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

I'm beginning to think that this Climate Change issue really is just a Divide and Conquer tactic. Look at the people in this thread calling out the "right-wing nutjobs" and the "left-wing idiots". Getting to the truth of the matter seems of little value for those in power because this issue is consistently keeping the general population bickering and distracted from other issues.

Is it not the perfect issue to intensify the Right/Left paradigm? Those who deny global warming are part of ring-wing movements who are protecting Carbon-profiting Big Business. Those who support global warming are part of the left-wing fringe who want to see the implementation of a Carbon Tax and the destruction of Capitalism.

Meanwhile our rights and freedoms continue to be derided. We continue to fight amongst each other and accuse the other side of obscuring the facts for Political reasons and Ideological gain.

When will it end?

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I'm beginning to think that this Climate Change issue really is just a Divide and Conquer tactic. Look at the people in this thread calling out the "right-wing nutjobs" and the "left-wing idiots". Getting to the truth of the matter seems of little value for those in power because this issue is consistently keeping the general population bickering and distracted from other issues.

Is it not the perfect issue to intensify the Right/Left paradigm? Those who deny global warming are part of ring-wing movements who are protecting Carbon-profiting Big Business. Those who support global warming are part of the left-wing fringe who want to see the implementation of a Carbon Tax and the destruction of Capitalism.

Meanwhile our rights and freedoms continue to be derided. We continue to fight amongst each other and accuse the other side of obscuring the facts for Political reasons and Ideological gain.

When will it end?

It won't, as long as people keep falling for it. this isssue(unlike some others) is real, because they want to tax us for this nonsense. another way to get at our cash. we need to find a way to stop it, and stop all those behind it.

When you buy electricity generated by burning coal, you're creating an enormous external cost. That is, a cost that you do not pay directly while paying for electricity. Instead you pay for it in increased health care bills, and increased environmental remediation programs in your taxes, which is in effect, subsidizing the cost of dirty energy. Why not end these effective subsidies, and internalize these costs by adding a tax on dirty energy? This will stop polluters getting away with murder (literally) and will encourage alternative energy sources that are overall cheaper. Do it. The only scam is the one that is happening right now - dirty polluters don't have to pay for the damage they cause, instead we do through environmental remediation, and our health. We're already paying for this, and overall it's cheaper to go with the alternatives.

Originally posted by mc_squared


lifeform - I think you and I are way more on the same page than you realize...............


People simply follow the money. They also get easily wrapped up in lazy habits that can't seem to get broken until you introduce money into the equation. I'll give you a great example: plastic bags. My local grocery store used to give away plastic bags and EVERYBODY used them, me included. We've all known for years this was bad for the environment, but it was just such a regular habit of day to day life that even I took it for granted. Then my grocery store started charging 5 cents for them and started giving 5 cents for every bag of your own that you brought with you. Now EVERYBODY brings their own bags - and all it took was +/- 10 cents!!



I really hope you don't believe that. Advertising and fashion are the exact sort of instruments of conditioning I am talking about when it comes to TPTB. But that doesn't mean there's no other choice. Do you realize there are already people living in this world who have taken themselves right off the grid? The technology already exists to accomplish these things, but it involves following a practice of sustainability and conservation that big corporations and other powers that be DON'T want you to even think about, let alone achieve. Which is again why they are trying to sweep this part of the global warming agenda under the rug. So you have to find the means to make this happen yourself, not wait for them to hand it to you. But it's out there. The technology exists. I don't know where you live but where I am there are all sorts of little start up businesses and consultants offering these things.

As for putting petrol in your car - plug in electrics are finally here. But have you seen Who Killed the Electric Car? That movie is all about how environmental regulations tried to make these things a mandatory option almost 20 YEARS AGO, but the big oil companies and car manufacturers stepped in to stop it.

Does that sound at all similar to exactly what's happening today?

i think we do agree but we do not agree on who should be being held responsible and who should be targeted.
i have chopped your reply down a bit for the sake of space, and just left in the areas where we disagree.

charging for plastic bags worked for a while, however i have recently been informed that printing on plastics bags has increased and this area is growing again due to the economy. people are opting for plastic bags because they live on a budget and can no longer afford 'bags' that can be reused, so they are buying plastic bags at a cheap price of 10p.

just like companies going for the cheaper options to make profit, so the people are having to go for cheaper options because they have a thing called a budget, maybe they want to buy the best option but cannot afford it, in order to survive they have to go for the cheapest option. some people live of 150 pounds a week, and cannot afford solar panels or electric cars, in fact i would say the vast majority are in that situation due to the economy.

you cannot excuse big companies for going for the 'cheap' option then blame people on tight budgets for doing the same.

the companies can effect what they make and how they make it, 80% of people worldwide can only ever buy the cheapest option, they have no choice.

advertising and fashion prove that people do not dictate what they buy, companies do by promoting their products and convincing people they need it and must go and buy it, whilst some are aware and do not do as they are told and have a minds of their own, most people simply act like sheeple and do it or think it sounds great and go and buy it. but it proves that the companies control what we buy rather than my shopping habits creating the demand, when it comes to things that are not needed to survive.

second edit: just to add, taxing people will just lead to more people going for cheaper and cheaper options as their budget is reduced even more. taxing people is not a solution to the problems at all. it will just mean even more people will be buying plastic bags and whatever else is cheap regardless of how much damage that product caused to the environment.

reply to post by lifeform11


Actually I think we even agree on who should be targeted, just not on how they should be targeted (I like how we're basically arguing now over what we agree on though ).

But believe me I'm not excusing big companies for what they do - if I were president of the world, you know what I'd do? Raid the office of every oil and coal company on the planet and seize their profits and immediately begin using all of it to accelerate the switch to renewable energy. Every right winger/libertarian out there would scream that I'm a communist and a fascist but I could care less - these people have made criminal amounts of money by exploiting us and our planet for long enough, and it's time for them to pay their dues. As of that moment every single dirty energy company in the world would become a non-profit organization dedicated to providing the world with clean renewable power.

But since becoming the most awesome fascist dictator ever probably isn't in the cards, I have to modify my approach. And I'm simply being cynical (aka realistic) and understanding that as long as we enable these companies and allow them to exploit us - they absolutely will. So it's up to us to stop allowing them.

So the question is how do we do that? And this is what I mean about dictating the market. Business goes where the demand is. And again we're in agreement here - the demand is where the businesses tells it to be because they have brainwashed people with things like advertising and fashion for decades. I just think the best way to fight this is to get people to stop being so brainwashed and apathetic about these things. So there's your answer once more about why I feel it's important to convince people whom I see as in "denial".

Also since we're on the topic of being realistic:

some people live of 150 pounds a week, and cannot afford solar panels or electric cars, in fact i would say the vast majority are in that situation due to the economy.

Very true. I understand there are a lot of people who can't afford to do these things with the economy the way it is. But this is where the governments really need to step up instead of all pissing into the wind.

Look at it this way - the global economy is in the dumps and facing a global problem that requires a massive overhaul of the economy itself. When was the last time we were in this situation? WWII.

The world was still slowly recovering from the Great Depression and then Hitler invaded Poland and everything changed. We had no choice. Industry had to be overhauled virtually overnight. Everybody went to work because it was urgent and it had to be done. Profit took a back seat to fighting this global threat and protecting our freedom. And then we won the war - and what happened after? I mean I'm sure it was a lot more difficult for you (I'm assuming you're in the UK) because you were right in the middle of it. But over here in North America where we didn't have a mess to clean up first the economy exploded. Even Germany and Japan both became economic superpowers from the overhaul and rebuilding that was required.

So it's kind of the same thing now. The world is facing a global threat and the economy needs a massive overhaul to fight it. An overhaul that will create millions upon millions of "green" jobs in the end - i.e. jobs that work to serve the planet and therefore us - instead of having some pointless economic task in advertising for example that only serves the man and works to help the rich get richer.

This is why the majority of the corporatists are scrambling to deny global warming. Even when they do things like say they support a carbon tax. They would rather people focus on the taxes than the part where we rebuild our entire economy into something that works for us and not for them. And the worst part is it looks like they're winning. We are facing this climate war which would actually liberate everyone in the end if done right, and they're telling everybody not to worry about it, to just go back inside our cages and wait for supper.

The scientists are telling everyone that Hitler is lining up his armies on the Polish border, and these people are trying to tell them it's probably just a training exercise.

I love all the off-topic comments on here focusing on the fact that this experiment does nothing to prove how climate responds to CO2 forcing outside of the laboratory and so therefore "we win" and "global warming is a hoax" and "wooo I'm smarter than a 5th grader - hi-five!".

Where in the OP does it say this was supposed to prove global warming? Of course this doesn't prove that: there is no single "proof" of that. What this experiment does is highlight one of the fundamental building blocks of evidence that over a hundred years of global warming science is based on. It was meant for all those one-liner automatons who seriously think global warming was completely made up out of nothing by Al Gore because he made a movie.

You know I'm pretty sure reading comprehension is a vital component to passing the 5th grade too...

Originally posted by mc_squared
I love all the off-topic comments on here focusing on the fact that this experiment does nothing to prove how climate responds to CO2 forcing outside of the laboratory and so therefore "we win" and "global warming is a hoax" and "wooo I'm smarter than a 5th grader - hi-five!".

Where in the OP does it say this was supposed to prove global warming? Of course this doesn't prove that: there is no single "proof" of that. What this experiment does is highlight one of the fundamental building blocks of evidence that over a hundred years of global warming science is based on. It was meant for all those one-liner automatons who seriously think global warming was completely made up out of nothing by Al Gore because he made a movie.

You know I'm pretty sure reading comprehension is a vital component to passing the 5th grade too...

Let me help you with how to post on a message board(sounds condescending, doesn't it? so do you). You started this thread by calling those of us who don't believe this horse# "climate-deniers", conflating us with holocaust-deniers, which is incredibly offensive; you mock and belittle anyone who disagrees, I mean, I can hear you sucking your teeth through my monitor, ease up man and you ignore all the people, real scientists like the link I posted, who agree with us. man-made global warming is al gore's wet dream. he's trying to make billions, but climate-gate #ed that up somewhat; now everyone knows what "hide the decline" means, except for maybe you. you can post this bull# all day long, it won't make it any more true. happy future posting, and do try to be respectful of those who completely and utterly destroy your pathetic arguments. have a nice day.

Originally posted by dragonseeker
You started this thread by calling those of us who don't believe this horse# "climate-deniers", conflating us with holocaust-deniers, which is incredibly offensive

Ah diddums. Do you think you're being persecuted like Galileo was as well?

The only conflation is in the term 'denier', which is simply a consequence of the denialism that many show on this topic. It might be a term you don't like, but it is a pretty clear description of a rhetorical technique.

Holocaust deniers use denialist techniques to deny the historical evidence of the holocaust. Climate science deniers use denialist techniques to deny the scientific evidence of the human influence on climate.

It's calling a spade a spade. Rather than allowing denialists to hijack the respectable position of skepticism (which they are not).

reply to post by dragonseeker

you mock and belittle anyone who disagrees

Ask lifeform11 or Curious and Concerned how much I have mocked and belittled them.


First thing you need to know is that there is a very distinct difference between climate skeptics and deniers. Skeptics are well-informed, open-minded, humble and rational - and very much welcome and appreciated in this debate. Guess which ones are the type that write everything off as horsesh# when they don't even have a clue what they're talking about?

So I really don't care how condescending I sound to people like that, because there's no polite way to inform someone how far they've got their own head stuck up their ###.

So if you want to be treated with more respect - make sure you're not one of them first.

I ignored your "real scientist" link because Hal Lewis is not a real climate scientist - that topic has already been discussed ad-nauseum on this board, and totally debunked.

What many of you self-declared "skeptics" don't understand is you're being deniers without even realizing it - because you're sponging up all of your information from a bunch of professional deniers that are using you to spread this disinformation for them - which is what I was referring to with all the myths I outlined in the OP. You are sitting ducks to these people because their lies already appeal to your pre-conceived notions on what a bunch of horsesh# this all apparently is.

So you can either get mad at me for pointing this out to you, or you can protect yourself by being a little more skeptical next time.

Also quit taking yourselves so seriously - it's a reference to a goddam game show for cryin out loud...

reply to post by mc_squared

First thing you need to know is that there is a very distinct difference between climate skeptics and deniers. Skeptics are well-informed, open-minded, humble and rational - and very much welcome and appreciated in this debate. Guess which ones are the type that write everything off as horsesh# when they don't even have a clue what they're talking about?

Denial of AGW is a natural human response to giving the so-called 'evidence' presented by AGW-advocates some honest, rational scrutiny. Also you might want to look-up the psychology of unconscious "self-projection". It involves unconsciously projecting perceived inadequacies one recognizes in oneself onto others (i.e. someone who is ignorant might project this quality onto others, convincing their self that it is really the ignorance of others that are at fault).

What many of you self-declared "skeptics" don't understand is you're being deniers without even realizing it - because you're sponging up all of your information from a bunch of professional deniers that are using you to spread this disinformation for them - which is what I was referring to with all the myths I outlined in the OP.

With all due respect, are you not doing exactly the same thing? Sponging up information from CAGW-advocates and then simply regurgitating it, like all the rest of us? After all, none of us can actually carry out these experiments ourselves, so unfortunately, it largely comes down to which scientists you're willing to trust. And I'm more inclined to believe the side who don't seem overly preoccupied with endlessly launching character assassinations, resorting to inflammatory remarks, like 'denier', and who don't sit highly sensitive thermometers next to large buildings with air conditioners.

reply to post by cushycrux


Wikipedia does NOT, I repeat, NOT conclude ANYTHING. Plenty universities/colleges here are starting to tell students to stop presenting material directly from wikipedia as it will not be proper source material. You could look at the sources pointed to on the wikipedia page, then post those and we'll see who wrote those reports, and which company ordered/funded the research. Sound simple does it not? See you in 60 years.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Denial of AGW is a natural human response to giving the so-called 'evidence' presented by AGW-advocates some honest, rational scrutiny. Also you might want to look-up the psychology of unconscious "self-projection". It involves unconsciously projecting perceived inadequacies one recognizes in oneself onto others (i.e. someone who is ignorant might project this quality onto others, convincing their self that it is really the ignorance of others that are at fault).

lol, armchair psychologist as well as citizen-climate scientist.

Denialism has five major features, and deniers show most if not all when arguing against a scientific consensus: (i) Fake experts; (ii) Selectivity/cherrypicking; (iii) logical fallacies/misrepresentation; (iv) impossible expectations; (v) conspiracy theories

Fake experts

Originally posted by Nathan-D
See Beck 2007. There's good evidence suggesting that CO2 varied quite a bit during the 20th century.

And this is. of course, Ernst-Georg Beck. A german high school biology teacher, who published a paper on historical CO2 in the deniers favourite faux-journal 'Energy & Environment'.

Selectivity/Cherrypicking

there is no hotspot in the troposphere above the tropics as the models predict then there is no major feedback amplification from water vapour and the theory collapses like a stack of cards.

Cherrypick one issue in one single location (the tropics) were the data is messy and uncertain, and which does not speak to robustness of 'the theory' at all (a non-sequitur - see logical fallacies) .

Originally posted by Nathan-D
There have been many studies suggesting that climate sensitivity is more in the order of around 0.1C-0.5C, from Lindzen, Paltridge, Douglass and Spencer, inter alia, rather than the 3.5C proposed by the IPCC.

Very few studies show such a low climate sensitivity. Interesting that we have the bunch of Lindzen et al (the typical 'contrarians' wheeled out by deniers), but only the IPCC proposing the consensus position.

The IPCC base their understanding on the current science - so it's not Lindzen et al. vs. IPCC - it's Lindzen et al. vs. the scientific consensus (ranging from modelling to observation) which has changed little since the 1970s, with considerable research since (even estimated around 3'C in the 70s). A clear cherrypick of the literature (and also see misrepresentation).

Logical fallacies/Misrepresentation

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Well, I don't know about you, but I think the simplest explanation is usually probably the right one. As I said before, all ice core data, going back 850,000 years shows that CO2 follows temperature change. It follows temperature as it declines and it follows temperature as it increases, on average by 800 years. What does this tell us? Mmm. Can you figure it out? It's a brain-taxer. It tells us that CO2 is an effect of temperature change - not the cause. This simple fact alone invalidates AGW. But hey, I guess I'm just a narrow-minded denier, right?

The typical lag fallacy that ignorant deniers spew.

Just because A causes B, this does not necessarily imply that B can't cause A. As sea temperatures warm, gases become less soluble. Thus. CO2 can be released when temperatures rise, and this happens during ice-age terminations. However, that doesn't negate the physical nature of CO2 as a GHG. Therefore, CO2 can also cause further warming - a positive feedback under such situations.

Simply fallacy.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Let's be clear here: we're talking about a trace gas that constitutes 0.038% of the atmosphere. CO2 is about 1 particle of 3,000 spread evenly throughout the atmosphere. Explain to me exactly how 1 particle in the atmosphere can significantly heat up 3,000 particles around it? Man's contribution to that 0.038% is about 3%. Do you really believe that that paltry 3% of 0.038% of the atmosphere that is produced by man's activity is controlling the temperature of the world?

Human contribution is around 30%, so a misrepresentation in a paragraph which simply tries to argue from small numbers to diminish the physical characteristics of CO2 as a GHG.

Conspiracy Theories

Originally posted by Nathan-D
It baffles me as to why so many people have just credulously bought into AGW; no theory in history has ever been so transparently false and riddled with so much corruption. People really will believe in anything.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Apart from computer models (which are more ore less statistical witchcraft) there really is no evidence for AGW (read up on Spencer and Lindzen), it's just a massive embezzlement scheme and dare I say it for fear of being labelled a crazy conspiracy theorist, but a pretext for population reduction (Google "the rush for biofuels millions starving to death").

Oh, here's the usual suspects, lol. And a lovely example of conspiracy theory. Of course! Scientists all over the world studying climate are just puppets for some devious megalomaniacs who want to take people's blankies.

The impossible expectations could well apply, but these were easy to find and I'm sure finding this one would be very tedious. So, we'll take it that you don't have that tendency - case not proven.

4/5 is a good score. Well done!

Grade A: must work harder to make impossible expectations a more common feature of your posts.

Originally posted by dragonseeker

Originally posted by mc_squared
I love all the off-topic comments on here focusing on the fact that this experiment does nothing to prove how climate responds to CO2 forcing outside of the laboratory and so therefore "we win" and "global warming is a hoax" and "wooo I'm smarter than a 5th grader - hi-five!".

Where in the OP does it say this was supposed to prove global warming? Of course this doesn't prove that: there is no single "proof" of that. What this experiment does is highlight one of the fundamental building blocks of evidence that over a hundred years of global warming science is based on. It was meant for all those one-liner automatons who seriously think global warming was completely made up out of nothing by Al Gore because he made a movie.

You know I'm pretty sure reading comprehension is a vital component to passing the 5th grade too...

Let me help you with how to post on a message board(sounds condescending, doesn't it? so do you). You started this thread by calling those of us who don't believe this horse# "climate-deniers", conflating us with holocaust-deniers, which is incredibly offensive; you mock and belittle anyone who disagrees, I mean, I can hear you sucking your teeth through my monitor, ease up man

and you ignore all the people, real scientists like the link I posted, who agree with us. man-made global warming is al gore's wet dream. he's trying to make billions, but climate-gate #ed that up somewhat; now everyone knows what "hide the decline" means, except for maybe you. you can post this bull# all day long, it won't make it any more true. happy future posting, and do try to be respectful of those who completely and utterly destroy your pathetic arguments. have a nice day.

Al Gore did NOT invent anthropogenic global-warming. There are NO "real scientists" with any credibility, relevant expertise, or lack of corruption that doubt the anthropogenic nature of global warming.

You actually DON'T seem to have any idea what "hide the decline" means:
www.skepticalscience.com...

Speaking only for myself- many global warming deniers DESERVE to be condescended to. I have personally stopped caring whether I hurt your feelings or not... your disinformation, ignorance, and apathy regarding the very SERIOUS threat of global warming is dangerous and beyond unacceptable to me. You SHOULD be ridiculed for turning a scientific discussion into some baseless, paranoid political debate that EPICALLY FAILS to see the real conspiracy. Oh and here's more... please educate yourself or stop your nonsense:

www.pbs.org...

www.greenpeace.org...

www.greenpeace.org...

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I'm beginning to think that this Climate Change issue really is just a Divide and Conquer tactic. Look at the people in this thread calling out the "right-wing nutjobs" and the "left-wing idiots". Getting to the truth of the matter seems of little value for those in power because this issue is consistently keeping the general population bickering and distracted from other issues.

Is it not the perfect issue to intensify the Right/Left paradigm? Those who deny global warming are part of ring-wing movements who are protecting Carbon-profiting Big Business. Those who support global warming are part of the left-wing fringe who want to see the implementation of a Carbon Tax and the destruction of Capitalism.

Meanwhile our rights and freedoms continue to be derided. We continue to fight amongst each other and accuse the other side of obscuring the facts for Political reasons and Ideological gain.

When will it end?

You're correct, it HAS been falsely turned into a divisive political issue.

Please refer to my reply just above this one for the culprits behind it.

The scientific debate essentially ended decades ago on the existence of global warming and its anthropogenic nature. However, in the last COUPLE decades, the fossil fuel industry has put out a massive and heavily funded campaign to disseminate propaganda and disinformation to the media/politicians which creates false/unscientific doubt about global warming. The worst part is- IT WORKED. Naturally, these industries appealed to the most corporate/industry-friendly political wing (the Republicans) and their followers. Also keep in mind, there is a whole ideological resistance to global warming, it's not based on fact. The right-wing seems to reject global warming because A) A bunch of "hippies" are concerned about it. B) It's based on science and many on the religious right don't trust scientists. C) It would require limits to industry/fossil fuels which requires regulation, which is heresy to their ridiculous laissez-faire dreams.

The reality is that over 98% of the science, scientists, and scientific organizations who ACTUALLY STUDY climatology/atmospheric physics state without any reasonable doubt that global warming is real, caused by man, and poses a serious threat to ecosystems/climate and thus humans.

reply to post by melatonin

lol, armchair psychologist.

I've dabbled in psychology.

Denialism has five major features, and deniers show most if not all when arguing against a scientific consensus.

How fascinating. But how did you become a spokesperson for all the scientists worldwide to be able to know what the majority believe?

(i) Fake experts

False experts? Surely, you're not hubristically suggesting that Richard Lindzen is a fake expert, are you? A man who's won prizes in meteorology, produced over 200 peer-reviewed citations and trained 24 PhDs? Where's the roles eye emoticon?

Selectivity/cherrypicking.

Selectively cherrypicking? Ha. You mean like Sherwood, who threw away 30 years of radiosonde measurements and satellite data and decided to measure the temperature by windshear instead? Or Michael Mann, who selectively-handpicked data from one single tree in Yama? Or Callander, who arbitrarily rejected hundreds of CO2 measurements above 350ppm? You mean those, right?

And this is. of course, Ernst-Georg Beck. A german high school biology teacher, who published a paper on historical CO2 in the deniers favourite faux-journal 'Energy & Environment'.

Beck's work is corroborated by Slocum 1955, Jaworowski 1994 and Schneider et al. 2006.

Cherrypick one issue in one single location (the tropics) were the data is messy and uncertain, and which does not speak to robustness of 'the theory' at all (a non-sequitur - see logical fallacies)

Cherrypicking? Are you serious? Above the equator is where the climate models tell us the hotspot should appear. How are we cherrypicking if the PCMs are not accurately mirroring the real-world? Nuts. Also you do realise that evaporation rates occur faster above the equator than anywhere else on Earth and this is where any extra water vapour would have the biggest effect?

Very few studies show such a low climate sensitivity. Interesting that we have the bunch of Lindzen et al (the typical 'contrarians' wheeled out by deniers), but only the IPCC proposing the consensus position.

The IPCC is a political organization and their funding is dependent on determining the risk posed from human-induced climate change. In other words, the worse the crisis gets, the more money they receive. I suppose you trust the IPCC enough not to skew the science so they can increase their funding? Need I remind you, this is the same organization that said the Himalayan glaciers would disappear in 50 years and when asked where they got the information from it turned out they gleaned it from a student's essay. And you still think they are credible? Sure. Keep dreaming. Also you should know that a belief does not become true fact by virtue of the number of people who believe it, no matter how great their professional expertise, does it? So please drop this "consensus" mantra. Incidentally, since we're on the subject of consensus you might be interested to know that the consensus in China, Russia and India is that AGW is largely inconsequential.

The IPCC base their understanding on the current science - so it's not Lindzen et al. vs. IPCC - it's Lindzen et al. vs. the scientific consensus (ranging from modelling to observation) which has changed little since the 1970s, with considerable research since (even estimated around 3'C in the 70s). A clear cherrypick of the literature (and also see misrepresentation).

Here we go again with the "consensus" mantra. You're like a pre-programmed zombie. The magnitude of climate sensitivity if far from being settled. It is very much open for debate. We have empirical measurements from the likes of Douglass, Spencer, Paltridge, inter alia, showing that the feedbacks are strongly negative.

Just because A causes B, this does not necessarily imply that B can't cause A.

Thank you for tacitly acknowledging that correlation doesn't automatically equate to causation. All that the advocates of the CAGW hypothesis have done to date is to seek, and occasionally find correlation and confidently proclaim that CO2 must be pushing up temperature. But we already know why there is a correlation, because temperatures change first, followed by corresponding changes in CO2 levels.

The typical lag fallacy that ignorant deniers spew.

Lag fallacy? You don't understand "cause and effect", do you?

As sea temperatures warm, gases become less soluble. Thus. CO2 can be released when temperatures rise, and this happens during ice-age terminations. However, that doesn't negate the physical nature of CO2 as a GHG. Therefore, CO2 can also cause further warming - a positive feedback under such situations.

I'm afraid that narrative merely expresses the simplistic nature of your thinking. Sure, CO2 by itself is a positive feedback, but finding one individual feedback is positive tells us nothing but the overall feedbacks. It's the totality of feedback that matters. It has been re-presented repetitiously that any extra water vapour dumped into the atmosphere engendered by increased warming would create more cloud cover and thus reflect more sunlight back into space, thus lowering the temperatures, acting as a negative feedback and automatically arresting any catastrophic warming.

Human contribution is around 30%, so a misrepresentation in a paragraph which simply tries to argue from small numbers to diminish the physical characteristics of CO2 as a GHG.

That's still very much open for debate. A decrease in C13 in the atmosphere is potentially consistent with biological sources. And even if you are right, CO2 has a progressively weaker radiative forcing response due to its logarithmic effect.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by melatonin

 

lol, armchair psychologist.

I've dabbled in psychology.

Ah, I see! Dabbled. That's a relief then...

Denialism has five major features, and deniers show most if not all when arguing against a scientific consensus.

How fascinating. But how did you become a spokesperson for all the scientists worldwide to be able to know what the majority believe?

lol, I know it's hard to accept, but the consensus is fairly clear. You should be fairly aware of it; you spend much of your time here trying to argue against it and obfuscating the issue.

And perhaps you misunderstood the purpose of my post - I'm not interested in discussing the science with you. I accepted that you are unable to do so with intellectual honesty quite a while back. You're just a great example.

Cheers

reply to post by Nathan-D

With all due respect, are you not doing exactly the same thing? Sponging up information from CAGW-advocates and then simply regurgitating it, like all the rest of us?

A large chunk of the basis for AGW can be worked out by anyone who has the requisite algebra skills. This involves using source materials that are long well understood and available in textbooks, not some scientists subjective opinion.

Global Warming 101

After all, none of us can actually carry out these experiments ourselves

I guess someone forgot to tell the 9 year old in the OP that?


And before you start rushing to tell me this doesn't prove how CO2 affects climate - the point is these steps are the beginning of the scientific method - aka a much more rigorous and logical approach that even the layman can incorporate, instead of subscribing to the ridiculous denier MO which melatonin has so eloquently laid out above (I usually just call it "throw whatever **** you can at the wall and hope it sticks").

Because a large part of objectively solving the climate science puzzle when you don't have a PhD - is doing just that - treating it like a puzzle, and seeing where the pieces fit (where the story adds up) and where they don't.

The method you use - as you seem to have just admitted in this line:

And I'm more inclined to believe the side who

Is deciding which outcome you like the best first, and then trying to make all the pieces fit. I believe the fancy term for this is called confirmation bias. Furthermore because you do this yourself, it is quite apparent you're just assuming everyone on the other side of the fence is doing it themselves.

But see - I can point out ways in which your confirmation bias is completely obscuring certain things that should have everything to do with simple objective logic, not "who can you trust?" paranoia. For example:

Let's be clear here: we're talking about a trace gas that constitutes 0.038% of the atmosphere. CO2 is about 1 particle of 3,000 spread evenly throughout the atmosphere. Explain to me exactly how 1 particle in the atmosphere can significantly heat up 3,000 particles around it?

And let's be clearer here: about 99% of that atmosphere has absolutely NOTHING to do with this debate. Because 99% of the atmosphere (N2, O2, etc) is NOT a greenhouse gas, so it has absolutely NO bearing on the relative concentration of CO2. About 997,000 parts per million of the atmosphere might as well be invisible in this discussion, because in the physics they quite literally are.

So when you stop bullsh**ing yourself to your own pseudo-logical outcome, you can realize that CO2 actually constitutes quite a sizable chunk of the relevant atmosphere. Furthermore it also only requires a textbook understanding of chemistry to recognize why pound for pound CO2 is a stronger GHG than water vapor (hint: because it's stretchier and bendier).

As for the "how can 1 particle heat up 3,000 particles around it?" thing - you still seem unable to grasp how heat trapping even works. Again this requires knowledge of basic physics, and I have already tried to explain this to you before.

Anyway let's do one more exercise in logic:

who don't sit highly sensitive thermometers next to large buildings with air conditioners

Measuring global warming means measuring how temperatures change over time. So even if all these thermometers were placed next to an air conditioner or black asphalt - giving them some initial warm bias - how is that going to make them get warmer over time? And if you're going to now try and tell me something about how "maybe as the air conditioner gets older it starts expelling more and more heat exhaust..." or some nonsense I'll add one more denier staple to melatonin's list: back-pedaling.


So as much as you want to play off our "belief" in AGW as some sort of blind subscription to Al Gore's bible - the truth is it is the complete opposite. It is rooted in fundamental scientific principles and logic. And just because you apparently can't understand how these things work, it doesn't mean the rest of us have to resort to trust issues or confirmation biasing our way to the results.

This whole subject has much less to do with trusting the scientists than it does with just trusting science itself.

reply to post by mc_squared

Is deciding which outcome you like the best first, and then trying to make all the pieces fit. I believe the fancy term for this is called confirmation bias. Furthermore because you do this yourself, it is quite apparent you're just assuming everyone on the other side of the fence is doing it themselves.

Not at all. I'm open to new possibilities and I enjoy travelling down new avenues of thought.

As for the "how can 1 particle heat up 3,000 particles around it?" thing - you still seem unable to grasp how heat trapping even works. Again this requires knowledge of basic physics, and I have already tried to explain this to you before.

This is not strictly true, CO2 only "traps" heat until the air is warm enough for it to emit exactly what it absorbs. Check out Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation and Einstein coefficients. CO2 emits less than it absorbs (which some idiots identify as "trapping") until it reaches the same temperature as the surface then it emits isotropically exactly what it absorbs. Theoretically this is supported by Kirchhoff's law and I have empirical evidence where you have a poorly understood (by you) thermodynamic theory. I would like to know how one molecule of CO2 could produce sufficient energy transfer to significantly heat up 3,000 molecules around it. Explain it, please.

And let's be clearer here: about 99% of that atmosphere has absolutely NOTHING to do with this debate. Because 99% of the atmosphere (N2, O2, etc) is NOT a greenhouse gas, so it has absolutely NO bearing on the relative concentration of CO2. About 997,000 parts per million of the atmosphere might as well be invisible in this discussion, because in the physics they quite literally are.

CO2 is a stronger GHG than water vapor (hint: because it's stretchier and bendier).

Now I know you are clueless. Now we all know it for certain. By far the chief contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapour. Water has a far broader absorption/emission spectrum with many more lines than CO2 that is relevant and some of that spectrum overlaps CO2's meagre line and much more abundant than CO2. Furthermore recent work done on the optical density of the atmosphere shows that the absorption due to H2O has decreased over the past 60 years. CO2 being a trace gas and having an ever-diminishing logarithmic effect means that adding more can't significantly heat the atmosphere, though water vapour can, and something even the IPCC agree with, which is why most of the warming in the climate models comes from feedback amplification.

Measuring global warming means measuring how temperatures change over time. So even if all these thermometers were placed next to an air conditioner or black asphalt - giving them some initial warm bias - how is that going to make them get warmer over time?

Don't try to justify the poor state of the NOAA's thermometers. If CAGW was the biggest threat facing humanity and these institutions get millions pumped into them you would think they would at least have the time and money to get thermometers installed properly, instead of putting them by air conditioners, asphalt and airports. How is putting highly-sensitive thermometers in airports not going to produce bias results? There is a reason why Hansen's GISS is consistently higher than the UAH.

So as much as you want to play off our "belief" in AGW as some sort of blind subscription to Al Gore's bible.

I never said such a thing.

not "who can you trust?" paranoia. For example:

I'm talking strictly about paleo-climate conjectures we can't do ourselves (i.e. stomata vs. ice core).

Originally posted by mc_squared
So when you stop bullsh**ing yourself to your own pseudo-logical outcome, you can realize that CO2 actually constitutes quite a sizable chunk of the relevant atmosphere. Furthermore it also only requires a textbook understanding of chemistry to recognize why pound for pound CO2 is a stronger GHG than water vapor (hint: because it's stretchier and bendier).

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.

Anyway, yeah - so, as you say, the bendiness and stretchiness of CO2 underpins its excellent IR absorption properties. Not exactly novel science, and allows CO2 to punch way above its weight.


Mitchell, J.F.B. (1989). Review of Geophysics, 27, 115-139

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by christine76

 

Even if you could pull 4 scientists that disagree with climate change, THAT'S NOT THE POINT.

The point is, SOMETHING is happening with our weather systems, etc that is causing changes that are VERY NOTICEABLE. You'd have to be BLIND to ignore them.

It's not about what you CALL it. It's about acknowledging that SOMETHING is going on.

Climate change, global warming or whatnot, I think that we can all agree that something is not right with our weather patterns.

I'm just going to keep reading up on things and see where they go because I know that I alone, cannot do much about these changes except ride them out.

We have to be careful about the folks behind climate denial, as well as those behind climate change.

The truth seemingly lies somewhere in the middle and not at either extremes.

So, according to the data you perceive as "something is going on" means the planet
is warming globally due to what? Natural CO2 production, our CO2 production?

So our weather patterns (with ALL variables inclusive) being *off* mean
global warming? How do you know this?