A question for climate change deniers?

• Why do some deniers treat other people with such contempt and disrespect?

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2007/09/20/l...

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/June09/pizarro...

• Given that most deniers clearly have little comprehension of the subject matter, why are they so presumptuous to assume they know more than anyone else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

• Are the deniers actually aware how desperate they appear when making such outlandish claims?

no. see above.

Sorry Trevor, I have no ready answers to your questions but I suspect that the tone of such questions does more harm than good.

Please try and rise above the insults and foolishness you experience from deniers and continue to present the facts on global warming and the solutions.

Best wishes for a more sustainable world.

It's not hard to see that all your going to get as answers to this are schoolyard retorts of "I'm not, you are"

(see Bravozulu or Jim's answer) or the musings of the fantasy world Richie lives in.

"Climate Change is 99.999999999999999% natural and you know it!" rubbish! and he knows it!

The only answer these people have for science and data is it's fake or it's a conspiracy

Bravu quotes similar nonsense and uses a Watts link (again by Steve Goddard) to back it up, which is on Arctic sea ice, it make all the usual noises about the Arctic being fine, yet this graph

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data...

in the middle of the story clearly shows at the peak of Summer for the last 3 years extent has dropped by between 1million sq km to almost 3million sq km below the long term average.

The Watts story ended with this "The next few weeks will be slow news"

And it must have been, as Watts has posted no more on the Arctic, possibly because since he posted this nearly 10 days ago, Arctic sea ice has has done little else but decline.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im...

and is now back near the record low levels.

These are people who regularly change the theory or conspiracy they are pushing, so they either have some sort of 'groundhog day' syndrome or they don't really care about the issue at all and are just trolling. One week it's the Sun, then it's clouds, then it's volcanoes, then it not happening or of course the endless conspiracy theories.

Well, here is some information you might not want to hear.

1. If the entire Arctic ice melts, all the floating ice on earth melted, sea level would not rise any. For sea level to rise, ice on land must melt, Antarctica has 90% of the land ice. Antarctica also had the most ice ever recorded in 2008. Satellites show atmospheric temperatures above Antarctica to be cooling since records began in 1979. Temps in Antarctica average 55 below zero F, so ice there is not going to melt anytime soon, in fact, the ice is growing.

2. Arctic ice was lower in past summers but is now recovering. Ice extent in April was equal to the average of the last 30 years. There was 24% more ice in September 2009 than two years prior. Winds and unusual currents caused the reduction in ice, as the winds have returned to normal, the ice has grown back. The Arctic ice grew until March 30th this year, this is the latest date ever recorded that the ice has continued to grow, and demonstrates that conditions favor ice formation, not melting.

3. Satellite measurement of atmospheric temperature is the only way to accurately measure global temperatures. We have records since 1979. Satellites show atmospheric temperatures are cooling since 2002.

4. CO2 can not cause, by itself, temperatures to rise more than about 1 deg C, even if levels double or triple. CO2s ability to absorb heat is logarithmic, meaning the more CO2 there is, the less heat it can absorb. Rising levels of CO2 can only cause temps to rise above 1 Dec C if they also cause positive feedbacks, heat trapping cirrus clouds, more atmospheric moisture, or fewer clouds. Observation shows this does not happen. When temperatures rise, there is less atmospheric moisture, fewer cirrus clouds form, low level clouds form that cause temperatures to cool.

5. There were three ice ages with more CO2 than today, one had fifteen times more CO2, one had five times more.

6. Never in the geological past, is there a connection between rising levels of CO2 and temperature change.

7. Polar bear populations are today, the largest, ever recorded.

8. Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago. Sea level rise ha slowed in recent years, it has not increased.

9. rising levels of CO2 will not cause the oceans to acidify. Coral reefs thrived in the past, when CO2 levels were ten times higher than today and temperatures ten degrees warmer. the oceans have stripped CO2 from the atmosphere in the geological past, this is where limestone comes from.

10. solar activity is the reason temperatures change, or at least, one of the most important factors.

The sun was the most active in the past five decades than the last 10,000 years.

11. Argo has over 3,300 sea buoys that float all the global oceans, they dive 700 meters and send the ocean temperature data to satellites. Argo has shown that the oceans are slightly cooler since this system began in 2002.

Well, there is a lot more data, lots and lots more. www.isthereglobalwarming.com

The man made global warming scare is a cruel hoax infortunatly, intentional or not, still there is no data to support it.

For some reason anyone who questions the global warming theory is deemed a criminal with some kind of scheme in mind. If there are criminals or schemers, it is with the warmers and not those who question the theory.

Although I personally believe that the Earth is billions of years old and that all life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor, creationists are, by definition, people who take the Bible literally. The Bible which creationists believe in forbids idolatry. Worship of oil, coal and SUVs is blatant idolatry.Even though many many creationists may be skeptical of global warming because they do not have all of the facts, someone who is sincere in their belief in creationism could not be a real denialist. Senator James Inhofe, Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell and George W Bush do not actually believe in creationism but claim to because creationism is what their audiences want to hear. "Are most warmers left wing elitist snobs? Apply your answer to this question to your own." "Warmers" care about those who are most hurt by global warming. Denialists only care about themselves,their gas guzzling SUVs, and the wealthy who could build dikes when sea levels rise. Who are the elitist snobs? "You ask BB “can you name one climate scientist, global warming activist, or pro-environment politician who thinks the earth is flat?” I would answer yes, if you can find one that believes in Spontaneous generation, Equivocal generation, Abiogenesis or Biopoesis." Why wait for someone to produce examples of those scientists to produce an example of a scientist who is a flat-earther? Could it be because you have no such examples? "Is it because, deep down, you know that AGW is a religion and a cult and that you really can't have a logical overlap with Christians?" I will answer that question. Christians are to love the Lord their God with all their heart, all their soul, all their mind and all their strength. Protecting the creation honors the creator. (God did create the Earth, just not in the manner that creationists claim.) Christians are also to love their fellow human beings as themselves. It is Christian to protect everyone's life support system.

It is funny all of the bandwagon Algalore followers very seldom actually mention numbers. What is the one? 31,487 Scientists >9000 with PHD's say no to Global Warming! What part of the atmosphere is CO2 =0.04% in the trace gasses of the atmosphere Oxygen is about 20% . Of the 0.04%CO2 man's contribution is 3.5% the rest is natural CO2. Figure out the chemistry of it. Tom Segalstad, Piers Corbyn , Dr Don Easterbrook, In God We Trust All others bring Data.

• Why do some deniers treat other people with such contempt and disrespect?

I would say that it has something to do with the fact that they aren't being listened to. I mean, look at the answers from jim and bravo... Disrespect right off the bat, contempt for anyone not of their opinion, one link to a denier blog** (not related to the question or even *anything* anyone else said).

• Given that most deniers clearly have little comprehension of the subject matter, why are they so presumptuous to assume they know more than anyone else?

Oh, they don't just think that they know more, they also think that they are far more intelligent. It's actually the basis of the attitude displayed in the previous question. Personally, I think that it's born from insecurity which accounts for the way that they lash out.

• Are the deniers actually aware how desperate they appear when making such outlandish claims?

No. They couldn't be. At least not until after the fact, at which time they will most likely simply deny that they are desperate or that their claims are outlandish and simply retreat farther into their fantasy of being supra-geniuses who couldn't possibly be wrong.

PS (2) – Deniers, if you do answer this question please do just that – answer the question. And if you are going to make any claims please back them up with credible references.

Isn't it funny how jim and bravo like to pretend they are scientists, but can't follow a simple instruction and answer direct questions? I know that I wouldn't want to be anywhere near wherever bravozulu is responsible for chemicals...

Edit:

"I think he just called himself [bravozulu] a denier." -Dana

Worse than that... He just called himself a leftist!

_

Mostly these are people that listen to way too much right wing radio. The right wing radio dummies have consistently dumped on everyone not a 'conservative'. As 'conservatives' are against everything that doesn't wave a flag or shake a cross or lower taxes for the rich and the corporations or attempts to put some restrictions on corporate bad behavior they're not really capable of dealing with any reality but their own. Anyone who defends science and reason is suspected of being a 'far left liberal' that hates America. True, should we restrict the use of coal and oil the coal and oil industries will be hurt, and for the current GOP/Teabag party, the folks that pimp for these industries they're are not going to let that happen if they can help it. Therefore, they attack 'Al Gore', solar and wind power, conservation, cap and trade and raising the CAFE standards. The also attack science, scientists, scientific data, the scientific method and scientific publications as being 'liberal' and dedicated to the advancement of socialism. You can hear these absurdities 24/7 on right wing radio and FOX 'News'. By using this hard sell propaganda they've convinced a lot of people that science endangers them. Propaganda works, that's why they do it. They get a lot of mileage out of dumping on science, gays, government, poor people and the concept of people paying taxes. What we're up against is a political cult of both true believers and manipulative mother#$%^ers. Given that this crew of crazies will probably take over the federal government in the next election cycle you can can kiss any movement toward dealing with our various problems goodbye...climate change included.

bz said:

"http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/09/wu%E2%80%A6

Who are really the deniers. Scientists who use logic or leftists that get their information from propaganda sites and spread misinformation?"

You won't find any scientists that use logic at wuwt. Nevermind the logic part, you won't find any scientists there.

There is really no reasoning with somebody that considers NASA and NOAA to be be propaganda websites. BZ better make sure his foil hat is on tight, because the black helicopters are coming.

people are people good and bad in all

who says deniers have little comprehension, you are generalizing, and not all of us presume to know more than anyone else, but we can read and use common sense and assimilate facts for instance that much of the data coming out of the university of east anglia and others, was deliberately

manipulated to support pre determined outcomes , this is no longer in question but an undeniable fact.

Hence much doubt has correctly been raised regarding some of the global warming claims.

we are not desperate at all , we are just amazed at how easily people are led by their noses!

ps thanks!!!! lies and conceit again are not unique to any group.

ps just read the newspapers,people like lawrence solomon