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

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Thanks for this very well thought out response.

I would gladly go into more detail about the actual climate response to CO2 forcing, feedbacks and all that. The thing is it takes a good chunk of my time to dig up the proper resources, lay them out and present them - and I'm just not going to bother when nobody's going to even listen because they're all too busy telling me what a scam global warming is because "all the planets are warming" or whatever.

See the thing is I'm not out to vilify anyone who genuinely just wants to ask legitimate questions like you just did. I'm actually a big fan of skepticism, and think it's absolutely vital to the process of truth. But the point of this thread was that there are too many people out there sponging up complete myths that are being fed to them by a very calculating denial industry - and they are just swallowing this stuff up without being skeptical at all - hence they get labeled 'deniers' and are not worthy of the term 'skeptics' at all. As you clearly seem to understand - this issue is a lot more intricate than global warming is real because climate jesus Al Gore said so", but it's also more complicated than "teh emails proved it's a hoax".


Anyway, if you want to continue this discussion - either through U2U or maybe when this thread fizzles out a bit more, I'm more than happy to do that. Thanks again for adding something constructive to the debate

I'm just going to post what I agree with. I think this guy has it right..

I don't think CO2 is responsible for any warming whatsoever. None. These "skeptics" that Meyer is talking about have gotten the cart before the horse. The fact is that the warming precedes the rise in CO2 levels. First, the oceans warm, then the oceans release CO2. The rise in CO2 levels is therefore a result of ocean warming, not the cause. If you've read" Not by Fire but by Ice," you know that I think the rise in ocean temperatures is caused by underwater volcanic activity. Meyer then babbles on about "positive feedbacks" from CO2, and the interaction of CO2 levels with the "greenhouse gas effect."

And then this too...

"They have to perpetuate the myth that CO2 and especially human CO2 is causing warming," says climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball. "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)," says Dr. Ball. "This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science." Dr. Timothy Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and has an extensive background in climatology. He also has a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England.

And..

"Their probabilities (about CO2) are absolute crap," says Dr. Willie Soon, a solar and climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "Within the framework of a proper study of the sun-climate connection, you don’t need CO2 to explain anything." They are pulling these statistics out of thin air. It is completely anti-science." "During the past 50 years, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 22%," says Soon. "However, human use of hydrocarbons has not caused the observed increases in temperature." "The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has, however, had a substantial environmental effect. Atmospheric CO2 fertilizes plants. Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century. Increased temperature has also mildly stimulated plant growth."

Almost done..

Chemist Dr. Kenneth Rundt, a bio-molecule researcher and formerly a research assistant and teacher at Abo Akademi University in Finland, declared his global warming dissent in June 2008. “Let me state immediately before you read on that I count myself among the ‘skeptics’,” Rundt wrote in a scientific paper titled “Global Warming – Man-made or Natural?” “I am only a humble scientist with a PhD degree in physical chemistry and an interest in the history of the globe we inhabit. I have no connection with any oil or energy-related business. I have nothing to gain from being a skeptic.” “It can also be reliably inferred from palaeoclimatological data that no uncontrolled, runaway greenhouse effect has occurred in the last half billion years when atmospheric CO2 concentration peaked at almost 20 times today’s value," Rundt wrote. Given the stability of the climate over this time period there is little danger that current CO2 levels will cause a runaway greenhouse effect.”

And the icing on the cake...

Given the recent cooling of the Pacific and Atlantic and rapid decline in solar activity, we might anticipate given these correlations, temperatures to accelerate downwards shortly (even though CO2 levels have been rising).

source source source source

I will have to agree with Lil Drummerboy - get out the snow boots and sweaters because in a few years it may be a bit cold out..

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

No, I actually took the time to read a lot of the emails myself, examine them in their proper context, and actually paid attention when the scientists were cleared of any wrong doing through numerous independent investigations.

I didn't just get myself all into a tizzy and jump to conclusions when right wing media and over zealous bloggers reported some manufactured non-event as a "scandal":

"Climategate" exposed: Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus

Now you go back to sleep.

There is this immensely dense fireball in the sky that tends
to heat nearby planets in its vicinity....You might want to check into that one.

I suppose if Man were to colonise Mercury there would be global cooling too right?

reply to post by Chinesis


Yeah and it is exactly these sort of lazy, short-sighted, ignorant yet foolishly arrogant responses that are exactly what I'm talking about in the OP.

There are also these amazing things called "satellites" that observe this magic fireball thing and measure precisely what comes out of it - you may have noticed the near daily threads on ATS about some solar flare about to kill us all.

So if you'd bothered actually trying to think a little, instead of rushing to tell me what an oblivious moron I apparently am - you might come to realize that modern science is very much aware of the role the Sun plays in global warming. And the results show that for the last 30+ years of satellite observation the output simply don't correlate at all with observed temperature trends:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0943566b2fef.gif[/atsimg]

Furthermore there are also plenty of other reasons why the Sun can't explain what's happening - like stratospheric cooling, or the fact that there is more warming occurring at night than during the day.



But yeah - thanks for laying it all out there and explaining how naive people like me are...

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by Chinesis

 

Yeah and it is exactly these sort of lazy, short-sighted, ignorant yet foolishly arrogant responses that are exactly what I'm talking about in the OP.

There are also these amazing things called "satellites" that observe this magic fireball thing and measure precisely what comes out of it - you may have noticed the near daily threads on ATS about some solar flare about to kill us all.

So if you'd bothered actually trying to think a little, instead of rushing to tell me what an oblivious moron I apparently am - you might come to realize that modern science is very much aware of the role the Sun plays in global warming. And the results show that for the last 30+ years of satellite observation the output simply don't correlate at all with observed temperature trends:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0943566b2fef.gif[/atsimg]

Furthermore there are also plenty of other reasons why the Sun can't explain what's happening - like stratospheric cooling, or the fact that there is more warming occurring at night than during the day.

But yeah - thanks for laying it all out there and explaining how naive people like me are...

I don't think you're a moron, nor naive.
You do (however) put too much credence into "Science" and unfortunately
the world and all it has to offer/show us doesn't fall into just Science.

See, the main idea here is: Interpretation.
You cannot tell me that the Scientific Community (as a whole) is just
out to seek out the truth, or to produce empirical data as they find it, (can you?)

There is a reason for this division amongst Scientists.
Common sense tells me *if* you have two like minded Scientists
(from the same school) and received the same marks in their studies
how can you account for their differences of opinion(s) that divide them
as either a pro/opponent of "Global Warming?"

Science as a whole hasn't figured out every subtle nuance and
cannot therefore explain certain anomalies they find especially with
all of their technological machinery.


Are you a scientist?

Originally posted by mc_squared

It ALL starts at the consume end. Because our consumer decisions dictate what industry does about it, we only allow it to be the other way around because we're such apathetic cattle. If everybody started installing solar panels on their roof, or even just demanding them, the market would naturally gravitate towards this option. But here's the thing - that word "everybody". It needs a collective response. To get that response - you need some sort of universal lightning rod to galvanize the public altogether. Here is one sitting right in front of everybody's face - global warming. But instead of recognizing these opportunities people are now being conditioned to ignore them because of all the political rhetoric about taxes and the bullsh** myths the denial industry is pumping out into the public sector. So you might see it as complaining, but I see it as trying to get people to wake the hell up

o.k. you think taxes are myth, that's your opinion, you think the responsibility rest at the consumer end again your opinion and i am not going to try and change it, but i will just say why i disagree.

if they were really bothered about saving the planet it would all be centered on action, not arguments in the arena or centered around making sure every last person believed in "man-made" global warming. it would be centered on looking after the planet and needing to change for that reason, after all we only have one.

but it seems to me that the whole thing is centered on inaction, blamed on the consumer and more about accepting beliefs than doing what needs doing. that's the reason why i think there is more to this than just global warming and saving the planet, they want to blame the consumer while they churn out toxic waste in their business etc making profit out of destroying the earth and then blaming the consumer and going nuts if people dare to question it.

i believe the reason why it is so important for them to make sure we believe in the idea rather than changing things is because they need us to believe in the idea of man made global warming so they can indeed introduce a tax. if we do not believe their premise that it is a)man made, and b) the consumers fault then people simply will not pay a tax. now i am not saying global warming is not happening or that we do not need to look after the planet. which everybody would agree with and do their part, why does it matter so much that people believe in "man made" when almost everybody accepts we need to look after the planet and have as little impact as possible.

also if the consumer is the one who makes the choice about what is in the shops then what is advertising or fashion? the only time i have ever gone to the shop and expected to be able to buy a certain thing is because it was advertised. i have never other than that gone to a shop and demanded anything, i go and have a look at what is being sold and make a choice from that. you say what people buy effects what companies do, its rubbish. i buy what ever is being sold and need, how much choice do car owners have but to buy petrol? how much choice do people renting or owning have but use gas and electric? not a lot really, especially if your poor, so how are they suppose to affect these area's through buying alternatives? there are no alternatives, and i can only buy what is in the shops. which has gone through a process producing vast amounts of waste and toxins into the air.

Originally posted by mc_squared
The thing is it takes a good chunk of my time to dig up the proper resources, lay them out and present them - and I'm just not going to bother when nobody's going to even listen because they're all too busy telling me what a scam global warming is because "all the planets are warming" or whatever.

See the thing is I'm not out to vilify anyone who genuinely just wants to ask legitimate questions like you just did.

(1) There is a reason it would take (you) a good chunk of your time to DIG up the proper
resources, lay them out and present them.

Answer: You don't have the source of what is really going on.
You are just copy/pasting what you agree with. (FACT)

This also proves that you aren't a Scientist (just in case you never said you were)
How can a novice argue Science and not be a Scientist, astute student of Science?

(2) You say you aren't out to vilify anyone yet look at how
you treat people that disagree with your POV?

If you didn't know...says a LOT about your character and your true intent
when you feel in some way you have power over someone via a bias model
such as either "intelligence" in general or an "intelligence quotient..."


It doesn't hurt my ego one bit to say I am not a Scientist, nor
do I have any plans to become one.

If you posted the same links you *learned from* perhaps
more people would be inclined to take your POV more seriously.

Your thread title denigrates anyone who either reads it or responds to it.
And you want to be taken seriously within the community?

Maybe, next time?

I'll post my question again

Here is what I would like to know, how are the co2 levels in comparison to the demands for co2 our plant life has currently.

Where can I go to find this information?

Maybe I am thinking to simplistic but I would imagine plant life would have a significant effect on this.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by Curious and Concerned

 

Thanks for this very well thought out response.

I would gladly go into more detail about the actual climate response to CO2 forcing, feedbacks and all that. The thing is it takes a good chunk of my time to dig up the proper resources, lay them out and present them - and I'm just not going to bother when nobody's going to even listen because they're all too busy telling me what a scam global warming is because "all the planets are warming" or whatever.

I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate the effort you put in. I don't have a lot of time to go pursuing such information, as I've got other things I should be studying, but I'll have more time on my hands soon. Looking forward to a summer holiday I shall hope to be more involved in such discussions. Just a few things I shall like to add.

Originally posted by mc_squared
Furthermore there are also plenty of other reasons why the Sun can't explain what's happening - like stratospheric cooling, or the fact that there is more warming occurring at night than during the day.

From your link on diurnal temperature range...

It must be noted that CRU TS 2.0 has not had the effects of urbanisation and land use changes
removed. While the effect of urbanisation on trends in maximum and minimum temperatures has been estimated to be very small on the global scale [Easterling et al., 1997], the potential effect on DTR due to the differential impact of urbanisation on Tmax and Tmin remains unclear.

While the effects of urbanisation may be "very small on a global scale", the effects within a city can be much greater. It is basic physics that explains how a city will retain more heat at night than the surrounding countryside. I'm not sure exactly where the CRU recording stations are, but if they are anywhere near urban areas (which they often are), it will have some effect on diurnal temperature range. While the effect of urbanisation may be small globally, it may have a bigger influence on the temperature record we use as a "global" temperature. So while these effects may be anthropogenic, it may not necessarily be due to GHG emissions.

The effect of urbanisation on temperature records is not fully understood, although scientists are always working to better our understanding. Some seem to insist that the urban heat island effect has little to no effect on temperature records, while others say it may play a bigger role than is fully understood. Urbanisation is just one of the many things we can improve our knowledge on. I'll leave with this from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and their recent findings regarding urbanisation.

Bureau climate scientist, Belinda Campbell, said "we've known for a while that city night time temperatures have been warmer because the heat's retained after sunset just that much longer than the countryside, and that city daytime temperatures have been warming too."

"But what we didn't know was whether city day time temperatures were also warmer because of the urbanisation or whether it was due to the overall warming of the planet associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect."

"We can now confidently say that the reason our cities are warmer and warming faster than the surrounding countryside during the day is because of the urbanisation, the fact that all those offices, houses and factories absorb the heat and retain it a little bit longer," Ms Campbell said.

Hot Cities

Heres my two cents on climate change, our climate has changed for as long as the Earth has been around. Land mass hase changed, sea levels risen and fallen. Ice caps melted and formed and all this will continue to do so for as long as this planet is around. The Earth goes round in cycles, ages will come and go regardless of our impact.

We all know pollution is not good for us and is probably a big contributer to some modern illnesses. The biggest polluters are these big corporations and they get away with it time and again. Do I think we need changes? ofcourse, but we cant let government tax the ass off the average joe when they let these mass corporations get away with murder.

Climate change is real its happened for millenia, politcal climate change is just that, politics, more ways to generate money. Most of our governments and politicians dont give a # about climate change, to them its a means to an end.

They use CO2 in greenhouses...they release it to help the plants grow. I could see if people were arguing about CO (carbon monoxide) but CO2 - the plants can't live without it...pollution is a very bad thing for sure...but CO2? - It shouldn't even be on the radar.

reply to post by bowlbyville


CO2 is toxic to humans. However, that is not the main problem. The problem is that CO2 is a gas that contributes to the "greenhouse effect". This means it absorbs and re-radiates energy, causing increased temperatures.

Ok 5th graders a few questions.


So if a volcano releases Co2 and no one is around to tax it is it warming the planet?

How can humans cutting down more trees to supply and print the tax money needed, going to fix global warming?

So if the New World Order needs more money to fund itself and the deniers refuse to believe, how is the IMF/World Bank going to fund itself?

Will you make it to the 6th grade if you denied Global Warming?

Originally posted by 0ne10
reply to post by bowlbyville

 

CO2 is toxic to humans. However, that is not the main problem. The problem is that CO2 is a gas that contributes to the "greenhouse effect". This means it absorbs and re-radiates energy, causing increased temperatures.

edit on 20-10-2010 by 0ne10 because: (no reason given)

But plants absorb co2 and release oxygen, that is why I keep asking about the co2 need of plant life in ration to the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. Apparently no one here can answer that question, and I am not sure where to find that information.

Ok 5th graders will we

By removing to much Co2 will we create
Oxygen Toxicity Syndrome in humans and other species?

How much Cell damage can be tolerated with higher Oxygen Levels?

reply to post by calstorm


CO2 levels are rising.

This means more CO2 is being produced than Earth (oceans and plants) can absorb.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
So if a volcano releases Co2 and no one is around to tax it is it warming the planet?

Yes, CO2 from volcanoes contributes to the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere. There is nothing we can do about that, but we can definitely reduce the amount of CO2 created by our machines.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
How can humans cutting down more trees to supply and print the tax money needed, going to fix global warming?

Coins are usually made of copper and another element, such as zinc or nickel. Currency paper is composed of 25 percent linen and 75 percent cotton.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
So if the New World Order needs more money to fund itself and the deniers refuse to believe, how is the IMF/World Bank going to fund itself?

Unfounded rhetoric.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Will you make it to the 6th grade if you denied Global Warming?

If you fail to understand the greenhouse effect, you should be held back.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
By removing to much Co2 will we create
Oxygen Toxicity Syndrome in humans and other species?
How much Cell damage can be tolerated with higher Oxygen Levels?

We don't remove CO2. We just stop producing excess CO2.

You failed your 5th grade test.

reply to post by 0ne10

CO2 levels are rising.

This means more CO2 is being produced than Earth (oceans and plants) can absorb.

How do you know this? (Bolded part)

Because as I understand it, you CAN'T know it, you are just pretending you do. THAT is the problem here. The climate changing is a given, however it is being used as a political motivator rather than simple logic.

There is a distinct difference between: "The climate is changing" and "The climate is changing, so buy our books and pay extra taxes and pay more attention to us than to what you eat and drink on a daily basis". Can you spot the money-making nuance I put on the second one?

All dire predictions about the effects of increased carbon dioxide come from numerical computer models of the atmosphere that not one has been able to history match without introducing artificial fudge factors that have no basis in fact. All of the models agree which is really of concern to anyone who has ever done computer simulations. Since 5th graders do not take differential equations nor write computer simulators that find numerical solutions to differential equations, your whole premise defeats itself. So what you are saying is that your education level must be that of a 5th grader to believe the myth of anthropological global warming. I feel alot better knowing that's the criteria since I have taken differential equations and written numerical simulators and have concluded that it's myth. Your whole post is another example of algorian logic.

A reasoning technique that entails reaching a conclusion about a subject in which one has no expertise and subsequently finding or creating factoids to support the supposition without using critical thinking skills or research to discern the obvious implausibility of the facts or the conclusion.