[Newsbot]

Title: Why is climate skepticism so successful in the United States?
Category: Science
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2020-01-21 08:37:57
Canadian

[DrCaleb]

The conclusions in this paper actually make a lot of sense for me. Cognitive bias, along with deep distrust of international organizations, plus a good sprinkling of FUD from the media that caters to those so disposed.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The conclusions in this paper actually make a lot of sense for me. Cognitive bias...

The conclusions support your preconceived notions so this is of no surprise to me.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

https://news.google.com/search?q=newfou ... id=US%3Aen

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The conclusions in this paper actually make a lot of sense for me. Cognitive bias...

The conclusions support your preconceived notions so this is of no surprise to me.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

https://news.google.com/search?q=newfou ... id=US%3Aen

Yes! You are exactly who I was thinking of. I had no preconceived notions, and your example that a huge unprecedented almost hurricane like snowstorm only goes to show your cognitive bias thinks it's proof against climate change; when larger more powerful storms were actually predicted in the 1990 IPCC report and this event shows it is a verification of climate change.

Just like the computer models showed.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/stud ... ons-right/

[N_Fiddledog]

"Why is climate skepticism so successful in the United States?" they ask.

Easy to answer. Because it's so easy for even the average guy to detect the BS in the claims of alarmists.

Let's start with the OP article's first sentence.

$1:

2019 is set to be the second warmest year on record, ending the warmest decade on record, another reminder that climate change is the defining issue of our time.

Getting a legitimate 'OMG we're all gonna die' out of that requires a certain determination to remain ignorant that one can only find in Progs and brain-trained teenage schoolgirls.

2019 is the second warmest year on record only if you want to believe taking the world's temperature is so exact you can get it down to tenths and in the top 4's cases hundredths of a degree.

https://i2.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/w ... C403&ssl=1

https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content ... 50x413.jpg

But you can't. It doesn't take a lot of reading - even accessible to the layman - that there are all kinds of problems with land surface temperatures in particular and even satellite measurements.

If it's obvious to you that the 2/10ths of a degree separating # 1 from # 6 is meaningless all you're going to get is a shrug of the shoulders and a "so what?"

Especially when the manipulation of temperature data is well known and subject to confirmation bias in the case of math manipulators like Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS.

Climate realists are known to question a lot of Gavin Schmidt's claims. On the other hand, Alarmists don't like Anthony Watts so if Doc wants to blow about some claim Schmidt's making that models match temps it's fair to listen to Watts explain why Schmidt's tendency to data massage needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2020/01/15 ... 5-for-usa/

Or you could just look at the link of that strutting rooster Gavin Schmidt's miraculous matching of models to temps and notice that Schmidt's graph of what global temps are has to claim temperature rise from 2000 to 2020 as being double what the satellite temps say it is in order to explain his miraculous model match.

So here's the answer to why the average guy isn't listening to the catastrophic global warming pitch. If we choose to pay attention you insist on ringing our BS detectors like you're a kid playing 'knock, knock nine doors.' Most people just choose not to pay attention.

[N_Fiddledog]

Hey can somebody quote this so Doc can give me an answer. It's something I've always wondered about.

NASA are the space guys, right? So why do Gavin and the other data manipulators at NASA GISS insist on using the Land Surface measurements? Not the satellites. Schmidt's predecessor at NASA, astronomer James Hansen, did it too.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The conclusions in this paper actually make a lot of sense for me. Cognitive bias...

The conclusions support your preconceived notions so this is of no surprise to me.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

https://news.google.com/search?q=newfou ... id=US%3Aen

Yes! You are exactly who I was thinking of. I had no preconceived notions, and your example that a huge unprecedented almost hurricane like snowstorm only goes to show your cognitive bias thinks it's proof against climate change; when larger more powerful storms were actually predicted in the 1990 IPCC report and this event shows it is a verification of climate change.

Just like the computer models showed.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/stud ... ons-right/

Right. Weather and climate are not the same thing (unless it's hot weather).

[Prof_Chomsky]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Hey can somebody quote this so Doc can give me an answer. It's something I've always wondered about.

NASA are the space guys, right? So why do Gavin and the other data manipulators at NASA GISS insist on using the Land Surface measurements? Not the satellites. Schmidt's predecessor at NASA, astronomer James Hansen, did it too.

Because satellites use a laser which measures the ground temperature where the laser touches, not the air temperature above it. There are too many factors that can influence ground temperature ranging from colour, consistency of the material, and light exposure. Whereas air temperature is what has always been historically measured using thermometers, and represents a more accurate overall temperature.

[Prof_Chomsky]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Right. Weather and climate are not the same thing (unless it's hot weather).

Also, if you speak English. Then weather and climate aren't the same thing.

"Weather is the condition of the atmosphere at a particular place over a short period of time, whereas climate refers to the weather pattern, using statistical data, of a place over a long enough period to yield meaningful averages."

[DrCaleb]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Right. Weather and climate are not the same thing (unless it's hot weather).

Also, if you speak English. Then weather and climate aren't the same thing.

"Weather is the condition of the atmosphere at a particular place over a short period of time, whereas climate refers to the weather pattern, using statistical data, of a place over a long enough period to yield meaningful averages."

I've given up explaining it to him. He knows the difference, and refuses to acknowledge it because that's his red herring bait.

[PluggyRug]

[BartSimpson]

Hey, Doc, you're the one who started this recent round of conflating hot weather and climate.

Remember your comment about Australia?

$1:

And no end to the hot dry weather in sight.

And when I responded to your comment about weather with the fact that the weather in Sydney was cooler and raining...

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You really need to check the local weather before posting such things.

https://www.google.com/search?q=austral ... e&ie=UTF-8

Thunderstorms and rain in Sydney right now.

The ten day forecast is mild summer temps, rain, and clouds.

https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/Sy ... 701ba6213e

What did you say to a response about weather that conflicted with your comment about weather?

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You keep skipping between opposites, like 'global' and 'local' or 'weather' and 'climate'. You should really lash that down.

I never did any such thing. You made this shit up and mocked me and ridiculed me for something I absolutely did not say and now you're stuck on it like a broken record.

[Prof_Chomsky]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Ironic analogy given you have the same understanding of the weather as Native Americans had 500 years ago.


Hey look, Dancing Squirrel changed the weather... err, or climate...

[Prof_Chomsky]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hey, Doc, you're the one who started this recent round of conflating hot weather and climate.

Remember your comment about Australia?

$1:

And no end to the hot dry weather in sight.

And when I responded to your comment about weather with the fact that the weather in Sydney was cooler and raining...

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You really need to check the local weather before posting such things.

https://www.google.com/search?q=austral ... e&ie=UTF-8

Thunderstorms and rain in Sydney right now.

The ten day forecast is mild summer temps, rain, and clouds.

https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/Sy ... 701ba6213e

What did you say to a response about weather that conflicted with your comment about weather?

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You keep skipping between opposites, like 'global' and 'local' or 'weather' and 'climate'. You should really lash that down.

I never did any such thing. You made this shit up and mocked me and ridiculed me for something I absolutely did not say and now you're stuck on it like a broken record.

I wasn't there for that fight, but surely you see the difference between rainy "weather" in Sydney, and a prolonged excessively dry and hot weather period across the majority of Australia (climate) that let historically large wild fires flourish?

[PluggyRug]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Ironic analogy given you have the same understanding of the weather as Native Americans had 500 years ago.


Hey look, Dancing Squirrel changed the weather... err, or climate...

Oh look, insults from a weather expert.