpots and the UN.

that, and philippe rushton is a citable expert on the subject of race and intelligence.

the "research" that "supports it" is even more political, but also unsupportable, fallacious and retarded.

NUH UH! BULLSHIT!

no, i suspect human action may be causing SOME "Climate Change" but the question remains, "How Fucking Much?"

and apparently the answer is "less than 50%"

still trying to get away with that lie, eh?

"less than 50%" means something much different than "more than 50%", but you go on with your lies.

why not cite creationist and signatory to an evangelical pledge on AGW roy spencer for your "science" while you're at it?

i mean, if white supremacist philippe rushton is your authority on all issues racial, then evangelical creationist roy spencer might as well be your guy for all issues AGW.

 

[UncleBuck]

no, i suspect human action may be causing SOME "Climate Change" but the question remains, "How Fucking Much?"

and apparently the answer is "less than 50%"

"It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010.

call me crazy, but don't "less than 50%" and "more than half" mean different things?

why do you keep on trying to scrape by with these lies?

if you had a leg to stand on, you wouldn't have to lie over and over and over again, kkkynes.

 

[UncleBuck]

even bucky didnt stoop this low. he slunk away with his tail tucked between his legs, but you... yeah you got too much of your own self-worth wrapped up in "Agenda-pogenic Global Distortion Of Climate Fact"

less than 50% of the increase over the last half century is "Anthropogenic" according to the proponents of this untestable hypothesis, and they only went that low because they got caught cooking the books AGAIN and decided to try and make their story sound a little more plausible

do you have a disease which makes you incapable of stating a single true fact?

you have been caught lying again and again and again, yet still declare victory?

maybe stick to stocking the shelves at walmart and sharing that single family house with 7 other family members (including your mother) as a 50 year old grown man. you're more capable at that endeavor than you are at lying on the internet.

 

[UncleBuck]

the IPCC no states that humans have caused LESS THAN HALF

"It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010."

less than half, more than half...i guess they mean the same thing.

no wonder you're 50 years old and stocking shelves at walmart while living with your momma.

 

[Padawanbater2]

IPCC report 4 vs IPPC report 5.

IPCC 4 was published in 2007, 7 years ago, not 2


"On the issue of global warming and its causes, the SPM states that:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

Very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment" are over 90% and over 66%, respectively."

"Surface air warming in the 21st century:

Best estimate for a "low scenario"[12] is 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)

Best estimate for a "high scenario"[13] is 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)

A temperature rise of about 0.1 °C per decade would be expected for the next two decades, even if greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations were kept at year 2000 levels.

A temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios.

Confidence in these near-term projections is strengthened because of the agreement between past model projections and actual observed temperature increases."

"General

Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.

There is a clear human influence on the climate

It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report.

IPCC pointed out that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become."

 

[Dr Kynes]

IPCC 4 was published in 2007, 7 years ago, not 2


"On the issue of global warming and its causes, the SPM states that:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

Very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment" are over 90% and over 66%, respectively."

"Surface air warming in the 21st century:

Best estimate for a "low scenario"[12] is 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)

Best estimate for a "high scenario"[13] is 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)

A temperature rise of about 0.1 °C per decade would be expected for the next two decades, even if greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations were kept at year 2000 levels.

A temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios.

Confidence in these near-term projections is strengthened because of the agreement between past model projections and actual observed temperature increases."

"General

Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.

There is a clear human influence on the climate

It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report.

IPCC pointed out that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become."

doesnt change the facts.

ipcc report 4: almost all of 1 degree C warming between 1880 and 2000 was "anthropogenic"

ipcc report 5: ~50% of the 0.4 degree C warming between 1951 and 2010 was "anthropogenic"

run the math dingus.

copy/pasting the garbage from Wiki-Motherfucking-Pedia just makes you look foolish

 

[Padawanbater2]

doesnt change the facts.

ipcc report 4: almost all of 1 degree C warming between 1880 and 2000 was "anthropogenic"

ipcc report 5: ~50% of the 0.4 degree C warming between 1951 and 2010 was "anthropogenic"

That's not what IPCC 4 says

 

[UncleBuck]

doesnt change the facts.

ipcc report 4: almost all of 1 degree C warming between 1880 and 2000 was "anthropogenic"

ipcc report 5: ~50% of the 0.4 degree C warming between 1951 and 2010 was "anthropogenic"

run the math dingus.

copy/pasting the garbage from Wiki-Motherfucking-Pedia just makes you look foolish

if the reports were so wildly disparate, then why have you been caught repeatedly lying about them?

why do you now type "~50%" instead of your previous lie of "less than half" when the report actually says "more than half"?

not only do you deny science, you deny reality when it does not conform to your silly john birch society evangelical white superiority worldview.

 

[Dr Kynes]

That's not what IPCC 4 says

ORLY? cuz thats what you and the global warming high priests have been saying

graphs showing dramatic temp increases between 1880 and 2000:

while the stentorian narrator intones fearful predictions and blames human action for the death of mother gaia.

or was al gore lying?

were you lying when you repeated these assertions?

and now you want to narrow the discussion to only the small increase in temp since 1951, which the ipcc now says was ~50% man made (still an exaggeration)

welcome to the wonderful world of Retroactive Continuity.

even stan lee isnt this shameless

 

[Padawanbater2]

editing

 

[Dr Kynes]

editing

no, it's called backpedaling.

 

[Padawanbater2]

no, it's called backpedaling.

Kynes brings up another excellent reason why people deny science; because they feel that if the conclusions reached change in the slightest with the discovery of new information or breakthroughs, it all must be wrong and they were never right to begin with..

What these types of people fail to acknowledge is that that's how science works, it's a fluid process and if something new comes along in the future that adds to or detracts from an accepted scientific theory, it's examined and the theory is updated accordingly

This makes some people uncomfortable.. Some people would rather be stuck with a solid, unchanging theory and would rather limit themselves to the available data of their time than accept new information because it might weaken their beliefs

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, that's why the conflict exists between religion and science. Conservatives are generally more religious than liberals and party affiliation statistics show exactly that, and it's not a coincidence

 

[Dr Kynes]

Kynes brings up another excellent reason why people deny science; because they feel that if the conclusions reached change in the slightest with the discovery of new information or breakthroughs, it all must be wrong and they were never right to begin with..

What these types of people fail to acknowledge is that that's how science works, it's a fluid process and if something new comes along in the future that adds to or detracts from an accepted scientific theory, it's examined and the theory is updated accordingly

This makes some people uncomfortable.. Some people would rather be stuck with a solid, unchanging theory and would rather limit themselves to the available data of their time than accept new information because it might weaken their beliefs

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, that's why the conflict exists between religion and science. Conservatives are generally more religious than liberals and party affiliation statistics show exactly that, and it's not a coincidence

 

[Padawanbater2]

Another aspect of science denial is political affiliation. Generally speaking, conservatives and right leaning people are traditionally more against scientific progress than liberals and left leaning people. That's no big secret, but it is the elephant in the room people(conservatives) don't like to talk about. Science is viewed as the enemy to a lot of conservatives, it's even expressed on a daily basis on the politics section of RIU. The arguments always stem from the denial of facts not reason or logic.

 

[Dr Kynes]

replying to yourself with unsourced infographics from an OPINION POLL and a picture of a protestor holding an entirely accurate sign?

you even get your ass kicked when you argue with yourself.

maybe i should stop, it's shameful to bully the weak.

 

[Padawanbater2]

replying to yourself with unsourced infographics from an OPINION POLL and a picture of a protestor holding an entirely accurate sign?

You deny the findings of the IPCC, which has been repeatedly cited in this thread, so it would seem the source is irrelevant to you unless it agrees with your beliefs