What do AGW 'Deniers' actually deny?

[IanC]

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'.

 

[konradv]

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'.

The link between higher GHGs and higher temps. Logically, if you have the first, how can you expect anything but the second?

 

[IanC]

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'.

The link between higher GHGs and higher temps. Logically, if you have the first, how can you expect anything but the second?

That is pretty vague. There aren't many deniers here if that is the definition.

 

[Annie]

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'.

The link between higher GHGs and higher temps. Logically, if you have the first, how can you expect anything but the second?

Then with what do you lay blame for earlier warming events?

 

[Mad Scientist]

They're trying to "deny" Algore any more money.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

 

[IanC]

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'.

The link between higher GHGs and higher temps. Logically, if you have the first, how can you expect anything but the second?

Then with what do you lay blame for earlier warming events?

Interesting point. Are you implying that the alarmists are 'denying' natural variation?

 

[Annie]

The link between higher GHGs and higher temps. Logically, if you have the first, how can you expect anything but the second?

Then with what do you lay blame for earlier warming events?

Interesting point. Are you implying that the alarmists are 'denying' natural variation?

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.

 

[IanC]

Then with what do you lay blame for earlier warming events?

Interesting point. Are you implying that the alarmists are 'denying' natural variation?

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.

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.

 

[IanC]

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.

Mankind certainly impacts his environment. What is your definition of significant? One part in a thousand, 5 in a 100, 50/50?

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Mankind certainly impacts his environment. What is your definition of significant? One part in a thousand, 5 in a 100, 50/50?

When our contribution is less than 12 trillion tons of CO2compared to nature producing the remaining 188 trillion tons in an atmosphere measured at 5 Quadrillion tons...

Not much at all.

 

[IanC]

I think deniers should start denying that they are a bunch of fat cats bankrolled by Big Oil. The people who have done the most damage against AGW are just persons with another job blogging on the side. Can you imagine what McIntyre could do with a coupla paid assistants and a real investigator?

 

[mdn2000]

I think deniers should start denying that they are a bunch of fat cats bankrolled by Big Oil. The people who have done the most damage against AGW are just persons with another job blogging on the side. Can you imagine what McIntyre could do with a coupla paid assistants and a real investigator?

How do you deny something that does not exist.

 

[mdn2000]

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.

Mankind certainly impacts his environment. What is your definition of significant? One part in a thousand, 5 in a 100, 50/50?

Why not end your impact on the earth, lead by example.

 

[Annie]

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.

Mankind certainly impacts his environment. What is your definition of significant? One part in a thousand, 5 in a 100, 50/50?

Why not end your impact on the earth, lead by example.

Really, what do you mean?

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Mankind certainly impacts his environment. What is your definition of significant? One part in a thousand, 5 in a 100, 50/50?

When our contribution is less than 12 trillion tons of CO2compared to nature producing the remaining 188 trillion tons in an atmosphere measured at 5 Quadrillion tons...

Not much at all.

Complete and total bullshit. Our contribution is an increase of 40% in CO2, a better than 150% increase in CH4, and many industrial gases that are thousands of times as effective of GHGs as CO2.

All the figures you were giving are the cycling of CO2 between the oceans and the atmosphere. These same numbers applied when the CO2 remained stable at 280 ppm for this interglacial. Now we are at 388 ppm. The last time we were at 300 ppm, 150,000 years go, sealevel was several meters above where it is today. The last time we were as high as we are today, the sea level stood between 30 and 40 meters above where it is today, that was over 15 million years ago.

And we are seeing the results of the rapid increase in the atmospheric CO2. The worst case predicton of the IPCC had the melt of the Artic Ice where it is today happening in 2050. The rapid melt of the Permafrost and outgassing of the Arctic Ocean clathrates were suppose to happen about 2100.

As damaging as a 2 C rise in temperatures would be, we will see more than that by 2100, maybe before 2050.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

That's ridiculous. The amount of gas we emit each day, are you kidding? This just sounds like an excuse to keep on guzzling gas, to drive you're huge, fast cars, to live a life of excess... so that you don't have to try and change, to actually care about something other than your own interests. that's what GW deniers sound like to me.

 

[westwall]

Mankind certainly impacts his environment. What is your definition of significant? One part in a thousand, 5 in a 100, 50/50?

When our contribution is less than 12 trillion tons of CO2compared to nature producing the remaining 188 trillion tons in an atmosphere measured at 5 Quadrillion tons...

Not much at all.

Complete and total bullshit. Our contribution is an increase of 40% in CO2, a better than 150% increase in CH4, and many industrial gases that are thousands of times as effective of GHGs as CO2.

All the figures you were giving are the cycling of CO2 between the oceans and the atmosphere. These same numbers applied when the CO2 remained stable at 280 ppm for this interglacial. Now we are at 388 ppm. The last time we were at 300 ppm, 150,000 years go, sealevel was several meters above where it is today. The last time we were as high as we are today, the sea level stood between 30 and 40 meters above where it is today, that was over 15 million years ago.

And we are seeing the results of the rapid increase in the atmospheric CO2. The worst case predicton of the IPCC had the melt of the Artic Ice where it is today happening in 2050. The rapid melt of the Permafrost and outgassing of the Arctic Ocean clathrates were suppose to happen about 2100.

As damaging as a 2 C rise in temperatures would be, we will see more than that by 2100, maybe before 2050.

Predicted before and the alarmists were wrong then and they are going to continue to be wrong now and in the future because the basic theory is in error. All you guys have is computer models that have never worked. Oh, and heavily "revised" temperature records.
Kind of like how embezzlers have two sets of books, one they show the world and the other that remains hidden away lest the truth be known.

 

[westwall]

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.

That's ridiculous. The amount of gas we emit each day, are you kidding? This just sounds like an excuse to keep on guzzling gas, to drive you're huge, fast cars, to live a life of excess... so that you don't have to try and change, to actually care about something other than your own interests. that's what GW deniers sound like to me.

No, it isn't. It is a realisation that trying to reduce mans levels of pollution back to the levels of the 1970's are both impossible and unnecessary. No one, and I mean no one with any brains at all thinks it's OK to pollute. You folks allways run to the extreme when we disagree with you, kind of like how children allways say "you never..." well it is simply not true.

We don't think it's OK to pollute. We are very much in favour of any technology that comes along that makes it easier to generate energy or manufacture items in a less polluting way. We are all in favour of that. What we are not in favour of is a government entity dictating to us how we must live a simpler life, taking our money away from us in the form of taxes and fees, determining what is "best for us" all the while growing fat on the hog from our labor.

Look at any of these elitist celebreties and how they say we have to live a simpler less consumptive life...while they play around in their 5000+ square foot mansions and fly their private jets all over the place. Environmentalism has turned into the next form of socialism but the elite get to live their happy lives at our expense. Class warfare is just around the corner for real if this nonsense continues.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

That's ridiculous. The amount of gas we emit each day, are you kidding? This just sounds like an excuse to keep on guzzling gas, to drive you're huge, fast cars, to live a life of excess... so that you don't have to try and change, to actually care about something other than your own interests. that's what GW deniers sound like to me.

So you're got nothing but envy based rhetoric. Gotcha.

Listen, go to wikipedia, and look for "Atmospheric Composition". Look at the sheer mass of the atmosphere. Then look at the percenage of ALL CO2 regardless of source. Then understand that we produce only .6% of that at most. The numbers are mindbogglingly small compared to the real thing. We're talking 1 part per billion is our creation. You cannot keep up with the production of nature. We just don't have the power as a species.

Now you mean to tell me that our ability to generate 0.00234% of the atmospheric composition will produce such changes to catastrophically change this planet? Shit. A good sized fart from a moderate volcano does more faster and many times a year.

Face it, the dream of green global fascism is dead. Send flowers.