Why 61% of Americans don’t believe global warming is caused by man

Could it be the sales techniques?  In listening to warmist trolls and trying to interact, it occurred to me that these are the worst salesmen on earth.  Their techniques alienate.  Which may be why more science education equals less belief.

If global warming people sold cars:
Salesman: Hello, Mr and Ms Jones. I see you’re here to purchase a car. I have the perfect car for you. It’s a Honda Prius.

 
Mr. J: I’m not really interested in a Prius.

 
Sale: What? You aren’t considering buying a gas-guzzling SUV or something, are you?

 
Mrs J: We need an SUV for our business.

 
Sale: What business are you in—planet killing????

 
Mr. J: I don’t think this is a good idea.

 
Sale: I can make you a great price on that Prius. EVERYONE is buying Priuses. Everyone who is interested in the planet, that is.

 
Mr. J: You are insulting us and you want to sell me a car?

 
Sale: Not insulting. I’m trying to keep you from looking like one of those devilish conservatives who hate the earth. I’m trying to help you.

 
Mrs. J: It doesn’t sound like it.

 
Sale: That’s only because you’re not smart enough to understand sales. If you weren’t so uneducated, you’d know what a favor I’m doing you.

 
Mrs J: I’ve had enough. We’re out of here.

 
Sale: NO! I can make you an extraordinary deal. If you walk out now, you’re just affirming you’re redneck hicks.

 
Mr. J: We should leave NOW.

 
Sale: You are just hopeless fools. I am trying to tell you how to be like everyone else, join the consensus of car owners who KNOW how bad gasoline cars are and you hicks are just walking away. You are so backward and uneducated.

 
Mr. and Mrs. J get in their car and leave.

 
Manager: What happened Saleman?

 
Sale: Not my fault. Some people just don’t know when they are being helped. They were too dumb to buy here anyway.

 

Mr. and Mrs. Jones go to another dealer and spend $50,000 on a perfect SUV. The salesman at that dealership made a tidy sum and got a customer for life.  Salesman at the first dealership assures himself he did nothing wrong and only the pigheadedness of the couple kept them from making the right decision—to buy that Prius.

I think I see the problem in selling global warming…..

 

I can’t take it anymore……

Flaws in the Global Warming world

It’s time to return to some of the major problems in the global warming arguments—that humans are “polluting the planet” with “carbon” emissions.

First, it’s not carbon, it’s carbon DIOXIDE. To call it carbon is very, very indicative of someone who does not know science. Only a non-scientist would refer to CO2 as C (which is actually several isotopes of Carbon, C12, C13 and C14). That is the first clue that the person speaking is merely parroting what they have been told and do not really understand the science at all. One suspects they could be convinced O2 is a pollutant if enough scientifically sounding pronouncement were made on it. There would be a call to not add any O2 to the air. People with O2 machines would have them confiscated. In reality, CO2 is only called a pollutant if it can be used to limit some kind of activity the greens don’t like—say burning fossil fuels, raising cattle, making concrete. It’s fine if you’re flying to a conference on global warming—it’s only bad CO2 if it’s not used to save the planet from CO2.

Second, anyone who claims to believe in Darwin and natural selection and evolution should be laughing at the insanity of the claim of global warming. In order for global warming to be true, humans have to be mightier than nature. We must be Godlike in our current status. Or, more probably, we must be aliens to this planet. Otherwise, all that we do would be part of evolution and nature. How can a creature that evolved on the planet be destroying “nature”. The creature IS nature. Can we blame elephants for knocking over trees and trying to cause global warming with deforestation? Why not? The elephant doesn’t know what it’s doing? Maybe it does. Maybe it’s trying to remove the parasite called “humans” from the planet. If humans are a parasite, they’re a naturally evolved one, so trying to remove them means claiming evolution was “wrong” in making them. This all leads to simply ludicrous proclamation about how nature evolves and somehow one of the things it caused to evolve is not part of that nature now and must be eradicated via suicide.

Third—it’s getting warmer. No, the calculated global average temperature is going up. What does that mean? It means that the weighted, gridded, adjusted and estimated numbers taken from various methods of temperature measurement are increasing as shown by the trend line. What does this mean in the real world? No one has a clue. There’s nothing that can possibly tell anyone anywhere what a weighted, gridded , adjusted and estimated average of temperature measures over the globe mean. It is a wild guess that it means things will get ugly. It’s already been shown repeatedly that it does not mean warming everywhere, that children will know what snow is, that the ocean is not swallowing up New York (thought it certainly could swallow up places where people foolishly built right on the shore of the ocean. Living right up against the ocean has resulted in lost societies and it will again. Let’s not forget the ocean has risen and receded before in history. People can move. The idea that people cannot move is just silly. They don’t want to, but nature does care what people want. Get over it.), there are actually fewer tornadoes and hurricanes, etc. There’s more news coverage and more wailing and gnashing of teeth, but things are basically as they have always been.

Fourth, correlation is not causality. The earth getting warmer at the same time we are burning oil and gas does not indicate oil and gas are the cause. There is a phenomena called the greenhouse effect involving CO2 and re-radiating of energy. It’s very easy demonstrated in a lab setting. Now, take the CO2 out of the lab, put it in a box with unknown factors and get back to me on how accurate your predictions are. Better yet, let me create the boxes with currents, varying landscapes, varying winds, varying clouds, varying albedo, etc and you let me know how that “simple” physics works out. CO2 raises temperature in a lab box and in the atmosphere, but in the atmosphere, there is no way possible to know how much. This is seen in the inability of modelers to calculate cloud cover, etc, with any realistic resolution, the continual recalculating of how much warming there is, how much ice there is, etc. We simply do NOT know what is causing the warming. There is a good chance there are multiple factors and it will be decades, if not centuries, if ever, that we understand enough of the system to predict outcomes. Then, we’re faced with the “just because we can measure it doesn’t mean we can control it” reality.

Fifth, global warming is said to be causing everything, even logically contradictory things, like rain in one place, drought in another. Global warming believers say that’s because those things are local. Yes, they are. However, if you cannot accurately predict changes locally, global, to be blunt, is irrelevant. It in no way gives us any idea of how to prepare for changes which at one time was the goal, before stopping the warming meant income redistribution and a return to pre-industrial lifestyles. Of course, warmists will say nobody in their camp says that but every single idea outside of the money redistribution, involves 19th century technology like wind and solar stretched beyond breaking with the claim it can power today’s society. No. Never. No way. It cannot. It’s physics. Wind and solar lack a continual fuels supply and their energy density is comparable to using a match to light a football stadium. That leaves living 1800’s style. There are no other options.

Nuclear is the only “low-carbon” energy source that could effectively reduce CO2 and the environmentalists have made it a giant boogeyman to be feared more than starvation, freezing or death by some very ugly diseases. We’re right back to pre-industrial, no matter how loudly the warmist doth protest. The smoke and mirrors have cleared and the truth shines through.

80946-R1-18-19A_019

Say that again, really fast, and maybe it will make sense…..Nah.

Odds’n’Ends

A comment made on a blog got me thinking—if raising of global temperatures can cause localized cooling, in reality, it looks precisely like what we have now: weather that is averaged over 30 year intervals and called climate. Unless one looks at the statistical construct called “global average temperature”, there appears to be no difference between hypothetical raising of temperatures and current weather and climate. The weather remains the same—hot sometimes, cold sometimes.  Nothing really changes.  If we lacked computers and statistics, could we even imagine there was a difference?

 

Adélie penguins have roamed across Antarctica for millions of years. However, climate change has finally reached a ‘tipping point’ that could decimate their numbers, researchers have warned.   Daily Mail

If they have roamed the Antarctic for millions of years, how could humans, in less than 200 years, change the climate enough to destroy them?  In those millions of years, the ice NEVER increased or decreased?  No way.  Since we have no actual records of the events, the scientists can make up whatever they want, but logic says there is no way things stayed static the entire “millions” of years the penquins were there.  Nothing says the penquins now are the same as in the past, unless Darwin was wrong and evolution does not really occur.  There’s a habit of scientists calling things they want “stable” and anything inconvenient “unstable” with no rationale whatsoever.  This entire idea defies logic and reason.

 

Hansen acknowledged there may be flaws in the weather station data. “But that doesn’t mean you give up on the science, and that you can’t draw valid conclusions about the nature of Earth’s temperature change,” he asserted.
NOAA

So it’s okay to have bad data and still draw a conclusion?  In what alternate reality is that true?

 

Hikers aren’t permitted around there because towers are DANGEROUS TO PEOPLE, especially if you don’t know what you’re doing. High altitude icing on blades can crush a car once it’s ejected off a blade, let alone a human. High voltage switch gears will fry an individual. And then there’s always the worry of copper strippers, not a few of which have cut locks and torn apart towers, and not a few of which have fried themselves trying to cut energized equipment.

(from what appeared to be a pro-wind commenter on a blog)

This does not sound environmentally friendly to me.  Seems wind turbines are dangerous.  Multiple use around the turbines is a fantasy, if this comment is correct.  One wonders why this is not widely broadcast by the wind industry……Also, the dangers listed to people would also apply to wildlife in the area.  Not benign, by any stretch.

1984 and a new “illness”

From 1984 (the book):

“Winston practices ‘crimestop,’a Newspeak term for the automatic process by which the mind stops any dangerous thought.

“Crimestop refers to the ability to stop short of any thought that might be heretical or unorthodox before it is even thought, as if by instinct. It is the ability to misunderstand analogies, fail to perceive logical errors, and be repelled or bored by any train of thought or conversation that might” run counter to the government consensus.

Crimestop is not stupidity, or at least not natural stupidity. It is the ability to deliberately retard one’s own intelligence, and, of course, to forget the process of doing it by doublethink.

This describes some global warming believers perfectly.  They have only one argument, that of argument from authority.  It is literally inconceivable to them that anyone would go against consensus.  Any interactions with them are designed to humiliate or insult or bully the speaker into joining the consensus.  They are truly frightened by those who don’t follow the consensus line.

****************

Drama Delirium Infectus

Global warming activists would make high school drama queens blush. They make the women with the “vapors” look perfectly rational and fine. The level of angst and drama is at an historic high. Even the male of the species has been stricken with the affliction—drama delirium infectus. The illness runs rampant in the global warming community. It is unknown whether the affliction is contagious, but it is certain it can be faked to avoid being labelled a denier or an outcast. No cure is in sight and with the “hockey stick” of infection intensity still rising, no one can predict how widespread the affliction will become.

Another symptom of drama delirium infectus is the inability to understand why claiming warming causes cooling is a problem. Of course, the usual answer is “Climate does not change evenly everywhere”. Really? I though global warming meant the globe got warmer. That’s what the term means. If it in reality means that some places will get hotter, some colder, some drier, etc, then it means the climate will be as it always has been—changing over time. That would mean that global warming is just nature and we should not worry. NO! That can’t be. It’s important that the globe is warming. Using a mathematical average of widely varying inputs, interpolations and extrapolations, corrections and so forth, there is an increase of nearly one degree in the average over 100 years time. What does this mean? It doesn’t mean climate is getting hotter, because some places are colder. Some are drier, some are wetter. Climate as usual. Only one infected with DDI could see things behaving as they always have as a threat to humanity and somehow an insidiously changed environment. It is very sad that these people are incapable of ever experiencing life without fear.

Call me when it’s safe out there.

Here we go again

realclimatescience.com/2016/05/scientists-recycling-the-identical-scam-century-after-century

Real Science has a post showing a newspaper from 1934 asking if the Arctic is melting and the Statue of Liberty will be partially submerged, followed by a headline from March 2016 with a similar story.

There’s an even more similar claim here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/unesco-world-heritage-climate-change-threats-1.3600924

It’s just a constant recycling of claims of impending doom.  The cartoons of people who stood on the sidewalk with signs saying “The End is Near” are being crowded out by the “scientists” of doom, global warming soothsayers.

For all our technology, we are just as gullible as those who sacrificed virgins to their gods in the hopes of getting rain, bought magic elixirs from traveling salesmen and bought plans for perpetual motion machines.  Human beings seem hopelessly mired in wishful thinking and what they wish for the most is their own demise, it seems.  And there’s always someone there to sell them the plans.

Call me when it’s safe out there.

Strolling through the internet wasteland of Warmists comments

I have gathered some of the more common responses by followers of the “global warming science”.  There’s no evidence of science, of course, but said persons are very persistent.  If only they had a clue what global warming is about and could actually articulate it.

You are one foul putrid pile of stench.

You’re a putrid piece of drek. A joke.

Your foul stench keeps growing.

Acquiesce and move on as I need a smarter, more competent, honest and knowledgeable opponent grounded in reality as a minimum and not a delusional gullible and easily duped nescient cretin like you. Now go play charades with other friends.

More lies and tantrums from you.
Your stench keeps growing.

Science requires no belief. if you weren’t a poseur you’d know that. Your comments and science “knowledge” indicate that you’re either a pernicious fool or a perfidious charlatan. Pick one.

More outright lies from you.

More childishly dishonest incoherent gibberish from you.
The last several comments I’ve posted have consisted of clear and unequivocal statements and conclusion of the overwhelming consensus of scientists about global warming including the following from the IPCC:
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that…..
(Note the “educated” warming believer is cutting and pasting from an old version of the IPCC report. He’s seven years behind the data.)

Revel in the anonymity of the internets that affords you delusions of grandeur about your education. You are no chemist, you’re an ignorant poseur.

Your entire non-argument consists of tantrums and insults….and outright lies and stupidity claiming global warming isn’t supported by science.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:
(Note that he says “opinion”, probably by mistake. He’s using IPCC Fourth Assessment here, too. Not sure if he knows there’s a five…)

Repeating your tantrums makes your stench even worse.
Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.
(Arguing we vote for scientific truth and only the scientists whose salaries depend on agreeing with the theory get to vote.)

“This is truly a historic moment,” the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said in an interview. “For the first time, we have a truly universal agreement on climate change, one of the most crucial problems on earth.”
(Arguing that politics are what determine science, again.)

Your comments and science “knowledge” indicate that you’re either a pernicious fool or a perfidious charlatan. Pick one.
(Second time said person used this statement—no originality.)

Your usual incoherent gibberish.
No…the Pope’s statement about global warming has nothing to do with Catholic Church doctrine.

More unhinged incoherent garbage from you.

Get psychiatric help.

Like a jerk with a single digit IQ.
You’re a joke.
(I pointed out that someone with a single digit IQ could not type on the computer, but the “extemely knowledgable” commenter was unfazed.)

You’re like a small child.

You’re not a scientist. You’re a layperson who hasn’t the foggiest idea how science works and are just repeating nihilism in order to justify your own ideological predispositions.

And scientists the world over unanimously agree that AGW is a real threat.

You do realize that climate and weather aren’t the same thing, right?
(However, it is ridiculous to argue this way, since climate is weather averaged over a long period. They are absolutely intertwined. You cannot have climate without weather and weather directly affects climate.)

99% of the comments – on every article – on this website – are totally idiotic.

This isn’t trolling. This is calling it as it is.

My very favorite:

****You’re wrong because it is obvious you have never taken a science class. Scientific theory trumps all laws and scientific facts which are used to develop the theories. It is true science is the best explanation but not necessarily the truth. The truth will never be known. AGW is scientific theory with 100% consensus among all current climate science researchers who publish their findings.

Who knew facts and scientific law were trumped by theory.  Then there’s the 100%—ever Cook was content with 97%.  The complete ignorance is mind-boggling.

 

I cant’ take it anymore……