How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[Paleontologist]

This would be a good time to remind everyone about the Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . We see it a lot these days as so many people substitute the internet for an education.

 

[marduk]

1. We can't do anything about climate change. We aren't technologically advanced enough to control the climate. Stopping human emittance of CO2 would not change anything, assuming CO2 was the driving force behind climate change, even though it's not.

2. The earth's average global temperature hasn't increased in about 17 years now. We are currently in a cooling trend.

3. All that we are able to do is adapt to climate. Believe it or not, we humans have been able to adapt to pretty much everything the Earth has thrown at us so far in our history on the planet. Unless we are faced with a gigantic asteroid impact or the eruption of a super volcano, then not much will change. The greatest threats for us in the relative near future would be the coming Ice Age in about 50,000 years and the eruption of a super volcano in about a million years. Plagues and pandemics can happen at anytime.

1. we can't? Sorry, this assertion is not supported by any evidence.
Ozone depletion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We created a massive hole in the ozone layer and have halted much of this damage. Or does this have nothing to do with climate? Wrong. Interactive effects of ambient ozone and climate measured on growth of mature forest trees

2. We are not in a cooling trend.

Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7
​

3. At any rate, even if we are, it's not the temperature itself that's necessarily the problem. It's sea levels.

Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.​

Climate Change: Evidence

Why are sea levels rising?

Why is this a big deal?

Go back and look at the picture of the earth during the last known time the ice caps were completely gone, the Eocene, when there were alligators at the poles:

Eastern seaboard? Gone. Much of Europe and Asia gone. North Africa gone. An ocean in the middle of South America.

Tough to retain our civilization with a pretty rapid change to this.

My logic is simple.

If we are going to stay on this planet eventually we will need to control it's climate. If not human activity, there will be vulcanism, solar weather and other factors that will undoubtably change it and not for the better for us.

Investing in cleaner energy production and industrial activity also has nice secondary and tertiary effects, like clean air, water, and conservation of the biological diversity on this planet.

Monocultures are a bad thing. Of which we are a massive one.

 

[Trystero]

Re: sea level rise, I just read piece this yesterday.

Last week, we learned from two separate research teams that the ice sheet of West Antarctica, which comprises just one relatively small part of Antarctic ice overall but contains enough frozen water to raise global sea levels by some 10 or 11 feet, has been irrevocably destabilized.

This Ice Sheet Will Unleash a Global Superstorm Sandy That Never Ends | Mother Jones

 

[BoyintheMachine]

This would be a good time to remind everyone about the Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . We see it a lot these days as so many people substitute the internet for an education.

Right. This effect explains why temperature rises first and then CO2 rises. This completely covers up all the lying pro-AGW scientists who have been fudging data for years to get billions of dollars in grant money shoveled out by the U.S. government.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Re: sea level rise, I just read piece this yesterday.

Last week, we learned from two separate research teams that the ice sheet of West Antarctica, which comprises just one relatively small part of Antarctic ice overall but contains enough frozen water to raise global sea levels by some 10 or 11 feet, has been irrevocably destabilized.

This Ice Sheet Will Unleash a Global Superstorm Sandy That Never Ends | Mother Jones

Honestly, I don't know if this is true or not. I am worried because the pro-AGW always uses scare tactics and fear mongering to frighten the public. Maybe the Antarctic is melting. However, is that melting from global warming? How much melting has taken place in the past 17 years because the Earth's average temperature hasn't increased in 17 years. Meanwhile, we know the Arctic ice continues to grow. Pro-AGW doesn't want to talk about this for some reason. I'm not sure why.

FYI: For the majority of Earth's history there have not been ice at the poles. However, we are going to hit another Ice Age. And during that time any melting will most definitely reverse.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

1. we can't? Sorry, this assertion is not supported by any evidence.
Ozone depletion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We created a massive hole in the ozone layer and have halted much of this damage. Or does this have nothing to do with climate? Wrong. Interactive effects of ambient ozone and climate measured on growth of mature forest trees

2. We are not in a cooling trend.

Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7
​

3. At any rate, even if we are, it's not the temperature itself that's necessarily the problem. It's sea levels.

Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.​

Climate Change: Evidence

Why are sea levels rising?

Why is this a big deal?

Go back and look at the picture of the earth during the last known time the ice caps were completely gone, the Eocene, when there were alligators at the poles:

Eastern seaboard? Gone. Much of Europe and Asia gone. North Africa gone. An ocean in the middle of South America.

Tough to retain our civilization with a pretty rapid change to this.

My logic is simple.

If we are going to stay on this planet eventually we will need to control it's climate. If not human activity, there will be vulcanism, solar weather and other factors that will undoubtably change it and not for the better for us.

Investing in cleaner energy production and industrial activity also has nice secondary and tertiary effects, like clean air, water, and conservation of the biological diversity on this planet.

Monocultures are a bad thing. Of which we are a massive one.

1. I'm not going to discuss all these extra stuff people here like to tack on to this.

2. Global temperatures fell from 1940-1975, during the time that human industrialization was peaking after WWII. So no, the earth's temperature have not been increasing since the 1800s as you claim.

3. The Earth's average global temperature has not risen in 17 years now but you people still continue to claim that each year gets hotter and hotter.

4. I'm not sure why you aren't capable of seeing that the AGW theory completely, repeat completely, falls apart because temperatures rise first and then CO2 levels rise. Pro-AGW people want to trick people into believing the reverse of what is happening is actually occurring.

 

[Tyger]

1. I'm not going to discuss all these extra stuff people here like to tack on to this.

Well, that's handy. Solves thinking through your ideas.

2. Global temperatures fell from 1940-1975, during the time that human industrialization was peaking after WWII. So no, the earth's temperature have not been increasing since the 1800s as you claim.

The facts indicate otherwise. Remembering that climate is a matter of long reaches of time in which there will be variations. The variations do not disprove the theory.

3. The Earth's average global temperature has not risen in 17 years now but you people still continue to claim that each year gets hotter and hotter.

The facts point to such - we have been routinely breaking records recently. Now there could be a dip again - but the basic trajectory is upward. There is the issue of the oceans absorbing the excess heat - and we do know that the ocean has begun to warm.

4. I'm not sure why you aren't capable of seeing that the AGW theory completely, repeat completely, falls apart because temperatures rise first and then CO2 levels rise.

Again, a very random google got me this -

LINK: Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

For some reason I can't copy-and-paste from this article [later: I was able to] so I can't highlight the relevant text. Please read the article, BoyInTheMachine, as you will find your categoric statement "temperatures rise first and then CO2 levels rise" a tad too selective. Wherever - or whoever - you are getting your information from is being selective is what they are reporting to you. However, if you feel I am not understanding the article, please let me know in what way. I would be interested in how you interpret what you read.

Edit: I am now able to copy-and-paste. Here is the beginning of the article - but read the whole article. Climate Change is not something you can grasp in small sound-bites and reading snippets. It's complicated - as are the theories of climate, always being refined.

Text: "The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming.

"Sometimes a house gets warmer even when the central heating is turned off. Does this prove that its central heating does not work? Of course not. Perhaps it's a hot day outside, or the oven's been left on for hours. Just as there's more than one way to heat a house, so there's more than one way to heat a planet.

"Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb. There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.

"Initial warming

"This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet.

"We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits certain frequencies of infrared radiation. Basic physics tells us that gases with this property trap heat radiating from the Earth, that the planet would be a lot colder if this effect was not real and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap even more heat.

"What is more, CO2 is just one of several greenhouses gases, and greenhouse gases are just one of many factors affecting the climate. There is no reason to expect a perfect correlation between CO2 levels and temperature in the past: if there is a big change in another climate "forcing", the correlation will be obscured."

Pro-AGW people want to trick people into believing the reverse of what is happening is actually occurring.

Why would anyone want to "trick" anyone about this? It is far, far easier to let the status-quo continue. (Keep in mind that a very small membership of the status-quo is determining what goes forward - the rest of the status-quo is currently obliged to just 'go along').

To alter how we do things means a major 're-tooling' of the civilization, yes - and that will take work (and a re-direction of monetary resources - it is true - and you can see where this would upset certain elements of the status-quo) . Its far 'easier' to do nothing. But the results of the re-tooling will mean a healthier world for all concerned. Not to do anything means more and more of the same destruction.

Oddly enough it was Ronald Reagan who made the comment about the world finally coming together to confront an alien presence/invasion. In a sense, the Global Warming situation is akin to that kind of global 'invasion' - it is something that we can all understand - see the evidence of in our daily experience - and finally unite as a world to do something about. You have used the word 'religion' to describe AGW - an interesting description. On consideration, we could do worse as a world to make the earth our 'religion' - because AGW and it's many attendant aspects - taken seriously - would mean a better world for all, not just the monied power-brokers.

In fact, as someone suggested, for humanity to continue on this earth, we will have to learn how to 'manage' our climate in an active and intelligent way - instead of backing-into-the-barn as we have been doing. Such a global understanding of climate is prelude - to become fanciful - to being able to 'terra-form' planets for human habitation, after all.

 

[Tyger]

The final text from the above article - which was from a random google - meaning it doesn't take much to get a fuller understanding of these ideas even on the internet. Note the distinction being made in this article between scientists and skeptics - the skeptics are not scientists.

Text: "The ice ages show that temperature can determine CO2 as well as CO2 driving temperature. Some sceptics - not scientists - have seized upon this idea and are claiming that the relation is one way, that temperature determines CO2 levels but CO2 levels do not affect temperature.

"To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.

"What is more, further back in past there are examples of warmings triggered by rises in greenhouse gases, such as the Palaeo-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 millions years ago (see Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?).

"Finally, if higher temperatures lead to more CO2 and more CO2 leads to higher temperatures, why doesn't this positive feedback lead to a runaway greenhouse effect? There are various limiting factors that kick in, the most important being that infrared radiation emitted by Earth increases exponentially with temperature, so as long as some infrared can escape from the atmosphere, at some point heat loss catches up with heat retention."

 

[Tyger]

This article - referenced in the previous article - is very pertinent to what is being brought up in this thread. Highly recommend that all the links provided in the article be followed - excellent sources to understand the science. Skeptics are cherry-picking the science - and the evidence - as well as the opinions.

Link: Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal? - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Text: "First of all, it is worth bearing in mind that any data on global temperatures before about 150 years ago is an estimate, a reconstruction based on second-hand evidence such as ice cores and isotopic ratios. The evidence becomes sparser the further back we look, and its interpretation often involves a set of assumptions. In other words, a fair amount of guesswork.

"It is certainly true that Earth has experienced some extremes that were warmer than today, as well as much colder periods. In some cases the main factors that caused these past warm periods - and the ebb and flow of ice ages over recent millennia - are well understood, though not in all. Many of the details remain unknown.

"Within the past billion years, there may have been one or more periods when the whole planet was covered in ice. This "snowball Earth" phenomenon remains controversial, with some evidence suggesting that there were at least some areas of unfrozen land and water even at the height of the freezing (read more here, here and here). It is clear, though, that from about 750 million to 580 million years ago, the Earth was in the grip of an ice age more extreme than any since.

"After this deep freeze, there were several "hothouse earth" periods when the temperature exceeded those we experience today. The warmest was probably the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which peaked about 55 million years ago. Global temperatures during this event may have warmed by 5°C to 8°C within a few thousand years, with the Arctic Ocean reaching a subtropical 23°C. Mass extinctions resulted.

"The warming, which lasted 200,000 years, was caused by the release of massive amounts of methane or CO2. It was thought to have come from the thawing of methane clathrates in deep ocean sediments, but the latest theory is that it was caused by a massive volcanic eruption that heated up coal deposits. In other words, the PETM is an example of catastrophic global warming triggered by the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"Since then, the Earth has cooled. For the past million years or so, the climate has switched between ice ages and warmer interglacial periods with temperatures similar to those of the past few millennia. These periodic changes seem to be triggered by oscillations in the planet's orbit and inclination that alter the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth.

"However, it is clear that the orbital changes alone would not have produced large temperature changes and that there must have been some kind of feedback effect (see the section on Milankovitch cycles in this article)."

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Tyger,

I'm sorry but there's no point in me replying to you further. I've dismantled the very premise of AGW and the fact that you still are blind to this fact just goes to show your devotion to this AGW cult. It is a cult. It's a fanatical religion.

How am I supposed to compete with the type of crazy that when proven that CO2 rises after temperature rises continues to insist that CO2 causes global warming? How am I supposed to compete with the type of crazy who insists the Earth has been warming since the 1800s even though it's pretty much proven that the Earth was cooling from the period of 1940-1975, not to mention that we are currently also in a cooling period that started after 1997? There is no arguing with that type of crazy.

No matter what evidence is shown to disprove it you can not and will not reject AGW because it is your religion and it is your fanatical faith.

 

[Tyger]

Honestly, I don't know if this is true or not.

Read the science for yourself rather than having it interpreted for you.

I am worried because the pro-AGW always uses scare tactics and fear mongering to frighten the public.

Are you equating science - and facts related to the science - as 'scare tactics'? Talking the science is not a 'scare tactic' - it's the nature of an open society. If you choose to be afraid - that is a choice you are making - not an indication of anyone else's intention.

Maybe the Antarctic is melting. However, is that melting from global warming?

If not, what do you think is the cause? What alternate scenario can you provide?

How much melting has taken place in the past 17 years because the Earth's average temperature hasn't increased in 17 years.

Again, you are deftly avoiding the warming of the oceans - and constantly repeating the '17 years' tells me you are not actually reading this thread.

Meanwhile, we know the Arctic ice continues to grow.

Could you provide a link to this assertion - since it is not meshing with the facts I am familiar with.

Pro-AGW doesn't want to talk about this for some reason. I'm not sure why.

If you read the science you will find that just about every burp is being discussed and investigated. It is part of the fun of scientific investigation. The fact that you seem oblivious to this tells me you are not reading the science but are being fed your views.

FYI: For the majority of Earth's history there have not been ice at the poles. However, we are going to hit another Ice Age. And during that time any melting will most definitely reverse.

No kidding.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Tyger,

I'm sorry but there's no point in me replying to you further. I've dismantled the very premise of AGW and the fact that you still are blind to this fact just goes to show your devotion to this AGW cult. It is a cult. It's a fanatical religion.

How am I supposed to compete with the type of crazy that when proven that CO2 rises after temperature rises continues to insist that CO2 causes global warming? How am I supposed to compete with the type of crazy who insists the Earth has been warming since the 1800s even though it's pretty much proven that the Earth was cooling from the period of 1940-1975, not to mention that we are currently also in a cooling period that started after 1997. There is no arguing with that type of crazy.

No matter what evidence is shown to disprove it you can not and will not reject AGW because it is your religion and it is your fanatical faith.

Let me give you a clue, BoyintheMachine, as you could use a few: You have dismantled nothing. You keep repeating the same mantra and keep ignoring all the evidence that makes you look foolish. If you cannot produce a meaningful, logical refutation of global warming — forget for the moment the cause — I'll just close this thread and be done with it. It's really getting tiresome, and I'm sorry you seem to be far too obtuse to understand how your arguments have been demolished over and over and even over again.

And, no, I will not discuss any of this with you. My worthy colleagues here are doing great.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Let me give you a clue, BoyintheMachine, as you could use a few: You have dismantled nothing. You keep repeating the same mantra and keep ignoring all the evidence that makes you look foolish. If you cannot produce a meaningful, logical refutation of global warming — forget for the moment the cause — I'll just close this thread and be done with it. It's really getting tiresome, and I'm sorry you seem to be far too obtuse to understand how your arguments have been demolished over and over and even over again.

And, no, I will not discuss any of this with you. My worthy colleagues here are doing great.

Yes Gene. I'm sorry that I offended you and your cultic faith. If your cultic faith is true, the CO2 levels would rise and then global temperature would rise. That's not what happens in reality, the place where we all are supposed to be living. The opposite happens. Global temperatures rise and then CO2 levels rise. So you tell me, Gene. How can CO2 cause global warming?

You won't discuss it because you can't, not that you won't. You don't have a comeback because you are an AGW cultist. This is your faith, not mine.

 

[Tyger]

Tyger, I'm sorry but there's no point in me replying to you further. I've dismantled the very premise of AGW and the fact that you still are blind to this fact just goes to show your devotion to this AGW cult. It is a cult. It's a fanatical religion.

*cough* No you haven't.

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
LINK: Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III

Text:

• ABSTRACT

The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age–ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (∼240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Yes Gene. I'm sorry that I offended you and your cultic faith. If your cultic faith is true, the CO2 levels would rise and then global temperature would rise. That's not what happens in reality, the place where we all are supposed to be living. The opposite happens. Global temperatures rise and then CO2 levels rise. So you tell me, Gene. How can CO2 cause global warming?

You won't discuss it because you can't, not that you won't. You don't have a comeback because you are an AGW cultist. This is your faith, not mine.

You're making it personal and you're on the edge. Just watch it!

 

[Tyger]

Yes Gene. I'm sorry that I offended you and your cultic faith. If your cultic faith is true, the CO2 levels would rise and then global temperature would rise. That's not what happens in reality, the place where we all are supposed to be living. The opposite happens. Global temperatures rise and then CO2 levels rise. So you tell me, Gene. How can CO2 cause global warming?

You won't discuss it because you can't, not that you won't. You don't have a comeback because you are an AGW cultist. This is your faith, not mine.

Please read the Abstract (above) of the very science your skeptic fellows are using selectively to give you the words you use to deny the facts. If you really read and consider you will realize that it is you yourself that has swallowed the kool-aide. I welcome a serious scientific debate - with someone working with the scientific method - but that is not what you are offering - you merely repeat a series of phrases (sans links for back-up), unaware that your points have been refuted.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

You're making it personal and you're on the edge. Just watch it!

I'm not making it personal at all, Gene. I'm nobody. The only thing I got working for me is critical thinking. I know that if AGW is real that CO2 levels have to rise first. The entire theory depends on it. Yet that's not what happens. Temperature rises first and then CO2 levels increase. This means that whatever is causing warming is not CO2.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Please take the time you waste posting the same stuff and actually read what other say on the surface. If you did that, instead of repeating your mantra over and over again oblivious to facts, you might actually learn something. Give it a try.

 

[Burnt State]

Re: $$$$ and Global Warming Spending

Now you could read Forbes magazine and hear how dastardly that Obama fellow is (or is it O'Bama, as he's also part Irish) and how he's spending billions on global warming. I suppose some think he's just shelling it out to all his buddies who are making their lawns greener, but that's not reality. The funding that goes into global warming is mostly investment on finding fuels of the future that will keep our ship afloat. While i could not find a country by country comparison, England and Australia are reducing their spending. But this article from the EU is pretty informative and reminds us that the subsidies for renewable energies are overshadowed by subsidies to the oil and nuclear sectors. So really, that whole myth of how many billions are being wasted, really is the voice of Forbes who doesn't talk about how many billions are being given over to polluting industries. It's just the voice of greed talking - they want in on that supposed "great climate change pyramid scheme" as their's is starting to bottom out.

Global climate investment flatlines | EurActiv

if anyone (mike?) can find a country by country comparison and what the funds actually go to when it comes to global warming i would be interested to see the reality of it all. i would suspect that it could indicate that renewable energies are threatening the oil sector and that's a good thing. the more regulation placed on oil and polluting systems the better, as cleaner energy is what we need to sustain this whole thing. it was also refreshing to read that a good chunk of billions goes into supporting the construction of cleaner energy production in developing nations. that's exactly what should be taking place to demonstrate that we've learned just a wee bit from the past.

If anyone wants to really understand the impact of polluting and vile technology i suggest you want Lynch's The Elephant Man as it clearly demonstrates how industrialization was best emblematized as a threshing machine chewing up bodies by accident. In our own era of industrial-toxification, where we die by disease instead, we are still caught in the nightmare transition of technology from over a hundred years ago, like an elephant trampling a woman to produce a mangled new human creation. Have pity on this poor scratcher of the earth who burns coal and poisons his children.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Please take the time you waste posting the same stuff and actually read what other say on the surface. If you did that, instead of repeating your mantra over and over again oblivious to facts, you might actually learn something. Give it a try.

Because I don't have to. The entire AGW rests on that CO2 levels must rise first and then followed by temperature.

I don't have to touch this game of "bombardment" with all these articles and quotes when the entire theory rests on that premise and it's false.

It's a house of cards and it fell over a long time ago but believers refuse to reject it.