Hey climate deniers - are you smarter than a 5th grader?

Originally posted by mc_squared
I didn't say I'm not here to vilify anyone, I said I'm not out to vilify those who actually act like true skeptics like Curious and Concerned obviously is. I in fact cherish the opportunity to actually get to discuss this topic open-mindedly, sanely, and constructively with people like that.

It's simple common sense you accuse everyone else of lacking.
See, whether you choose a different path, but still manage to insult people -is irrelevant.
You still did what you were accused of even if it was not your primary reason for being here.

However, even people who weren't professional with you (from your own illusory perspective)
shouldn't have to be insulted via your child-like snide remarks. You obviously have a LOT to learn
when it comes to interacting with "people."

Originally posted by mc_squaredOn the other hand - anyone who wants to make really narrow-minded, dim-witted comments that only feed the already overflowing pool of ignorance, and then arrogantly announce case closed - like Lemon.Fresh did on the first page, well yeah - all the condescending attitude contained in the title of this thread is dedicated to people like that.

Guess what? There is no case closed because you need conclusive proof..of which there is NONE.
Second, your horrible people skills diminish ANY point you attempt to convey ITT.

I never insulted you.
I did make a joke about the Sun and how it is responsible for warming Earth.
If you took offense then I apologise for that. I thought this thread replete with negativity could
use some "sunshine" via satirical humour...

Originally posted by mc_squaredYou know, all those of you that get so offended at being labelled a "denier" - the way you react to this implication goes a long way in determining whether you actually are one or not. I didn't single anyone out in that title did I? I didn't say hey, all Christians, or all redheads - are you smarter than a 5th grader? So how do you even know I was talking to you?

Incorrect.
Either way I do not have a resolute stance on the issue because
-I'm not a Scientist.
-I do not have a perfect/concise understanding on the issue (of either side) because
-I do not know for certain ALL data received has been accurately obtained.

^^^Neither do you!!!^^^

(Empirical data eludes you, as did your reply to me concerning what it means)

If you cannot produce it, you cannot appear to KNOW more than anyone out there with
a difference of opinion because all you have are opinions backed by approved conjecture.

Now, if you were a Scientist, or an apprentice of one...Actually had access to the hardware
that is responsible for testing the environment and its variables which can conclusively
say XXX or YYY -I would be much more inclined to see your position.

Originally posted by mc_squaredThe fact is a title like this goes a long way to weeding out those who really do want to discuss it for the sake of truth, rather than those simply trying to protect their own egos. Yeah it might be a bit childish - but I have tried the nice guy approach enough times to only find out I'm wasting my time dealing with nothing but convictions and insecurities from people who just want to one up me and "win", rather than actually sort any of the facts from the fiction.

Just so you know for future reference:
I don't have an "ego."

What I want is empirical data collected by anyone whose #1 attribute is:
finding out the truth, whichever road that leads one to.

This also means that you have to also accept the possibility your POV is wrong and is
subject to the same changes and corrections a Scientific Theory is noted for.

reply to post by mc_squared


For my course that examines climate change, I will be doing a report on so-called climate deniers. I'll be looking at the individuals/corporations behind such denial. I'll be looking at the scientists that have recently become deniers themselves.

I have to thank you for stimulating my interest in this subject.

And for the last time, for the climate denial folks that are interested, I do not support a carbon tax or carbon credits. I appreciate your feeble attempts to stereotype me like you've done to Al Gore and George Soros.

LOOK at the bigger picture.

reply to post by The Sword


Hi Sword,

check out these recent books which will help your research:

Merchants of Doubt (Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway)

Doubt is the Product (David Michaels)

Both go beyond climate science, but they cover they cover the issues you would be interested in well. Naomi also has a talk or two on this topic knocking about (try youtube).

Reasons to Be Skeptical of AGW

* Carbon dioxide contributes to only 4.2 - 8.4% of the greenhouse gas effect
* Only approximately 4% of carbon dioxide is man-made
* Water vapor accounts for 90 - 95% of the green house gas effect
* 99.99% of water vapor is natural, meaning that no amount of deindustrialization could get rid of it
* There have been many times when the temperature has been higher than it is now including the Medieval Warming Period, the Holocene, the Jurassic, and the Eemian
* Increases in carbon dioxide follow increases in temperature by about 800 years, not precede them
* Phil Jones of the Hadley CRU, and key figure in the "climategate" scandal, admits that there has been no "statistically significant" global warming since 1995
* 2008 and 2009 were the coolest two years of the decade
* During the Ordovician period carbon dioxide concentrations were twelve times what they are now, and the temperature was lower
* Solar activity is highly correlated with temperature change:
* Studies show that half of all recent warming was solar
* Mars has warmed about 0.5°C since the 1970's, approximately the same that earth has warmed over the same period
* The 0.7°C increase in temperatures over the last century is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends
* The distance between Earth and Sun changes every year, affecting the amount of energy the earth receives
* Earth’s tilt oscillates between 21.4° and 24.8°, which affects the distribution of the sun's energy
* Dr. Roy Spencer has written that clouds have been a more important driver of climate than carbon dioxide since 2000
* Approximately 40% of the uncertainty in temperature projections come from uncertainty in the strength of the "feedback loop" between temperature and carbon dioxide. Recent research suggests the "feedback loop" is less than half as strong than many had presumed
* James Hansen of NASA said in a simulation of temperatures from 1880 to 2000 soot accounted for 25% of observed global warming
* Research suggests that soot could have nearly as much impact on climate change as carbon dioxide
* Antarctica has 90% of earth's ice and it is growing
* Arctic sea ice has returned to 1979 levels, which is when records began
* The Arctic ice caps have recovered from their loss in 2007
* The Arctic is now 1°C cooler than it was in the 1940's
* Polar bear populations are increasing
* Polar bears are able to swim over 60 miles continuously
* Sea level 81,000 years ago was 1 meter higher than it is now while carbon dioxide levels were lower
* According to satellite data, sea level has been decreasing since 2005
* Instead of hurting forests, the increased level of carbon dioxide has been helping them grow
* The official "record" for temperatures only goes back 150 years
* Although the IPCC may have 2500 members, only approximately 800 contribute to the scientific writing of the report
* Only 52 scientists contributed to the 2007 IPCC summary for policy makers, although diplomats from over 115 countries contributed
* Only 20% of the members of the IPCC deal with climate science
* Head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri has no background in climate science. His PhD is in economics and he worked as a railway engineer before becoming head of the IPCC
* Former IPCC lead author Ben Santer openly admits that he altered portions of the 1995 IPCC report to make them "consistent with the other chapters"
* John Christy, former lead author on the 2001 IPCC report, speaks of his former co-lead authors deliberately trying to sensationalize the report
*Richard Lindzen, another lead author on the 2001 IPCC report, accused the IPCC of being "driven by politics"
* Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph, which was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC report, was created using only portions of a data set.
* When asked to act as an expert reviewer on the IPCC's last two reports, Dr. Nils Axel-Morner was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist"
* Until 2003, the IPCC's satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend in sea level, so they used an increase of 2.3mm in one Hong Kong tide-gauge to adjust the entire global sea level up 2.3mm
* The IPCC's claim that the Himalayan glaciers were melting was based off of a phone interview with a non-scientist. They were forced to retract the claim
* The IPCC claim that global warming was led to increased natural disasters was based on an unpublished report that had not been subject to peer-review. They were forced to retract the claim
* The IPCC's claim that global warming was going to lead to deficiencies of up to 50% in African agriculture was based on a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper. They were forced to retract the claim
* The IPCC's claim that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation" was based on a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper. They were forced to retract the claim
* The IPCC reported that 55% of the Netherlands was below sea level when just 26% of the country is below sea level. They were later forced to retract the claim
* According to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHNC,) 90% of US climate-monitoring surface stations have been found to be "poorly situated," meaning that they have a margin of error greater than 1°C, more than the global warming in the entire 20th century. (The US surface data is generally considered the best surface data in the world):
* Temperature measurements from climate-monitoring surface stations are collected by hand. At one surface station in California, Anthony Watts found that only data from 14 out of 31 days had been completed in a month
* If a surface station is missing data for a particular day, data from surrounding surface stations is used to fill-in. Since 90% of all surface stations are poorly situated, even if a surface station itself is not poorly situated, if its data is missing for a day, there is a very good chance its temperature will be calculated using data from surface stations that are poorly situated
* In April 1978, there were 6,000 climate-monitoring surface stations. There are now about 1,200
* The vast majority of climate-monitoring stations that were lost were rural ones, which have been shown to give the most accurate data:
* The raw data is "adjusted" by a computer program. The net effect of this "adjustment" has been to increase the "adjusted" numbers over the "raw" numbers by .5°F, an increase that has been growing year by year:
* According to a leaked email in "climategate," "temperatures in Darwin [a monitoring station in Australia] were falling at 0.7 Celsius per century […]but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celsius per century. [...][W]hen those guys “adjust,” they don’t mess around."
* According to a leaked email in "climategate," computer programmer Harry Harris called the CRU data set "hopeless," and said "the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. [...]This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!"
* When looking at source code leaked in "climategate" used to "process" and "adjust" temperatures, software engineer John Graham-Cumming said he found at least five errors and "wouldn't trust it"
* The Hadley CRU, the institution at the center of the "climategate" scandal, threw out original temperature data because it claimed it did not have "storage space"
* In 1990, Dr. Phil Jones, the man at the center of the "climategate" scandal, contributed to a paper arguing that the effect of urban warming in eastern China was "negligible." This became a key reference source for the IPCC. It turns out that 49 of the 84 climate-monitoring stations used for this report had no history of their locations or other details. This included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had "certainly been moved" during the study period, including one that was moved five times over a total distance of 41 km. When Jones "re-examined" data in the same area for a 2008 paper, he found that urbanization was responsible for 40% of the warming found from 1951 to 2004
* Ross McKitrick and Patrick Michaels have argued that half of the global warming trend from 1980 to 2002 is caused by urban warming
* The Hadley CRU has been accused of using data from just 25% of Russia's surface stations, deliberately overstating Russia's warming by .64°C between the 1870's and 1990's
* According to emails leaked in "climategate," when "Climate Research" published articles by global warming skeptics, Phil Jones and others urged scientists to "stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal"
* William Connolly, a Wikipedia administrator and co-founder of Realclimate.org, a website that supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming, "touched" over 5,400 Wikipedia articles, routinely omitting voices that were skeptical of global warming
* Large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years
* The US government spends over $2.5B funding climate research every year, and over $7B when grants for technology, tax breaks, and foreign aid are included (this is while Exxon gave $22M to global warming skeptics over a 10 year period)
* Many scientist assert that government grant money is given preferentially to advocates of man-made global warming
* Bart Chilton, a CFTC commissioner, said "carbon markets could be worth $2 trillion in transaction value – [...]within five years of trading (starting). [...]That would make it the largest physically traded commodity in the US, surpassing even oil"
* The owners of the trading floor where the carbon credits will be traded, including Goldman Sachs and Al Gore, stand to earn trillions if cap-and-trade is passed
* The cap-and-trade bill allows the government police powers to come into your home and inspect it for "energy efficiency," and to fine you every day your home is not compliant
* Australian homes now have to undergo a mandatory energy-efficiency assessment - costing up to $1500 per property - before they can be sold or rented under new laws to tackle carbon emissions
* UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has called for "global governance structure" to monitor greenhouse gases, which everyone on the planet emits with every exhale
* The United Nations forecasts that the global population will rise, peak and then decline between 2050 and 2300 to just under 9 billion
* Despite proclamations that there is a "consensus" and the debate is "settled," 18% of scientists surveyed in the last poll trying to discern scientific opinion do not believe in man-made global warming
* 45% of Americans think global warming is man-made, down 9% from just half a year earlier
* In the court case Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills, a British judge ruled that there were nine "inaccuracies" in An Inconvenient Truth, including Gore's claim that sea level could rise by up to 20 ft. The IPCC's own report predicted a maximum rise of 59cm in sea level over 100 years. The Science and Public Policy Institute has taken issue with thirty five of Gore's claims in An Inconvenient Truth
* Al Gore bought a $4M condo feet from ocean in Fisherman's Wharf, San Fransisco, a city he had explicitly warned about in An Inconvenient Truth

Global Research Articles by Josh Fulton

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by mc_squared

 

For my course that examines climate change, I will be doing a report on so-called climate deniers. I'll be looking at the individuals/corporations behind such denial. I'll be looking at the scientists that have recently become deniers themselves.

I have to thank you for stimulating my interest in this subject.

No problem

Always nice to know there are some people here who actually pay attention to the content in my posts, instead of just focusing on what a party-pooping a-hole I am for raining facts and logic down all over their daily "down with science" propaganda parades.

Anyway, if you want any help digging up resources - feel free to U2U me.

On top of melatonin's excellent suggestions I'd also recommend a book called 'Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming' by James Hoggan, as well as these two superb investigative reports:

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

Originally posted by melatonin
Never mind confirmation bias, the Dunning-Kruger effect tends to be strong in deniers. I also happen to 'dabble' in psychology now and then, lol.

I don't even dabble so I had to wikipedia this Dunning-Kruger thing. But now that I did: holy smokes! That kind of nails it doesn't it?

I've always thought the denier phenomena is a special brand of ego and fear - interesting (and kind of scary) that it already has a name. If I was a psychology student I would be salivating at the chance to do a PhD on the special breed of Pavlov's dogs that are internet trained climate deniers.

reply to post by Nathan-D


Before I went away for the weekend I made a note to myself to gather up some links to highlight the absurd delusional nature of your last reply. Now I see that you must've realized how absurd it was since you've edited that part out since then. So because I already gathered up these links - I don't want to let them go to waste (resourcefulness is a central strategy of eco nuts like me). So I'm going to address what you wrote in your original post even though now it's conveniently missing.

Besides there's no point in responding to the rest since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about science wise. It's apparent you have trouble with semantics like "pound for pound", and you clearly still don't understand what the term "trapping" even means. And now you're trying to invoke Kirchoff's Law to rationalize your hopeless lack of comprehension - all without realizing Kirchoff's Law is EXACTLY what I was talking about in the first place when I wrote that CO2 "acts like a tennis racket" (i.e a spring, i.e. as in absorption = emission), and that it is a good one because it is "bendier and stretchier" (i.e. lots of absorption and thus emission at different angles, therefore reflection of IR radiation back to surface/throughout the rest of the atmosphere, therefore in effect "trapping" the heat from escaping directly into space).

So maybe it's my fault for being too subtle, but regardless it's obvious you have no scientific literacy of your own, you just like repeating technical terms without understanding what they mean. And so that's all the more reason to focus on the people spoonfeeding it to you instead:

Now before you edited your post you wrote some blurb about how you initially believed AGW "just like me", but then found the skeptic evidence to be "infinitely more robust".

The first problem with that is you were never initially like me because I never initially believed anything. I simply let the science and the evidence (both sides) amass and determine where my 'beliefs' should stand (not the other way around like you). And those "infinitely more robust" skeptics huh? Need I remind you:

Joanne Nova is a fraud
Steven Milloy is a fraud
Anthony Watts is a fraud
Pat Michaels is a fraud
The Wegman report is a fraud
Willie Soon is a fraud
Basically the entire Global Warming denial movement is a fraud
Marc Morano is a fraud (new!)

So in case you seriously haven't noticed yet - I've already spent many many hours looking at the skeptics side of the story. And if there was a legitimate case there I would have no problem admitting it, in fact I would even fight on its behalf.

But it is painfully clear how cherry-picked, error-prone, misrepresented, self-contradicting, deeply flawed, downright fraudulent, thoroughly debunked, illogical, ego-driven, agenda-laden, politically motivated, and underhanded, propaganda-laced, manipulative, aka infinitely more corrupt their so-called science is. I have shown you countless examples of this, and each and every time you respond by trying to change the subject or use some absurd hypocritical logic to write it all off like it's not relevant.

So I have no interest in continuing this pointless charade with you. You can cry all you want about how unfair the "denier" label is, but the fact remains that when you continue to DENY all of the above evidence, and then make ridiculously deluded claims about how "infinitely more robust" your sources are - all you do is reinforce your own pathetic stereotype.

It's as simple as that. Nothing else needs to be said on the matter until YOU satisfactorily address all these charges for once, instead of expecting only everyone else to be on trial for your biased delusions.

In the meantime yeah - thanks for the physics lesson! Dunning-Kruger effect. (Look into it).

reply to post by mc_squared

Now I see that you must've realized how absurd it was since you've edited that part out since then.

Posts only have a maximum of 180 minutes edit-time.

Besides there's no point in responding to the rest since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about science wise. It's apparent you have trouble with semantics like "pound for pound", and you clearly still don't understand what the term "trapping" even means.

I'm sorry, but it is wrong to say that CO2 "traps" IR. It absorbs, then re-emits multidirectionally. That is not the same as "trapping". And "pound for pound", or molecule for molecule, water vapour is by far a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 because it absorbs energy over a far wider energy-wave spectrum, from IR to visible light. Why don't you look at the spectra? See here. You can see the CO2 absorption bands in the third row in yellow. All the frequencies of IR that are not emblazoned as 'yellow' in the CO2 row are not absorbed by CO2. Molecule for molecule, water vapour is clearly more efficient at absorbing IR and given it exists in much greater concentrations (especially in the turbulent boundary layer) it pretty much swamps whatever effect CO2 has. EDIT: not to mention that CO2 has a logarithmic effect so that increased concentrations have a smaller and smaller warming effect.

And now you're trying to invoke Kirchoff's Law to rationalize your hopeless lack of comprehension - all without realizing Kirchoff's Law is EXACTLY what I was talking about in the first place when I wrote that CO2 "acts like a tennis racket" (i.e a spring, i.e. as in absorption = emission), and that it is a good one because it is "bendier and stretchier" (i.e. lots of absorption and thus emission at different angles, therefore reflection of IR radiation back to surface/throughout the rest of the atmosphere, therefore in effect "trapping" the heat from escaping directly into space).

No, Kirchoff's law would prevent CO2 from "trapping heat" and it has to do with statistical mechanics, less basic thermodynamics than you pretend to understand. CO2 absorbs and re-emits. And I have no real objections to what you're saying here, though, you really haven't spent a lot of time listening to skeptics' arguments, have you? You evidently don't understand that we don't deny that CO2 has an effect. What we deny is that CO2 is currently in a sufficiently great concentration to have an alarming effect that we should be taking drastic, world-disrupting measures to counteract or pre-empt it. And you still haven't explained why the temperature increased at exactly the same rate between 1906 and the 1930's as it did between the 1980's and 2000? Since I'm obviously "scientifically-illiterate" and a "denier" with the intellectual capacity of a 5th grader, why don't you explain it. Do you have any explanation?

own before you edited your post you wrote some blurb about how you initially believed AGW "just like me", but then found the skeptic evidence to be "infinitely more robust".

Oh yes, I remember now.

The first problem with that is you were never initially like me because, I never initially believed anything. I simply let the science and the evidence (both sides) amass and determine where my 'beliefs' should stand (not the other way around like you). And those "infinitely more robust" skeptics huh? Need I remind you.

Forgive me for saying this but your understanding of the scientific method appears to be skin-deep. You can-not rebut science by claiming people are in cahoots with Big Oil. Where is the evidence that adding more CO2 to the atmopshere will significantly push up temperatures?

So I have no interest in continuing this pointless charade with you. You can cry all you want about how unfair the "denier" label is, but the fact remains that when you continue to DENY all of the above evidence, and then make ridiculously deluded claims about how "infinitely more robust" your sources are - all you do is reinforce your own pathetic stereotype.

What exactly are you accusing us skeptics of denying? Be more specific please.

"infinitely more robust” your sources are

Arguments and evidence, not sources.

Dunning-Kruger effect.

Oh, the irony. Need I remind you I am not the one who responds aggressively and dogmatically whenever someone challenges what I say. I think you need to take a good look in the mirror.

reply to post by mc_squared




It says much of your tacit agreement that you know only what
you were told to know when you've yet to refute my post...

...but more importantly IGNORE billyjack's...in its entirety.

Originally posted by Chinesis
reply to post by mc_squared

 

It says much of your tacit agreement that you know only what
you were told to know when you've yet to refute my post...

...but more importantly IGNORE billyjack's...in its entirety.

It was copied and pasted from some quote mine. That's a very cheap and easy thing to do, and requires absolutely no thought and effort to post.. It might be a waste of time to debunk because it may just be repeated in two days in a separate thread, or different copied and pasted quotes will be used and then you will expect mc_squared to debunk them too. Instead of copying and pasting arguments for you, why not learn the subject yourself from both sides? Also, if you actually want people to give their thoughts, then actually give them a few points, instead of almost 100 dot points factoids and expect them to debunk them all in an instant. And also this applies to both sides of the debate, not just yours.

the title of this thread is so pretentious it hurts to even read.

oh and in case you were wondering, climate changes have happened on this planet multiple times, so would you call those artificial cycles? no, they are natural cycles. ever hear of greenhouse earth? icehouse earth? snowball earth? are YOU smarter than a 5th grader?

the fact is, our current atmospheric co2 levels are vastly lower than during the cretacious or jurassic. maybe we time traveled back and did donuts in hummers around triceratops. I JUST WANNA DO SWEET BURNOUTS BEEEYAH!

reply to post by Chinesis

...but more importantly IGNORE billyjack's...in its entirety.

That post was a giant collection of one line myths - once again exactly the sort of useless conjecture I was speaking out against in the OP. I have repeatedly mentioned throughout this thread how welcome a truly "skeptical" conversation on climate change would be, but how it is virtually impossible to do because of all the regurgitated unscrutinized schoolyard nonsense that clogs this debate instead.

I am sick to death of being expected to clean up these myths for other people who are too lazy to do their own homework, and then get told how arrogant and dogmatic I am if I do. So if you think I'm gonna seriously go through all those one-liners for your benefit, you're kidding yourself.

But since you're apparently still so unconvinced that any of it is even propaganda - that I just probably say it is to protect my teetering, vulnerable beliefs - fine: I'll go through the first 10 just to show you how easily this stuff is being used to manipulate your so-called skepticism, and how easily it can be unraveled with the slightest bit of research and real skepticism.

* Carbon dioxide contributes to only 4.2 - 8.4% of the greenhouse gas effect

First of all no it doesn't - it contributes between 9-26%. Second of all, even if it was "only" 4-8% - you think this number is trivial? Here's one of those things you don't need a scientist to figure out for yourself: The natural greenhouse effect is well known to contribute 33C of warming to the planet. 4.2-8.4% of this = 1.4-2.8C.

Those numbers themselves are well within IPCC estimates considering warming from a CO2 doubling without feedbacks is 1.2C, after feedbacks ~3C. So where's the beef?

* Only approximately 4% of carbon dioxide is man-made

As I just showed in the above example this is such a typical lazy trick in the denier toolbox - "Oh it's only .0000003476872% blah blah". They always try to give you such easy to write off answers while sweeping all the inconvenient parts under the rug. What this rationalization purposely leaves out is the fact that the other 96% of natural CO2 is stable. This is because nature itself tends to function on this amazing principle called "balance".

So the fact that the human contribution is "only 4%" says nothing about the part where human contribution is 100% of the reason why the total is increasing, and thus the balance is changing. Being only 4% of 800 billion tonnes is simply the reason it's taken 120 years to move from 280ppm to 400ppm. But man-made fossil fuel emissions themselves are increasing at alarming rates, which is why it's only going to get worse and worse faster and faster if nothing gets done about it.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

* Water vapor accounts for 90 - 95% of the green house gas effect

This is basically the converse and thus exact same point made by saying CO2 is only 4.2 - 8.4% of the greenhouse effect, so it's entirely redundant, but I like how it got thrown in anyway.

* 99.99% of water vapor is natural, meaning that no amount of deindustrialization could get rid of it

Oh I see - it was put there to set the table for this myth, yet another blatant distortion of the truth.

Although water vapor itself comes from the oceans and is natural, the amount of it in the atmosphere is highly variable and found to be largely controlled by temperature and CO2. Therefore just because it doesn't come out of smokestacks doesn't mean it can't be affected by what does.

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

* There have been many times when the temperature has been higher than it is now including the Medieval Warming Period, the Holocene, the Jurassic, and the Eemian

And?

Mass Extinctions Tied to Past Climate Changes
Sea Levels Spiked With Ancient Warming Event
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

* Increases in carbon dioxide follow increases in temperature by about 800 years, not precede them

Yay! One of my favorite denier mantras of them all. This one has been covered so, so many times already. Yet the fact that it persists says a lot about how much most skeptics just can't wrap their heads around any process that requires even the slightest shred of outside the box thinking. This helps explain why they tend to poo-poo all over real science and gravitate instead to the easiest, most superficial explanations waiting for them out there in the soothing reaches of the deny-o-sphere.

Honestly I've explained the 800-year lag so many times on ATS before I'm tired of putting in the effort to type it all out for someone just to be met by their slack jaws and blank stares. If you want an example then go here, here and here and see where I tried to explain it to my good buddy Nathan 3 TIMES, only to get the same "whaaaaaaa? noooooo?!?!?? - it can't be!!" reaction...

To understand the 800 year lag you need to first understand how a feedback cycle works - which is absolutely CRITICAL to the whole global warming debate anyway since this is precisely what any of the "uncertainty" is based around.

So I would suggest wikipedia-ing Climate change feedback to start off.

After that, take your pick on the numerous resources that explain how CO2 functions as both a forcing and a feedback:

CO2 as a Feedback and Forcing in the Climate System
The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
"Atmospheric CO2 levels could NOT have changed global temperatures if the temperature changes occurred FIRST"
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
The significance of the CO2 lag
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Temp leads Carbon" Crock

* Phil Jones of the Hadley CRU, and key figure in the "climategate" scandal, admits that there has been no "statistically significant" global warming since 1995

This is another perfect example of how the propagandists in the media distort statements and facts to push their own agenda: i.e. tabloid headlines sell

In latest attack on climate science, conservative media distort BBC interview with CRU's Phil Jones
Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
Flogging the Scientists

* 2008 and 2009 were the coolest two years of the decade

Yeah, you mean the decade that also went down as the warmest on record, that decade?? Also - this statement isn't even true: NASA - 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade. Also also - 2010 is on pace to be the warmest year yet.

So to cherry pick a couple of points in a data set, or to simply expect global warming to be completely linear - with every year warmer than the one directly before it, is exactly the sort of limited, less than 5th grade thinking that is typical of those who earn their climate denier degree - since they are just sponging up any superficial contrarian point they can find, rather than actually being skeptical.

* During the Ordovician period carbon dioxide concentrations were twelve times what they are now, and the temperature was lower

Funny how they forgot to mention the part where solar output during this period was also 4-5% lower.

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

And once again if you think "only" 4% isn't a big deal (considering CO2 was 1200% higher) - I'd recommend first of all looking into how big the Sun is. But since you seem to believe this is all some sort of mysterious technical mumbo jumbo only a real scientist can understand, let me also show you an example where instead of having to ask a scientist - all anyone needs to do is understand how a logarithm works and pull out their own calculator. From a previous post of mine:

"Only" 4% of Solar activity amounts to 0.04 x 343 W/m^2 = 13.72 W/m^2.

Radiative forcing from a CO2 doubling is 3.7 W/m^2 and, as you yourself pointed out on another thread, this relationship is logarithmic. So say at 4000 ppm the radiative forcing is around 5.35 x ln(4000/280) = 14.22 W/m^2.

This hardly makes the 4% "irrelevant" now does it?

It's also funny how they conveniently leave out the Sun in this line but then use the next one to point out:

* Solar activity is highly correlated with temperature change:

Duh.

The temperature inside your house is also highly correlated with the temperature outdoors. Does this mean if you turn on the furnace, or better yet - increase the amount of insulation - it can't have an effect?

And one more, since it's tied to the the one above:

* Studies show that half of all recent warming was solar

No they don't. I'd love to see these "recent" studies. The highest I've ever seen is 25%, and that's being awfully generous considering most give a value of around 10%, or suggest a straight up cooling effect. In any case solar output has produced no correlation with warming trends since the beginning of satellite observations, which I already showed you earlier in this thread.



But of course according to you - how do we know we can trust the scientists? Sure fair enough, whatever...I don't know how I'm supposed to convince anyone that all the worlds mainstream climatologists, geologists, oceanographers, cryologists, atmospheric and solar physicists, etc are not all colluding in the greatest scientific fraud ever concocted. I can point out that all the rumors you've probably heard by now about a scientific consensus are rooted in fact, while all the hearsay about there being massive dissension amongst the ranks appears to be entirely rooted entirely in propaganda.

And I can also tell you this - not automatically trusting the scientists might make you a valid skeptic, but using it as an excuse to trust 'climate blogger Josh Fulton' instead is a sure fire way to find yourself being treated like a denier.

reply to post by mc_squared


See your still pushing your climate wheel barrow.

here is the whole story for you, the climate is changing, in the grand scheme of things it does not matter if it is man or nature, we have people who are in power who want you to argue for Agw and those in the other court to argue against AGW.
Have you wondered why the media is able to give us all this news?
those in charge of your fate and mine own the media, they are trying to keep everyone busy arguing over this entire issue and getting us to ignore what they are doing.

believe it or not, TPTB want people like you to argue and beg the goverment to introduce a carbon tax, nothing would give TPTB more joy than to have you begging to become a slave.
You may think that it will just be a business tax, but once a tax is introduced, it will spread and you will be in it's grip as well.

But good luck with you climate argument because it is the distraction that is needed for us to fall into the carbon tax trap.

reply to post by munkey66


No I'm still pushing my "hey ATS - how about trying to think with facts and logic instead of conjecture and propaganda" wheelbarrow.

But it's nice to see you're still pushing your "150 years of climate science must be a scam now because teh taxes" wheelbarrow.

nothing would give TPTB more joy than to have you begging to become a slave.

Nothing gives them more joy than watching people like you who apparently are so overly paranoid about becoming a slave that you have absolutely no ability to understand how you ALREADY ARE ONE.

who would deny climate change? everyone knows the four seasons change. Can you show me one of these climate deniers? they must live in a tropical or icy environment to not realize the climate changes.

reply to post by filosophia


wheeee! more useless rhetoric. Thanks for contributing such a constructive well thought out reply.

Keep proving my point and being too dense to even realize it

The dirty energy companies have such influence in politics that they do not have to pay for the damage they cause to the environment and our health. You can see the blind followers of climate denial crock in this thread, constantly preaching their rhetoric about how evil all taxes on dirty energy are, despite the fact they're already paying for the damages through externalities. They are essentially, arguing for the massive effective subsidies of dirty energy to continue, while the average person has to pick up the tab in terms in terms of their health care bill and environmental remediation. We should tax polluters to internalize the cost that we're already paying or will be paying, otherwise you are merely playing to the interests of dirty energy.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But good luck with you climate argument because it is the distraction that is needed for us to fall into the carbon tax trap.

In other words - "I believe the huge subsidies of dirty energy should continue because I love companies such as Halliburton, it's a trap forcing them to actually pay for the damage they cause, instead we should through my taxes".

believe it or not, TPTB want people like you to argue and beg the goverment to introduce a carbon tax, nothing would give TPTB more joy than to have you begging to become a slave.

It's obvious that you are already a slave because you are in effect arguing for the effective subsidies of dirty energy without even realizing it. There's been a number of studies on the effects of carbon trading systems, the overall effect to the economy is rather small. And if you're taxing something then you should have a corresponding decrease in taxes in other areas, although in these financial times I doubt this will happen.

reply to post by C0bzz


you don't get it at all.

We can all do our bit for the enviroment, boycott the big polluters until they clean up their act, much more effective than paying a carbon tax.
A carbon tax will be abused just as business tax is now, the people in charge know how big business works and they work it to suit themselves.

I really like the way I am labled a denier or skeptic because I can see through the BS and see that the same ones calling for a carbon tax are the same ones who will have the manopoly on any future energy supplies, but continue on your way.
I am not arguing the climate as that is a side issue, TPTB will use anything weather it is climate or war.

never waste a good crisis

Hillary Clinton

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by filosophia

 

wheeee! more useless rhetoric. Thanks for contributing such a constructive well thought out reply.

Keep proving my point and being too dense to even realize it

The thing is MC, is that your posts are nothing but rhetoric, the difference is
that your rhetoric isn't useless, since it is backed by Science: With an agenda (lightbulb)

Do you dispute the past and what has happened to this planet (ice age) for example?
Of course Climate Change exists=common sense tells us the weather changes, the seasons
bring change that affects agriculture which in turn affects our entire system/planet.


The FACT is your side CANNOT prove unequivocally what is actually happening just like
the other side CANNOT prove conclusively their argument.




Climate change exists.
Warming exists, Cooling exists.

Taxing people and cows for flatulence, taxing people with black cars, this is just insanity.
The real issue isn't Climate change...

The real issue is: When does a problem affect "ME" so that it hits "MY" wallet?

^^^THIS is what this is all about.


^^^THIS is why a carbon tax WILL be passed.

Originally posted by C0bzz
The dirty energy companies have such influence in politics that they do not have to pay for the damage they cause to the environment and our health. You can see the blind followers of climate denial crock in this thread, constantly preaching their rhetoric about how evil all taxes on dirty energy are, despite the fact they're already paying for the damages through externalities. They are essentially, arguing for the massive effective subsidies of dirty energy to continue, while the average person has to pick up the tab in terms in terms of their health care bill and environmental remediation. We should tax polluters to internalize the cost that we're already paying or will be paying, otherwise you are merely playing to the interests of dirty energy.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But good luck with you climate argument because it is the distraction that is needed for us to fall into the carbon tax trap.

In other words - "I believe the huge subsidies of dirty energy should continue because I love companies such as Halliburton, it's a trap forcing them to actually pay for the damage they cause, instead we should through my taxes".

believe it or not, TPTB want people like you to argue and beg the goverment to introduce a carbon tax, nothing would give TPTB more joy than to have you begging to become a slave.

It's obvious that you are already a slave because you are in effect arguing for the effective subsidies of dirty energy without even realizing it. There's been a number of studies on the effects of carbon trading systems, the overall effect to the economy is rather small. And if you're taxing something then you should have a corresponding decrease in taxes in other areas, although in these financial times I doubt this will happen.

edit on 29/10/10 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

Blah blah blah, sir.

Since you like telling everyone what the problem is...
WHERE IS THE SOLUTION???? (caps for emphasis, not yelling, k?)


TPTB outnumber real patriotic people that know what should be done.
Money, power and luxuries/niceties prevail over what the public actually want and
even then?

I can tell you America as a nation is (mostly) a pile of dumbed down sh!te for brains people.
So letting the public decide is not a good idea. -It is sad I feel this way, but honestly???

Only the minority, people who actually learned how the system works and how
the game is played KNOW what should be done...

*I* know what should be done, and so did our forefathers.


The system in its entirety is inherently FLAWED, not just because it is run by Man, but
because of HOW it is run.



So please, what is the solution?