Deniers and their satisfaction?

Question

Do you consider that deniers get a personal kick out of appearing so ignorant on yahoo answers? Why do they post dumb questions and actually expect people to take them seriously? I have yet to read a single link that would even make me think twice about if global warimng is a fact. I actually consider that global warming has been so studied it is now an undisputed fact. And I am seriously wondering if we should have these people commited to an asylum for their and our own good.

Answer 1

You mean deniers like these people?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

Or have you bought into the propaganda that 99% or all experts agree, and the ones that do not are lunatics and paranoid conspiracy theorists.  A survey done by climatologists shows that only 56% of them agree with the notion that the rise in temperatures are due to man.  And of those 56%, only 9% are absolutely, 100% certain.  Which begs the question, if they are dishonest about this issue, what other issues are they being dishonest?

http://downloads.heartland.org/2086111.p...

Answer 2

Everything you said is equally applicable to religion.  Lots of people have studied religion and people who belong to religious faith can by quite critical of those who deny their faith.

Answer 3

Wow Fred, wonderful thinking.  Put away everyone that is not like you.  Just like the Salem which hunts or the Mcarthyan trials.  Wow what a brain child you are.  I am sure the warmers are glad you are on their side.  Maybe you can be the leader of the AGW Inquisition. OK folks get your pitchforks and torches ready, Fred is going to lead you all on a big witch hunt. I think  you may be more ignorant than those you criticize.

Answer 4

Fred, I am a skeptic, not a denier. I believe in Global Warming, but I am not yet totally convinced that man made CO2 is the cause. It is important we get it right.

I have no problem with using alternative forms of energy to reduce pollution and our dependence on foreign oil. It is all good.

I believe well meaning "Environmentalists" like yourself killed our primary viable option for alternative energy in the 80's by killing Nuclear power, when our engineers and scientists were trying to get off oil. Now we are worse off because of decisions based on "Feelings", not facts.

I am an Engineer. I have spent probably more years than most on this site have lived studying energy sources and their cost/viability.

Why do you assume skeptics are "Ignorant", "Dumb", etc.? Obviously, this is not true. If you read or study many of the skeptics papers, they are at least as well educated and experienced as the IPCC, and much more educated and experienced than the Politicians and Actors which are proponents.

Have a great day, mate.

Answer 5

This is not about opinions, it is about science

We have to stop listening to ignorants who don´t have at least a BSc in a relevant field.

I basically agree with you.

Wait 1 or 2 hours and the level of discussion will collapse... guess why?

Answer 6

LOL...that is one of the funniest things I have read on yahoo answers....LMFAO

Answer 7

...because our American friends will come on line. They're still arguing about evolution over there so don't hold your breath.

Answer 8

me too

if they hate global warming so much, then why do they even bother going on this part of yahoo answers?

Answer 9

As an American skeptic, I would like to respond.  In 2007, a great deal of peer-reviewed literature was published showing that rising CO2 is not going to be catastrophic - at least over the next 50 to 100 years.  While skeptical scientists in other parts of the world are also making contributions, all of the research below was published by American scientists.  Perhaps you are unaware of the research.

Roy Spencer from University of Alabama in Huntsville published his observations on a negative feedback he and his team found while studying the troposphere over the tropics.  They identified this at the "Infrared Iris Effect" hypothesized by Richard Lindzen of MIT.  This is very important and explains, in part, why the temperature has not risen as much as predicted.

http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07...

Peter Chylek from Los Alamos National Lab published an article on the cooling impact of aerosols and found it to be much lower than expected.  He also concluded the climate was not as sensitive to rising CO2 as once thought.

http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate...

Stephen E. Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab, and the scientist responsible for the Acid Rain legislation in the 1990s, published a peer-reviewed paper with a new estimate of climate sensitivity of rising CO2.  He concluded the climate is only about one-third as sensitive as the IPCC had estimated.  

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCa...

Just recently, people have begun to do "forecast verifications" on predictions about global warming.  James Hansen offered one prediction before Congress in 1988 (when Al Gore was still a senator) and the IPCC published one in 1990.  It seems both of them dramatically overestimated how much temperatures would rise.  We now have 20 years of data to look at and they were just flat wrong.  

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2602

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promet...

Why should we spend billions of dollars to mitigate something   the science tell us is not going to be a problem?  We should be investing our money into developing new energy technologies, not into carbon credits.  Al Gore's company will make hundreds of millions of dollars trading carbon credits and we will not be any closer to independence from foreign oil.

Even the Washington Post admits that the number of skeptical scientists is growing.  The science is no longer on the side of the alarmists.