The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


Thanks.

It's a pretty huge issue with a lot of hooey being flung around that ultimately will have a huge impact on our wallets depending on which way it goes.

I would encourage people to get on youtube and look for the suspicious 0bservers channel...... learn the science and look into it for yourself....

climate change is real and not completely a man made thing..... these heating and cooling cycles have been going on for 1000's of years and have been documented countless times.... after the last load of bull that Al Gore and his cronies at the UN put out surely people would see that we are being fooled into thinking we are the sole cause when in fact we are not.... there are way more external factors outside the planet that contribute to this.....

reply to post by poet1b

Global Warming is a hoax for the elites to impose more carbon taxes. Bunch of greedy bastards. I can't take this no more.

reply to post by poet1b

Global Warming is a hoax for the elites to impose more carbon taxes. Bunch of greedy bastards. I can't take this no more.

reply to post by Phage

You may want to reconsider that claim. While CLOUDS did demonstrate that cosmic rays can produce aerosols in the middle regions of the troposphere, it did not demonstrate that those aerosols have any effect on cloud production.

I present this Link with an explanation from someone way more qualified than myself to explain it.

I'll leave this link to the BBC article about the models needing to be revised here.

Are you talking about Solar irradiance or sunspot activity? If it is sunspot activity wouldn't temperatures tend to follow an eleven year cycle? If it is irradiance you are talking about can you provide some evidence of such a correlation?

It would be sunspot activity. Like what was observed in the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum's also I found some graphs on the net just tracking the number of sunspots compared to the temp data and they correlate pretty closely.

It doesn't make much sense scientifically to blame the recent warming on something other than sunspots when all the graphs and data I can find show correlation between the two when you take out the stigma of man-made climate change debate and just compare numbers. Like the following, Sunspots and temp graphs I'd be willing to bet that it goes like that for every single year.

You also have to explain away how without the sun terrestrial organisms such has humans, land animals, fish, etc. wouldn't even exist if the sun didn't heat and provide light to the earth for everything to thrive as species.

Who says we are all going to die in a burning inferno, exactly? I haven't heard that claim from anyone. That would be a bit of an outrageous strawman argument on your part, would it?

Not so much, maybe an exaggeration, but run away warming causing the polar ice-caps to melt and the such has been touted for years upon years.

Like this example
This example
And even this one from the IPCC

The numbers and "science" just doesn't support it. I fail to see how an ecosystem so delicate that an increased contribution of a gas that only makes up .03% of the atmosphere can cause the destruction of earth when mans contribution to the .03 percent is like .0003%.

The other thing that doesn't make sense is that CO2 is plant food. More CO2 means bigger plants and subsequently more oxygen. We know life can survive with a CO2 ppm level into the thousands as indicated by the fossil records.

reply to post by Timing

I present this Link with an explanation from someone way more qualified than myself to explain it.

From your link:

But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.

Sounds sort of familiar.

I'll leave this link to the BBC article about the models needing to be revised here.

From your link:

However, Dr Kirkby stressed that these particles are still far too small to seed clouds and so it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate.

So the CLOUDS experiment really hasn't shown what you seem to think it has. No matter how Anthony Watts (former TV weatherman) tries to spin the results. There is no evidence that cosmic rays have any effect on climate.

Like what was observed in the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum's also I found some graphs on the net just tracking the number of sunspots compared to the temp data and they correlate pretty closely.

Except that the cold period actually started well before the Maunder Minimum occurred.
How well do these charts correlate?

Like the following, Sunspots and temp graphs I'd be willing to bet that it goes like that for every single year.

You mean this?

Increase in sunspots in summer fine hot weather, but in winter it is a sign of cold weather.

More sunspots in summer means it's warmer but more sunspots in winter means it's colder? That doesn't seem to make much sense. Summer of 2012 was the hottest on record for North America yet sunspot numbers were low. Winter of 2012 wasn't particularly cold in spite of the fact that sunspot numbers were low. I'm afraid blogger "Slow-Starter" doesn't really know what he's talking about.

You also have to explain away how without the sun terrestrial organisms such has humans, land animals, fish, etc. wouldn't even exist if the sun didn't heat and provide light to the earth for everything to thrive as species.

That's sort of silly. Of course the Sun provides heat and light. The trouble is more CO2 means that more heat is held within the atmosphere. Now, if there was some evidence that the output of the Sun has changed a lot in the last 100 years you might have something. But there isn't.

Not so much, maybe an exaggeration,

A "burning inferno" is quite a gross exaggeration. And your claim that anyone is claiming that is nothing but a strawman argument. A false argument.

I fail to see how an ecosystem so delicate that an increased contribution of a gas that only makes up .03% of the atmosphere can cause the destruction of earth when mans contribution to the .03 percent is like .0003%.

Another strawman. Please provide an example of a climate scientist claiming the destruction of the Earth. CO2 levels haven't been 0.03% for quite some time but you should revisit that ".0003%". You should also try to understand exactly what the effect of that anthropogenicly added CO2 is.

The other thing that doesn't make sense is that CO2 is plant food. More CO2 means bigger plants and subsequently more oxygen. We know life can survive with a CO2 ppm level into the thousands as indicated by the fossil records.

But we aren't worried about running out of oxygen, are we? And we aren't worried about the end of life, are we? You are very fond of creating strawman arguments (false arguments), aren't' you?

reply to post by Phage


At the end of the link at the "What's UP with that site" There is graph that was omitted that pretty much comes to the conclusion that cosmic rays contribute to clouding effects. It's right there at the end. Naturally the graph was omitted from the Nature article.

Except that the cold period actually started well before the Maunder Minimum occurred.

And the Maunder Minimum was the peak of the mini ice age. Which means temps were already in decline before the minimum.

Summer of 2012 was the hottest on record for North America yet sunspot numbers were low.

I have a hard time believing that. Especially when those same scientist predicted a very active Hurricane season and it's one of the lowest active hurricane seasons in a long time. The credibility of those scientist are damaged heavily due to the leaks and "Hide the decline" mantra of the man-made climate change camp.

Sound science would dictate that the models are wrong and it would be time to start looking for a new hypothesis. Not changing the data to fit the hypothesis.

That's sort of silly. Of course the Sun provides heat and light. The trouble is more CO2 means that more heat is held within the atmosphere. Now, if there was some evidence that the output of the Sun has changed a lot in the last 100 years you might have something. But there isn't.

CO2 lags temperature data. Without the sun we wouldn't even be alive. How can you say the sun doesn't account for climate change when it clearly does? How also can you account for the fact that in the prehistoric age CO2 was 1000+ ppm yet there weren't any coal fire plants or cars roaming around the earth then. Something natural caused those high CO2 levels during the prehistoric age and whats to say that natural process isn't happening again.

A "burning inferno" is quite a gross exaggeration. And your claim that anyone is claiming that is nothing but a strawman argument. A false argument.

Another strawman. Please provide an example of a climate scientist claiming the destruction of the Earth. CO2 levels haven't been 0.03% for quite some time but you should revisit that ".0003%". You should also try to understand exactly what the effect of that anthropogenicly added CO2 is.

I guess James Hansen predicting global flooding and a rise of 6 degrees Celsius isn't a scientist claiming the destruction of earth?
I mean when I read what the IPCC is predicting it pretty much sounds like they are predicting the death of humanity. I'm able to read between the lines as are many other people, and while not actually coming out and saying it the IPCC and other scientist contributing to the alarmist claims are saying the fate of humanity is at stake.

There isn't enough data to accurately assess the effects of man on the climate if there is any effect at all.

And still, using the .03% of the atmosphere being CO2 as a baseline and using that as a the only number the rise of .087% in CO2 levels you would have to say that Humans contributed 87% of CO2. and When it went from 387 ppm to 400ppm you have to admit that humans contributed 13% of that. Which isn't possible because humans only produce a fraction of a percent of total CO2 output.

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


Al Gore was sounding the alarm on global warming loooong before it became so clearly obvious.

The people who try to ridicule Al Gore's accurate prediction of the most serious issue we are facing today, except maybe Fukushima, only make themselves look foolish.

Denying global warming at this time, is like denying that the Earth is round back in 1503, and claiming that the heavens evolve around the Earth.

Clinging to theories that have no backing in the scientific community, that have been proven wrong long ago, and buying up the whole carbon credit ruse is shear out and out denial. It is as foolish as still clinging to the free market scam, and surprise surprise, these are all the same people.

Your choice, do you want to be a part of the solution, or part of the problem?

reply to post by Timing

There is graph that was omitted that pretty much comes to the conclusion that cosmic rays contribute to clouding effects.

No, it is blogger Nigel Calder (a "science writer") who concludes that the graph shows that. Please provide evidence supporting his claim that nanometer sized aerosols can form condensation nuclei. CLOUDS did not do so.

I have a hard time believing that.

Yes, I suppose your confirmation bias would make it hard to believe that temperatures in the US in the summer of 2012 were the highest every recorded.

Especially when those same scientist predicted a very active Hurricane season and it's one of the lowest active hurricane seasons in a long time.

They did?

“NOAA’s outlook predicts a less active season compared to recent years,” said NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D.

www.noaanews.noaa.gov...

How can you say the sun doesn't account for climate change when it clearly does?

Has the energy output of the Sun changed enough to account for the increase in temperatures?

How also can you account for the fact that in the prehistoric age CO2 was 1000+ ppm yet there weren't any coal fire plants or cars roaming around the earth then.

Very high levels of volcanism probably.

I guess James Hansen predicting global flooding and a rise of 6 degrees Celsius isn't a scientist claiming the destruction of earth?

Global flooding? You mean like with Noah?

But no, he doesn't say that a 6º would result in the destruction of Earth. He says that if all available fossil fuels are consumed, if there is no reduction in our use of them global temperatures could rise 16º. That would indeed make many places on the planet uninhabitable. It would also take centuries to occur.
arxiv.org...

When it went from 387 ppm to 400ppm you have to admit that humans contributed 13% of that. Which isn't possible because humans only produce a fraction of a percent of total CO2 output.

Your source for that claim? The number is actually about 4%. But the problem is, most naturally produced CO2 is part of a cycle, it is released then is again sequestered. Most of the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels is not. It is "old" CO2 which has been hidden away for a very long time. That which is not reabsorbed by the environment remains in the atmosphere, it doesn't go away, it continues to accumulate. The evidence that the rise in CO2 is due to human activity is that the ratio of Carbon13/Carbon12 is lower than they have been in 10,000 years. This can only be due to the burning of fossil fuels, which are low in Carbon 13 because of radioactive decay.
www.realclimate.org...

Even if that ice melted nothing would happen. All that would mean is it would be easier for ships to get threw. The animals would simply relocate to the nearby coastal shores. Nothing at all would happen. And what happens when an ice cube melts in a glass, does the water level go up or down? Well it actually goes down, not up. So the shore levels certainly wouldn't change at all. at most maybe a few centimeters world wide.

reply to post by spartacus699

And what happens when an ice cube melts in a glass, does the water level go up or down?

You're sort of ignoring the fact that most of the ice is on land. Try letting a bowl of ice drain into your glass as it melts.

Disclosure Agent
I would encourage people to get on youtube and look for the suspicious 0bservers channel...... learn the science and look into it for yourself....

I would strongly discourage people from getting on youtube ...... and instead suggest they read the actual papers and research carried out by scientists.

Make your own minds up - you're not all sheep!

reply to post by Phage


Here is the link for the NOAA 2013 very active hurricane season.

Here goes an article about "Fakegate" and trying to discredit the Heartland Institute. We all know the man-made global warming people have been caught fudging the numbers. So calling someone out as a "science writer" in an attempt to undermine his credibility isn't a very good strategy to use.

And here is a post by another person giving an alternate explanation for the the low C13 isotope count.

All I'm saying is that there isn't enough data to conclude that the climate change we are seeing today is man-made. I also stand by my statement on the alarmist creating a culture of fear stating in a round about way we are going to be underwater.

reply to post by Timing

Here is the link for the NOAA 2013 very active hurricane season.

Oh. That 2013. Sorry, I got my years mixed up but the season isn't over and the number of named storms is about average. In any case, in reading through the reasons for the 2013 prediction, it really had nothing to do with global warming, as demonstrated by the 2012 prediction. All it really shows it that predicting hurricane activity from year to year is pretty difficult to do.

We all know the man-made global warming people have been caught fudging the numbers.

No. We don't.

So calling someone out as a "science writer" in an attempt to undermine his credibility isn't a very good strategy to use.

It is when they make unsubstantiated claims which directly contradict the findings of the scientists who performed the experiment.

And here is a post by another person giving an alternate explanation for the the low C13 isotope count.

He gives no explanation other than:

Well, now I’m going to provide what appears to be further evidence that there could be a substantial natural source of the long-term increase in CO2.

But the data he uses is recent data (since 1958), showing that recent trending does not show a significant difference in C13/C12 ratios. Why would it when we have been recently using fossil fuels? Why would he ignore the evidence that shows much higher ratios before mankind started mucking up the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels? Maybe it's sort of like how he ignores the evidence for evolution.
theevolutioncrisis.org.uk...

All I'm saying is that there isn't enough data to conclude that the climate change we are seeing today is man-made.

The scientists of the IPCC strongly disagree with you as do the vast majority of climate scientists.

I also stand by my statement on the alarmist creating a culture of fear stating in a round about way we are going to be underwater.

No. Only certain coastal regions. But I'm glad you've backed off from that "burning inferno" claim.

If anyone is interested, here is a thread I had created about Global Warming, and not denial of GW.

I just linked the IPCC report.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Phage


You know I think one of the best things that could ever happen to the planet is for both ice caps to completely melt. Why? Well for one where I am our summers are 2 months long. Average daytime temp is only 25c. Our winters last 7 months. It gets very tiring. I want warmer weather. Also we had winter only a few year back one day it went down to -46c. Convert those into F if you're not sure. The point is it's very cold still up north. It sucks. It's already cold our right now. And getting close to freezing at night. Plus if both ice caps melted and the levels did go up I think the world needs a bit of a shake up. Like if tons of cities would get a bit of a bath that would be good, because most of them stink and that sea water would actually clean the streets and the garbage from a lot of the cities. They would be a bit more clean again.

reply to post by spartacus699

I know what you mean. I decided a long time ago that I didn't want to live someplace that could kill me if I got stuck outside.

The trouble is, there is a lot of other unpleasantness involved with rising global temperatures.

reply to post by poet1b

BUT, at the same time, it does no good to cling to denial.

You may be able to prove me wrong but I don't believe many people deny that our climate is changing.

Whether the cause of climate change is anthropogenic or not is the issue at debate. Even in that arena the so called 'deniers' allow that a very small percentage of climate change may be attributed to human induced increases in CO2, which leads into the debate as to whether CO2 actually behaves the way the IPCC models suggest.

In my humble opinion the science of climate change is not proven on either side and derogatory terms such as 'denier' or 'warmist' serve no purpose other than to inflame, which is counter-productive.

Terms such as 'cling to denial' are reminiscent of religion, and this is NOT a religious matter it is SCIENCE. The crux of science is an open mind and an ability and willingness to look at facts, and to report upon those facts in a non-partisan manner.

Climate change as a science is not alone in harbouring many scientists who are not prepared to deviate from the dogma for many reasons such as family economic considerations and to a great degree what could be described as religious zeal if that particular science is considered as a faith.

There is no place in ANY scientific sphere for any such consideration. Science must be reported truthfully and without malice to any party and the sooner the world accepts to that the better. Science must also accept that it can be wrong and often is. Only by these ways can be progress.