With the best will in the world futurecurrents, it is clear that you care but there is no getting through to these guys, they lack so much and don't even know it. It is what we used to see as an IRA/Sinn-Fein mindset in the South of Ireland. Observing terrorist supporter's mindsets growing up I learned a bit. I had several kids in my class at school who came from serious IRA/Sinn-Fein households. Talk until your blue in the face, get them to see another side and as soon as they went home to their families they were reset and back to scratch in school the next morning. Cult followers reprogramming themselves, you could see it in their face even as they walked away. The Cranberries wrote that song Zombie about it. Of course one will now say, back at you buddy as a knee-jerk response to me saying this but zombies do what they do. Informative items giving the rational portion of the site some heads up is great stuff, whatever is going on in their minds, climate change is just a proxy for something else.
From an article at counterpunch.org. "Ruinous flooding of Houston in 1929 and 1935 compelled the Corps of Engineers to build the Addicks and Barker Dams. The dams combined with a massive network of channels—extending today to over 2,000 miles—to carry water off the land, and allowed Houston, which has famously eschewed zoning, to boom during the postwar era. The same story unfolded in South Florida. A 1947 hurricane caused the worst coastal flooding in a generation and precipitated federal intervention in the form of the Central and Southern Florida Project. Again, the Corps of Engineers set to work transforming the land. Eventually a system of canals that if laid end to end would extend all the way from New York City to Las Vegas crisscrossed the southern part of the peninsula." pics from the '47 archives in south florida: It's happened before. It's not global warming malarky. ...and there's this from businessinsider.com: Florida Keys hurricane, 1935 - 185 mph An unnamed storm that tore up the Florida Keys over Labor Day in 1935 is still considered one of the "most intense" storm in US history, based on wind speeds and pressure. The wind was so powerful it knocked a train, pictured here, off the rails as it was delivering emergency supplies.
I am going to be laughing in about 40 years when the world is dealing with natural global cooling and AGW has been debunked as the greatest scientific fraud in recent memory with Al Gore regularly mocked by comedians on late night media.
From Reddit: "Hi, my name is Negator and im addicted to talking to flattards. I think it's a sort of morbid curiosity we have about intellectual failure, and the weird thing is sometimes you can relate to the flat earthers. A healthy way to be involved with this is to use it as a chance to learn about the scientific method and learn how to cross-examine other people's data and do your own experiments and account for measurement error and uncontrolled variables. Personally I'd advise against prolonged exposure to any adamant flat earthers in real life, I had an experience living with a (possibly bipolar) old Christian lady (not a flat earther but equally ignorant of electrical power yet quite vocal on how to conserve it*) who often waited on the couch for me to get home to yell at me about insignificant mistakes I made. I tried to use science to show her she was deluded, only made things worse. You have to be tough skinned if you want to be scientific. reply1 Same here, its like watching something horrific while knowing that you should be looking away. reply2 It's scary when they say they have kids because you know they're going to be useless to them education-wise." Man made climate change deniers, the same zombie "flattard" mindest. These flat-earthers are obviously completely and utterly fucking stupid to even the climate change deniers here. Problem is the climate change deniers are the same looney bunch of patchy logic morons to us. FHL et all is what happens when your in the valley between actual useful knowledge and not a clue. *I met the same women in New Mexico I recon. On unplugging an appliance a plastic plug had to be inserted to stem the wasteful flow of electricity from the sockets.
Yeah Start, the psychology of these denier cultists is interesting and vexing. I play golf with a denier. When I ask him why, he says "I just don't believe it" When I ask why he says "I just don't". There is no logic. It is just the stance he has taken and nothing will change his mind. It's like those that have religious "faith". They need no logic for it and no logic will change their minds.
Actually jem and others have presented significant scientific evidence that man-made CO2 is not globally warming the earth to levels that are dangerous. All supported by leaders of climate departments at major universities such as Dr. Judith Curry. The climate change cabal is a religion; they have faith that AGW exists but limited scientific evidence based on realistic non-altered data.
Curry is in the consensus. Try again. Beyond the 97% consensus, no respected publishing climate scientist in the world denies man made global warming. None.
Yeah... let's take a look at Dr. Curry's most recent congressional testimony. On the Falsity of Climate Consensus: Judith Curry’s March 29, 2017, Testimony https://www.masterresource.org/curry-judith/judith-curry-truth-merchant-center-stage/ “Groupthink” … “sausage making” … “bullying” … “substantial uncertainties” … “premature consensus” … These terms were used by the scholarly Judith Curry in her important, the-future-will-note Congressional testimony last week against the neo-Malthusian, nature-is-optimal natural-science community. And what has she endured by leaving the “consensus”? Among other things, she has been labeled “serial climate disinformer” … “anti-science” … “denier.” It happened with Julian Simon regarding resource exhaustion and the ‘population bomb’ in the 1970s and 1980s; and it is repeated by the same crowd (with new faces) in the current era against skeptics of climate alarm. The panel experience was “bizarre,” according to Curry, who began her column: “where the so-called ‘deniers’ behave like scientists [Curry, John Christy, and Roger Pielke Jr.] and the defender of the establishment consensus [Michael Mann] lies.” The panel was another blow against ‘consensus science”. It was not so much the three-to-one advantage (welcome to the new politics!) as it was the performance of Michael Mann, whose emotionalism and lack of veracity were on full display. Surely at least some of the membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) took note of their bad apple. Will new voices in the physical science mainstream emerge in the new political climate to say, enough is enough? Can critics of high-sensitivity climate modeling (or modeling climate at all given the present state of theory) be given jobs or promotions in academia? Or has crony science taken over the profession? Will Michael Mann further self-destruct? Will he become a liability to The Cause like Al Gore? Might Mann’s ego be big enough to step on the stage against Alex Epstein? Here is the entirety of Judith Curry’s written comments, part of her submitted testimony as part of House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology hearing: Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method. It says much in its 620 words. Prior to 2010, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on human-caused climate change was the responsible thing to do. That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus. I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink in supporting the IPCC consensus. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy. I concluded that the high confidence of the IPCC’s conclusions was not justified, and that there were substantial uncertainties in our understanding of how the climate system works. I realized that the premature consensus on human-caused climate change was harming scientific progress because of the questions that don’t get asked and the investigations that aren’t made. We therefore lack the kinds of information to more broadly understand climate variability and societal vulnerabilities. As a result of my analyses that challenge the IPCC consensus, I have been publicly called a serial climate disinformer, anti-science, and a denier by a prominent climate scientist. I’ve been publicly called a denier by a U.S. Senator. My motives have been questioned by a U.S. Congressman in a letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech. While there is much noise in the media and blogosphere and professional advocacy groups, I am mostly concerned about the behavior of other scientists. A scientist’s job is to continually challenge their own biases and ask “How could I be wrong?” Scientists who demonize their opponents are behaving in a way that is antithetical to the scientific process. These are the tactics of enforcing a premature theory for political purposes. There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests. Owing to these pressures and the gutter tactics of the academic debate on climate change, I recently resigned my tenured faculty position at Georgia Tech. The pathology of both the public and scientific debates on climate change motivated me to research writings on the philosophy and sociology of science, argumentation from the legal perspective, the policy process and decision making under deep uncertainty. My analysis of the problems in climate science from these broader perspectives have been written in a series of posts at my blog Climate Etc. and also in 4 published journal articles. My reflections on these issues are summarized in my written testimony. The complexity of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Why do scientists disagree about the causes of climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There’s disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models and paleoclimate reconstructions. There’s disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance. Policymakers bear the responsibility of the mandate that they give to panels of scientific experts. In the case of climate change, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change framed the problem too narrowly. This narrow framing of the climate change problem essentially pre-ordained the conclusions from the IPCC assessment process. There are much better ways to assess science for policy makers than a consensus-seeking process that serves to stifle disagreement and debate. Expert panels with diverse perspectives should handle controversies and uncertainties by assessing what we know, what we don’t know, and where the major areas of disagreement and uncertainties lie. Let’s make scientific debate about climate change great again. This concludes my testimony.
I presented you science... and this was your response. in psychology they call what you do projection. How the hell could you be so purposely ignorant of the science and then call those presenting peer reviewed science those names. If you really understood the science you would say... well we are not sure but it seems co2 may augment natural warming we are just waiting for the science to prove it. but no, after your propaganda is destroyed by science you go with leftist detritus. You just exhibited a tremendous lack of intellectual integrity.