Climate Change Denial: Why?

a reply to: TheRedneck

You said it better than I ever could. It's why I will remain skeptical.

a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

I haven't watched that 1:45 video yet but,

The climate changes, it's not man's fault.

Living organism are capable of wiping themselves or others out on a global scale. Dunn, Dunn, Dunn

Back in the old days, before free oxygen (02) was in the atmosphere, life was simple and anaerobic (living without air), but then, photosynthesis changed all that and caused

The Great Oxygenation Event (GOE), also called the Oxygen Catastrophe, Oxygen Crisis, Oxygen Holocaust, Oxygen Revolution, or Great Oxidation, was the biologically induced appearance of dioxygen (O2) in Earth's atmosphere. Although geological, isotopic, and chemical evidence suggest that this major environmental change happened around 2.3 billion years ago (2.3 Ga), the actual causes and the exact date of the event are very contested amongst the scientific community.
...
Oceanic cyanobacteria, having developed into multicellular forms more than 2.3 billion years ago (approximately 200 million years before the GOE), became the first microbes to produce oxygen by photosynthesis. Before the GOE, any free oxygen they produced was chemically captured by dissolved iron or organic matter. The GOE was the point when these oxygen sinks became saturated and could not capture all of the oxygen that was produced by cyanobacterial photosynthesis. After the GOE, the excess free oxygen started to accumulate in the atmosphere.

The increased production of oxygen set Earth's original atmosphere off balance. Free oxygen is toxic to obligate anaerobic organisms, and the rising concentrations may have wiped out most of the Earth's anaerobic inhabitants at the time. Cyanobacteria were therefore responsible for one of the most significant extinction events in Earth's history.

Dr. Tim Ball: famous for claiming CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas that Raises Global temperature. Period!
by Dr. Tim Ball on February 15, 2012

The Natural Resources Stewardship Project is a Canadian non-profit organization that presents itself as undertaking "a proactive grassroots campaign to counter the Kyoto Protocol and other greenhouse gas reduction schemes while promoting sensible climate change policy." The group was founded in October 2005.

A report in the Toronto Star on January 28, 2007 stated that the organization had not revealed who funds the Stewardship Project. The Guardian and Vancouver Sun stated in 2008 that the organization is funded by energy firms.
...
Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant(s). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection.

a reply to: raymundoko

Here is a good example of how you operate on here, when challenged with difficult questions and asked to back up your claims you just weasel out of it. I am not the only one you claim I have no clue what I am writing about. And for the record my memory is pretty darn good, except after a night of heavy drinking.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: jrod

From the looks of it I answered every question asked, and completely dismantled Greven's attempt at deflection. It was very clear Oceanic Isoprene was being discussed. Greven got butt hurt and tried to change the goal posts. I did not allow that to happen. Greven has always taken issue with me because he likes to be the smartest person in the room. The problem is he usually isn't.

Yet again you link something that proves you wrong. Quite hilarious.

a reply to: raymundoko

Wow. I am pretty sure your posts and your belief that you are always right and those who disagree with you are stupid is an indication that you are a narcissist.

You definitely were powned in that discussion.

a reply to: CynicalMark

But guess what??? Life was also more abundant... Flora and fauna flourished...CO2 is NOT a bad thing even if it does raise the global mean temperature.

Jaden

a reply to: jrod

pwned does not have an O in it.

Anyone can read that thread and realize I answered every question. Greven did not like that he was being showed up because he had beef with me from the Ferguson thread. Turns out I was 100% right in that thread too. We now know hands up don't shoot was a total lie.

Reactionary people will always be reactionary though. Emotions control their views. I don't think I called anyone stupid. If they end up looking stupid that's on them.

a reply to: raymundoko

Yep, I am pretty sure you just proved that you are a narcissist. In your opinion, are you ever not the smartest person in the room?

I shall repost this YouTube video because well it is worth reposting:

a reply to: jrod

What does that have to do with me? Are you seriously this dense? I also like that you are still getting your science from TV shows.

a reply to: jrod

And here we go... away from civility, removed from science, and square in the midst of political rhetoric.

There is some indications that CO2 is rising? This evidence is overwhelming, no reasonable person can deny that this is NOT occurring.

I made no statement disagreeing with increasing reported levels of carbon dioxide. Not one. I actually admitted it. What I said was (try to actually read it this time):

"There are some indications that carbon dioxide levels are both increasing and coinciding with increasing temperatures."

I even bolded the important part. I hope that helped.

Now that it has (hopefully) been established that I agreed with you. I suppose that I should stoop down to your level and start vehemently arguing semantics and slinging mud back and forth, with a few well-placed ad hominid arguments mixed in, but PublicOpinion has gotten me in a good mood. So let's stay on a scientific level, shall we?

How are carbon dioxide levels measured? Generally by their quantum signature, i.e. the frequency of radiation they emit. Luckily, carbon dioxide has a very specific absorption frequency (why it makes such a good lasing material) and we can easily detect that frequency. According to those readings, carbon dioxide levels are rising.

Is it possible other molecules have absorption spectra which overlap that of carbon dioxide? Have we taken those levels into account? Are we sampling enough of the atmosphere in enough locations to get an accurate overall picture? Are the sensitivities of the detectors used identical to those used last year? 5 years ago? 20 years ago?

The same thing applies to temperature. How is the calibration of sensors maintained over time? Are external influences considered? How are they compensated for? Is the spacing and coverage of sensors appropriate to give a reliable overall indication?

Please let me know if you think any of these questions are irrelevant.

This is science. Our results show an indication. Now we have to refine those results. We keep testing, thinking, looking for outside influences until we are convinced our results are correct, then we report that we have indications. Eventually, we might graduate to the level of "we are confident that," but only after an awful lot of other scientists have done the same thing with their equipment and experiments, and have gotten the same indications.

On your video...

Neil is an asset to the scientific community. I am so glad he took over for the late, great Carl Sagan as a populist spokesman for scientists. We need that. Most people can't understand most scientists. Neil, like Carl before him, boils the equations and experiments and discussions and hypotheses down to simple language for the people. He does an awesome job... apparently a much better job than I do.

But it's still a boiled down version. Watching him does not make you a scientist. It's not supposed to.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

jrod has always acted this way. I think he has a post it next to his computer screen of questions to ask over and over again.

He once asked me twice in the same thread to explain what exactly I believe concerning climate change. The first time I explained it. About 20 pages later I linked to my first explanation and he said he didn't want a link, he wanted an explanation. I will have to find it. It was probably 2 years ago.

I will explain it again since he seems confused:

co2 is rising.
We are warming.
Man contributes.
How much we contribute and how fast we warm is where I start to question the emperor.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Politically, Global Warming is a power grab and propaganda campaign. That is bad enough, but it is even more: There have been multiple instances where scientific conclusions and methodologies have been found to be politically motivated. That is collusion and one of the worst things a scientist can be accused of. My emotional responses (and there have been some in the past) have been criticized; they stem from the fact that this politicization of scientific research has severely (and maybe irreversibly) damaged the confidence the public has in scientific conclusions.

The propaganda is from two different sides. It doesn't make it easy to find the facts. The propagandists from both sides will hand you a massaged, dumbed down, lowest common denominator, "so easy that a caveman can understand it" message. Perhaps the litmus test should be something like, "If you didn't have to bust your ass to understand it then maybe some one's trying to sell you something." But then on the other hand, it could be as simple as Dr. Tyson's 4 minute video, but it takes billions of dollars to twist the simple into something complex enough to make sure someone can profit. Traders on the one hand and energy companies who want business as usual on the other.

The inaction stemming from the ambiguity created in the minds of people by the two profiteering sides will save us? kill us?

Does working on Masters give you access through University to papers that may describe actual methods and models used? You were asking Public Opinion about computer codes.

a reply to: raymundoko

Well, I don't believe in living in the past.

You're just a little farther toward acceptance of Global Warming theory than I am, but not much. Where I am:

Carbon dioxide is rising... probably, looks like it.
We are warming... really unsure, but quite possible.
Man contributes significantly... probably, but can also probably compensate.
How much we contribute... unsure.
How fast we warm... very very questionable.
Warming is bad... doubtful.
Sea level rise... highly skeptical.

I blame my slow acceptance on the questionable ties to politics I mentioned earlier. I was actually on-board with Global Warming until those allegations started to come out.

Now it's hard to believe anything until I have read the entire report personally.

TheRedneck

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So, everyone - can you answer the question "Why?" from the title in one word?
Six words or less?

That would expedite and facilitate the thread's resolution.

"Laboratory contaminated by feces from oligarchy"

How's that Buzzy Wings

a reply to: pthena

I cannot argue with that. But either way, it's propaganda.

I do get access to IEEE papers myself. UAH may have access to other organizations through their lab computers... never tried it, TBH. I know they are connected with NOAA and NASA... I work right across from SWIRLL.

Semester starts a week from today... maybe I'll have time to check.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So I got a little carried away.

In short you are not convinced CO2 is definitely rising because you do not trust the data points? This has been observed all over the world, not just Hawaii.

Where do you think all the excess CO2 from our coal/oil addiction goes? This something that can be measured in billions of tons a year, we can make good calculations based on our oil/coal consumption.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: raymundoko

Well, I don't believe in living in the past.

You're just a little farther toward acceptance of Global Warming theory than I am, but not much. Where I am:

Carbon dioxide is rising... probably, looks like it.
We are warming... really unsure, but quite possible.
Man contributes significantly... probably, but can also probably compensate.
How much we contribute... unsure.
How fast we warm... very very questionable.
Warming is bad... doubtful.
Sea level rise... highly skeptical.

I blame my slow acceptance on the questionable ties to politics I mentioned earlier. I was actually on-board with Global Warming until those allegations started to come out.

Now it's hard to believe anything until I have read the entire report personally.

TheRedneck

Very well put. I am close to where you are at. I wonder how much the solar cycles affect the climate, both short term and long term, and I also wonder if any of that is known, how much is factored into the current climate models?

Also, in learning about sea level rise, there are some interesting facts that are hard to find when wading through all the pages and pages of AGW propaganda. Seal Level has been on a very steady rise for thousands of years, and the main cause is land sinking, not water multiplying or ice melting, although that does happen. So why is it so hard to find factual evidence that makes some of the key points of AGW hyperbole? Politics. (IMHO)

a reply to: jrod

'Not convinced' is a little strong. 'Tentatively convinced' would be more apt a descriptor.

As to where it goes... photosynthesis (there is substantial evidence that plants assimilate more carbon dioxide due to accelerated growth under increased carbon dioxide concentrations) is one option; another would be commercial/industrial use... I'm honestly not sure if anyone is harvesting atmospheric carbon dioxide or not.

It's quite probable that neither of these is sufficient to completely offset our production, but it is also possible they can be a substantial offset.

I do not deny that carbon dioxide levels are rising. I do believe if we could curb deforestation and get the gunk out of the oceans, they would rise substantially slower (if at all).

TheRedneck

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TheRedneck

So I got a little carried away.

In short you are not convinced CO2 is definitely rising because you do not trust the data points? This has been observed all over the world, not just Hawaii.

Where do you think all the excess CO2 from our coal/oil addiction goes? This something that can be measured in billions of tons a year, we can make good calculations based on our oil/coal consumption.

thick much?

Carbon dioxide is rising... probably, looks like it.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Phytoplankton can be a big CO2 sink. I remember my college professors mentioning this and possible ways to seed more phytoplankton. Unfortunately pollution can kill phytoplankton.

Ultimately we need to curb our CO2 emissions.