Why climate deniers are winning: The twisted psychology that overwhelms scientific consensus

Salon ^ | April 19, 2014 | Paul Rosenberg

[21twelve]

The percentage of CO2 that mankind produces is an effective .118% of the greenhouse gas effect. Add in methane and some other gases, we contribute about 0.28% of effective greenhouse gases.

Naturally occurring water vapor accounts for 94% of the greenhouse effect, which makes Earth habitable.

Of course facts don't matter to these One World Order types.

[Tucker39]

As this Rosenberg dude droned on and on and on and proved nothing, I was reminded of the quip: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$h!t.

[Mike Darancette]

To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell:

“I beseech you (Climate Weenies), in the bowels of Christ, to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.”

[Go_Raiders]

Oh I agree that CO2 isn’t a problem. I just wanted to point out the whole debate is silly, because what is best for both sides is obvious and could be easily implemented, except for ignorant fear of nuclear power.

That the side who claims to want to follow the science is ignorant to this scientific fact is humorously ironic.

[Organic Panic]

In other words...

We don’t know what’s going on. Only it is going to require the elimination of liberty and confiscation of your property.

[Pollster1]

And there was a substantial list of more than 90 major impacts already recorded on every part of the planet.

Fascinating. "Climate" is reported to have warmed by less than one degree, and there are already 90 major impacts? Who would have guessed that the earth was so delicate? Considering that there have been many far larger climate swings in the past, I'm left wondering why we can no longer handle natural change.

[Intolerant in NJ]

...scientific consensus... "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory." (Hawking) - real scientists do not insist that their findings are infallible and that no one dare talk about the alternatives, let alone libel those who disagree with them as "deniers" - real scientists......

[publius911]

Why climate deniers are winning: The twisted psychology that overwhelms scientific consensus

A ray of hope. How reassuring.

"Scientific Consensus" is a poor substitute for actual science.

[Swordmaker]

“Using that approach we showed that as uncertainty in the temperature increase expected with a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels rises, so do the economic damages of increased climate change,” Lewandowsky continued. “Greater uncertainty also increases the likelihood of exceeding ‘safe’ temperature limits and the probability of failing to reach mitigation targets. Likewise, in the context of sea level rise, larger uncertainty requires greater precautionary action to manage flood risk.”

As for the impact on policy, Lewandowsky said, “We show that the adverse effects of uncertainty are ‘leveraged’ and hence amplified by more emissions. It follows that to reduce the adverse effects of uncertainty, we should curtail emissions. This is a pretty strong imperative, but our papers don’t prescribe an exact target for emissions. As I noted above, we cannot answer ‘how much’ questions, we can only say ‘less (pollution) is better.’”

Say what? in other words, the more uncertain they are that anything is happening, the MORE important it is to do something! Don't just stand there because you are uncertain... DO SOMETHING STUPID, STUPID! Especially if it's expensive and gives us more power!

[Yardstick]

Liberals specialize in tendentious psychoanalysis.

[publius911]

Is it the twisted fact that science is not "consensus"?

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

Michael Crichton, Caltech Michelin Lecture – January 17, 2003

[ROCKLOBSTER]

There is not a scientific consensus.

What is that exactly?

Shouldn't all the other scientists be conducting their own research and experiments, clamoring to try and disprove it?

[TChad]

Why climate deniers are winning:

[Gene Eric]

I agree considering the following:

>> Same with your reports with scientific verbiage

.. the reports ...

>> You’re fooling no one.

The “scientists” ...

[Gene Eric]

>> I like that global warming is now climate change.

The accusers argue like irrational bitches. Most given average or less intelligence; ergo, Dogma of the Skank Whores.

[facedown]

Proof positive of what years of habitual psychotropic drug ingestion can do for you.

[GOPJ]

If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.-W.C. Fields

Fits....

[Wuli]

jibber jabber jibber jabber jibber jabber

[Democrat_media]

global warming is a hoax democrats create to grow socialism and enslave us

If you made $100,000 per year after taxes then you could buy anything you could ever need in the free market because someone would produce it for money( look at the millions of products for sale on Google , internet , ebay , amazon,Walmart, Dollar Tree etc etc). So we don’t need government for ANYTHING. A private company created a whole city DISNEY WORLD in Florida. So democrats create fake crisis like “global warming”,”no health insurance crisis” to justify the very existence of government and the continued growth of government(socialism)

government is the enemy and the problem. the news media and democrat party are also the enemy and the problem

I’m proud to be a climate denier : come and get me you communist Obama and communist democrats

[freedumb2003]

>>Not quite. You forgot the HIV=AIDs scam.<<

I stand almost corrected. That wasn’t science, it was the medical community (a splinter subset). Medicine has found all sorts of false correlations but unless they involve drugs that have to pass FDA (and even then sometimes not), they are not subject to Scientific Rigor.