What do AGW 'Deniers' actually deny?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Oct 20, 2010.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    I don't know anyone who denies that temperatures have gone up. Are you a denier if you think it is natural warming with a small anthropogenic component?

    I don't know anyone who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has an impact on global temperatures. Are you a denier if you disbelieve the 1C increase for doubling CO2 magically turns into 5C after it is put into a computer climate model?

    I could go on about many other things but I am interested in what the alarmists on this board consider the hallmarks of a 'Denier'.
     
  2. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,551
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,662
    The link between higher GHGs and higher temps. Logically, if you have the first, how can you expect anything but the second?
     
  3. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    That is pretty vague. There aren't many deniers here if that is the definition.
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Then with what do you lay blame for earlier warming events?
     
  5. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,938
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,678
    They're trying to "deny" Algore any more money.
     
  6. Big Fitz
    Offline

    Big Fitz User Quit *****

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    16,917
    Thanks Received:
    2,473
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,475
    Mankind is too insignificant to affect the climate. We can poison our environment and kill ourselves off that way, but change the weather? No. Not hardly. Not when nature outdoes us in all aspects by a scale of hundreds or thousands to one in scale.
     
  7. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    Interesting point. Are you implying that the alarmists are 'denying' natural variation?
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    There were earlier warming periods, coming from Chicago I realize that there were glaciers here at one time, but not for a long time. So, what caused that warming? Nothing Kyoto and such would be able to address.
     
  9. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    I agree with you that the Kyoto Accord is unmanagable and of little known impact but I was really looking to find what the characteristics of a 'denier' are.
     
  10. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    Mankind certainly impacts his environment. What is your definition of significant? One part in a thousand, 5 in a 100, 50/50?
     

Share This Page