What, exactly, do deniers think warmists are asserting?

[Abraham3]

Inquiring minds need to know.

Complete BS

 

[SSDD]

That adding trace amounts of a gas that is a trace gas in the atmosphere can in any way drive the climate....that somehow adding a radiative gas to the atmosphere can reduce the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself. That the atmosphere heats the ocean rather than the ocean heating the atmosphere....and on and on and on the drivel goes.

And it's true, your assertions are complete BS.

 

[eflatminor]

They are asserting that due to their belief that they know the future of weather patterns, this gives them the right to centrally control the market for energy.

I disagree with this assertion.

I'm not a 'denier' but nor do I believe we can control the earth's climate. I do believe we are, at best, a tiny zit on ass of Mother Nature.

If they believe that humans are in fact making the earth warmer and that will be a detriment to mankind, then feel free to invent an alternative for of energy. Feel free to move inland. Feel free to commit hari kari so as to avoid the calamity that is sure to come. Just leave the rest of us alone.

 

[flacaltenn]

Inquiring minds need to know.

Complete BS

Clearly, as YOU have stated many times, that questioning anything in a UN IPCC report is heresy. And that herectics are sneaky dangerous brainwashed cultists for believing that the science is NOT settled..

 

[R.D.]

What, exactly, do deniers think warmists are asserting?

Complete BS

You answered your own question

 

[skookerasbil]

The answer to the question is quite simple.......

You people need to assert as certain level of angst every day in your life, and this is your outlet. All these nutter causes embraced by the far left have a common thread: hysteria. Social justice hysterics......animal hysterics......gay hysterics.......environmental hysterics.......race hysterics. Ever notice how these people have to go full blown k00k activist every damn day of their lives? For the environmentalist who is consumed by AGW, their lives would be fucked without this obsession!!


Now for me, Im quite pleased to engage in the hysteria as it provides volumes of entertainment value in my otherwise hideously boring life. Without that level of k00k, Id be so out of this place.......but dang do I love highlighting those who trumpet fringe causes. Always have.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Inquiring minds need to know.

Complete BS

You are claiming that man made CO2 has caused increased heat on the planet. With absolutely no evidence it is true.

We have had increasing CO2 since 1998 and no increase in world wide temps. The claims that man made CO2 is the culprit of the small increase that did occur is not borne out by the facts.

 

[skookerasbil]

Geez.......these far left people in this forum are such social oddballs they don't even realize when they are putting their head on a tee ( like pumpkin bashing with a bat )

 

[JohnL.Burke]

When one views "global warming" as a religion then the arguments against progress and energy independents become more understandable even though still ridiculous.

 

[Abraham3]

When one views "global warming" as a religion then the arguments against progress and energy independents become more understandable even though still ridiculous.

No one actually views it as a religion. That is only an ignorant and rather desperate bullshit argument being put forth by deniers. And there is no tendency among people who accept that AGW is real and a threat, to argue against progress and energy INDEPENDENCE. That would be just another ignorant and rather desperate bullshit argument being put forth by deniers. You really ought to try to stay away from ignorant and desperate bullshit arguments as they do not reflect well on you. Just think for a few seconds before parroting denier claims. It takes very little thought to realize how weak those arguments actually are.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Thank you for the irrational knee jerk reactionary name calling but the emotion and faith that is required to ignore fact while screaming about the end of the world does seem to mirror the fanaticism of some religions. The religious global warming crowd seems to despise all things modern. Not unlike another religion. The Quakers. Granted, some global warming fanatics are more political than religious while other fanatics harken back to a 60's utopia where showers are rare and people grow their own vegetables. However, many other warming fanatics do take on a tone of a dogmatic theology. Your response is an example of that.

 

[HenryBHough]

Had Algore, in his spare time after inventing the internet, not invented "Global Warming" then they'd have had to invent something on their own over which to fulminate.

Too much work by half!

 

[Abraham3]

Thank you for the irrational knee jerk reactionary name calling but the emotion and faith that is required to ignore fact while screaming about the end of the world does seem to mirror the fanaticism of some religions. The religious global warming crowd seems to despise all things modern. Not unlike another religion. The Quakers. Granted, some global warming fanatics are more political than religious while other fanatics harken back to a 60's utopia where showers are rare and people grow their own vegetables. However, many other warming fanatics do take on a tone of a dogmatic theology. Your response is an example of that.

My response is rational, thoughtful and, unless you object to being termed a denier, indulged in no name calling.

People who follow mainstream science, who accept the position accepted by 97% of the experts in the field, are NOT the people ignoring facts. As far as religion, let's have a look:

RELIGION: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs..

Accepting AGW as a valid description of the behavior of Earth's climate has ZERO to do with the cause, nature or purpose of the universe, involves NO superhuman or supernatural agencies, NO devotional or ritual observances and contains NO moral code governing the conduct of human affair. It is simply a widely held scientific opinion that those who oppose it have chosen to characterize in this way in an attempt to denigrate its rational and objective value. It is another of a fairly long line of attacks formulated and put into practice by the active disinformation campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry and several conservative foundations. Do you recall the accusations that global warming was a conspiracy from GE to sell CFLs? Do you recall the charges that Al Gore had dreamed the whole thing up to get rich? Do you recall the charges that climate scientists have been lying to us in order to get rich from research grants? Do you recall the charges that AGW is a socialist/communist/liberal/fascist scheme to move the world's wealth to the poor? Do you recall the charges that the AGW theory is the product of ignorant scientists given diploma mill degrees by liberal universities, which scientists unfamiliar with solar irradiance, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Little Ice Age, the behavior of sequestered CO2 when the Earth is warmed by, say, Milankovitch Cycles or a dozen other things that deniers almost learned in the seventh grade?

Are ANY of those things relevant to the actual evidence that says the Earth is being made warmer by the Greenhouse Effect acting on increasing GHG levels produced almost entirely by human activity. No. So why are they being made? Because the deniers and the disinformation campaign that supports their very existence has nothing better to make arguments with BECAUSE AGW IS THE VIEW OF MAINSTREAM SCIENCE AND LIKE MOST OF THE VIEWS OF MAINSTREAM SCIENCE, IT HAS A MUCH, MUCH GREATER CHANCE OF BEING CORRECT THAN ITS COMPETITION.

 

[Zander]

They are asserting that due to their belief that they know the future of weather patterns, this gives them the right to centrally control the market for energy.

I disagree with this assertion.

I'm not a 'denier' but nor do I believe we can control the earth's climate. I do believe we are, at best, a tiny zit on ass of Mother Nature.

If they believe that humans are in fact making the earth warmer and that will be a detriment to mankind, then feel free to invent an alternative for of energy. Feel free to move inland. Feel free to commit hari kari so as to avoid the calamity that is sure to come. Just leave the rest of us alone.

 

[Abraham3]

They are asserting that due to their belief that they know the future of weather patterns, this gives them the right to centrally control the market for energy.

I disagree with this assertion.

I'm not a 'denier' but nor do I believe we can control the earth's climate. I do believe we are, at best, a tiny zit on ass of Mother Nature.

If they believe that humans are in fact making the earth warmer and that will be a detriment to mankind, then feel free to invent an alternative for of energy. Feel free to move inland. Feel free to commit hari kari so as to avoid the calamity that is sure to come. Just leave the rest of us alone.

If the average global temperature continues to increase, there are trends in weather patterns that will ensue.

No one is claiming the "the right to centrally control the market for energy". There are no rights involved. There is only what IS right. If, like 97% of the world's experts, you believe that human activity is responsible for the majority of the warming we have seen in the last 150 years and that that warming represents a significant threat, it is quite likely you will believe humans need to reduce our GHG emissions in order to avoid that threat. That is not claiming a right nor claiming control over energy production. Does the FDA assume control of the practice of medicine or pharmaceutical development when it bans certain practices or certain drugs because trials and experiments have found them to be unsafe? And we are not the government, just some of its citizens.

Rejecting human responsibility for global warming is the central, core tenet of denier-ism. I'm afraid you ARE a denier.

Generating energy is not what is warming the planet. Emitting GHGs into the atmosphere by the gigaton is.

Suggesting that we all commit suicide rather than bothering you with good science and an effort to improve the future of human culture is more than a little self-centered, egotistical and antisocial. I ask you to withdraw that comment.

 

[gnarlylove]

Inquiring minds need to know.

Complete BS

They have been convinced that the science is so uncertain and that climate change is disproven weekly, even though it's quite the opposite--proven daily.

Another point is that deniers think by addressing climate change we will revert to pre-modern industry and cave dwellings. This is complete BS. Others think any regulation is harming our liberties (the only liberty it takes away is corporations being able to dump waste like Duke did in the Dan River 2 weeks back). Accusations of arresting liberty is really the accusation of arresting profits (spelled J-O-B-S). Just because companies won't grow doesn't mean anything. Complete BS but it fits their narrative so well they just can't give it up--addicted to a false reality. One that is most certainly suicidal.

 

[westwall]

Thank you for the irrational knee jerk reactionary name calling but the emotion and faith that is required to ignore fact while screaming about the end of the world does seem to mirror the fanaticism of some religions. The religious global warming crowd seems to despise all things modern. Not unlike another religion. The Quakers. Granted, some global warming fanatics are more political than religious while other fanatics harken back to a 60's utopia where showers are rare and people grow their own vegetables. However, many other warming fanatics do take on a tone of a dogmatic theology. Your response is an example of that.

My response is rational, thoughtful and, unless you object to being termed a denier, indulged in no name calling.

People who follow mainstream science, who accept the position accepted by 97% of the experts in the field, are NOT the people ignoring facts. As far as religion, let's have a look:

RELIGION: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs..

Accepting AGW as a valid description of the behavior of Earth's climate has ZERO to do with the cause, nature or purpose of the universe, involves NO superhuman or supernatural agencies, NO devotional or ritual observances and contains NO moral code governing the conduct of human affair. It is simply a widely held scientific opinion that those who oppose it have chosen to characterize in this way in an attempt to denigrate its rational and objective value. It is another of a fairly long line of attacks formulated and put into practice by the active disinformation campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry and several conservative foundations. Do you recall the accusations that global warming was a conspiracy from GE to sell CFLs? Do you recall the charges that Al Gore had dreamed the whole thing up to get rich? Do you recall the charges that climate scientists have been lying to us in order to get rich from research grants? Do you recall the charges that AGW is a socialist/communist/liberal/fascist scheme to move the world's wealth to the poor? Do you recall the charges that the AGW theory is the product of ignorant scientists given diploma mill degrees by liberal universities, which scientists unfamiliar with solar irradiance, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Little Ice Age, the behavior of sequestered CO2 when the Earth is warmed by, say, Milankovitch Cycles or a dozen other things that deniers almost learned in the seventh grade?

Are ANY of those things relevant to the actual evidence that says the Earth is being made warmer by the Greenhouse Effect acting on increasing GHG levels produced almost entirely by human activity. No. So why are they being made? Because the deniers and the disinformation campaign that supports their very existence has nothing better to make arguments with BECAUSE AGW IS THE VIEW OF MAINSTREAM SCIENCE AND LIKE MOST OF THE VIEWS OF MAINSTREAM SCIENCE, IT HAS A MUCH, MUCH GREATER CHANCE OF BEING CORRECT THAN ITS COMPETITION.

"Denier" is, by definition, pejorative, so yes you ALWAYS engage in name calling.

But to Mr. Burkes assertion, you claim that only climatologists can understand what they are saying compares very favorably with High Priests relaying the Word of God to the faithful.

Secondly you have your computer models which bear no relationship to reality and yet, like religious people, you worship the Scriptures as they are written and ignore or wish to do harm to any who dare question them.

And lastly (though if I wished I could certainly come up with more analogs) there is that matter of how you wish to persecute blasphemers.....so yes, you are religious fanatics in every meaningful and measurable way.

 

[westwall]

They are asserting that due to their belief that they know the future of weather patterns, this gives them the right to centrally control the market for energy.

I disagree with this assertion.

I'm not a 'denier' but nor do I believe we can control the earth's climate. I do believe we are, at best, a tiny zit on ass of Mother Nature.

If they believe that humans are in fact making the earth warmer and that will be a detriment to mankind, then feel free to invent an alternative for of energy. Feel free to move inland. Feel free to commit hari kari so as to avoid the calamity that is sure to come. Just leave the rest of us alone.

If the average global temperature continues to increase, there are trends in weather patterns that will ensue.

No one is claiming the "the right to centrally control the market for energy". There are no rights involved. There is only what IS right. If, like 97% of the world's experts, you believe that human activity is responsible for the majority of the warming we have seen in the last 150 years and that that warming represents a significant threat, it is quite likely you will believe humans need to reduce our GHG emissions in order to avoid that threat. That is not claiming a right nor claiming control over energy production. Does the FDA assume control of the practice of medicine or pharmaceutical development when it bans certain practices or certain drugs because trials and experiments have found them to be unsafe? And we are not the government, just some of its citizens.

Rejecting human responsibility for global warming is the central, core tenet of denier-ism. I'm afraid you ARE a denier.

Generating energy is not what is warming the planet. Emitting GHGs into the atmosphere by the gigaton is.

Suggesting that we all commit suicide rather than bothering you with good science and an effort to improve the future of human culture is more than a little self-centered, egotistical and antisocial. I ask you to withdraw that comment.

You sound just like a Jehovah's Witness!

 

[eflatminor]

They are asserting that due to their belief that they know the future of weather patterns, this gives them the right to centrally control the market for energy.

I disagree with this assertion.

I'm not a 'denier' but nor do I believe we can control the earth's climate. I do believe we are, at best, a tiny zit on ass of Mother Nature.

If they believe that humans are in fact making the earth warmer and that will be a detriment to mankind, then feel free to invent an alternative for of energy. Feel free to move inland. Feel free to commit hari kari so as to avoid the calamity that is sure to come. Just leave the rest of us alone.

If the average global temperature continues to increase, there are trends in weather patterns that will ensue.

Weather trends will change over time because they've ALWAYS changed over time. They've even changed over the last 15+ years during which temperatures have not increased despite your previous assurances Florida would be under water by now.

Sorry, you really don't know what's best for everyone else.

No one is claiming the "the right to centrally control the market for energy".

That's EXACTLY what you're claiming.

There are no rights involved. There is only what IS right.

Thank you for proving my point! And in the same sentence. How about that?!

If, like 97% of the world's experts, you believe that human activity is responsible for the majority of the warming we have seen in the last 150 years and that that warming represents a significant threat, it is quite likely you will believe humans need to reduce our GHG emissions in order to avoid that threat.

This is not provable. Further, the earth's temperatures and CO2 levels have been far higher than today before anyone ever heard of an SUV...hell, before there was anyone resembling a modern human.

Your 'world's experts' are the same geniuses that promised us the next ice age was coming not that long ago. Christ, the weatherman can't get tomorrow's forecast right, but you're just SURE you know what will happen in decades to come, despite your previously erroneous predictions.

Your arrogance is overwhelming.

That is not claiming a right nor claiming control over energy production. Does the FDA assume control of the practice of medicine or pharmaceutical development when it bans certain practices or certain drugs because trials and experiments have found them to be unsafe? And we are not the government, just some of its citizens.

Fuck the FDA. They're a big part of the reason medical care is so damn expensive and they further restrict the availability of potentially life and health saving medications...medications that any consenting adult ought to have the right to ingest in his own damn body.

Call me crazy, but in a free society, I think we ought to own our own bodies. I get you think you know better.

Rejecting human responsibility for global warming is the central, core tenet of denier-ism. I'm afraid you ARE a denier.

Whenever someone doesn't fall in line with your group think, label them a "insert bad word here". Works every time...

Hey, I must be a racist too. Don't forget that!

Generating energy is not what is warming the planet. Emitting GHGs into the atmosphere by the gigaton is.

Who emitted GHGs into the atmosphere before humans ever drove a car...you know, when they were in higher concentrations than today.

Must have been horse farts???

Suggesting that we all commit suicide rather than bothering you with good science and an effort to improve the future of human culture is more than a little self-centered, egotistical and antisocial. I ask you to withdraw that comment

Not only do I not withdraw that comment, I suggest you demonstrate your confidence in your predictions of calamity. Come on, show us just how much smarter you are than everyone else...

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Thank you for the irrational knee jerk reactionary name calling but the emotion and faith that is required to ignore fact while screaming about the end of the world does seem to mirror the fanaticism of some religions. The religious global warming crowd seems to despise all things modern. Not unlike another religion. The Quakers. Granted, some global warming fanatics are more political than religious while other fanatics harken back to a 60's utopia where showers are rare and people grow their own vegetables. However, many other warming fanatics do take on a tone of a dogmatic theology. Your response is an example of that.

My response is rational, thoughtful and, unless you object to being termed a denier, indulged in no name calling.

People who follow mainstream science, who accept the position accepted by 97% of the experts in the field, are NOT the people ignoring facts. As far as religion, let's have a look:

RELIGION: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs..

Accepting AGW as a valid description of the behavior of Earth's climate has ZERO to do with the cause, nature or purpose of the universe, involves NO superhuman or supernatural agencies, NO devotional or ritual observances and contains NO moral code governing the conduct of human affair. It is simply a widely held scientific opinion that those who oppose it have chosen to characterize in this way in an attempt to denigrate its rational and objective value. It is another of a fairly long line of attacks formulated and put into practice by the active disinformation campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry and several conservative foundations. Do you recall the accusations that global warming was a conspiracy from GE to sell CFLs? Do you recall the charges that Al Gore had dreamed the whole thing up to get rich? Do you recall the charges that climate scientists have been lying to us in order to get rich from research grants? Do you recall the charges that AGW is a socialist/communist/liberal/fascist scheme to move the world's wealth to the poor? Do you recall the charges that the AGW theory is the product of ignorant scientists given diploma mill degrees by liberal universities, which scientists unfamiliar with solar irradiance, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Little Ice Age, the behavior of sequestered CO2 when the Earth is warmed by, say, Milankovitch Cycles or a dozen other things that deniers almost learned in the seventh grade?

Are ANY of those things relevant to the actual evidence that says the Earth is being made warmer by the Greenhouse Effect acting on increasing GHG levels produced almost entirely by human activity. No. So why are they being made? Because the deniers and the disinformation campaign that supports their very existence has nothing better to make arguments with BECAUSE AGW IS THE VIEW OF MAINSTREAM SCIENCE AND LIKE MOST OF THE VIEWS OF MAINSTREAM SCIENCE, IT HAS A MUCH, MUCH GREATER CHANCE OF BEING CORRECT THAN ITS COMPETITION.

Look, I don't really want to get in a religious argument with you. The fact that you actually claim that your original response to me consisted of no name calling is just silly. Of course it did. I doesn't matter though. What matters though are the warming fanatics pretending that facts are important and then hiding behind pseudo-science that has long been discredited. Of course I'm talking about man made global warming. The warming fanatics pretending that the Earth has never warmed in the past is just odd. Pretending that a beneficial trace gas as CO2 is playing a role in climate change even though it comprises less than half of 0.1 percent of our atmosphere is also odd. Pretending that the hockey stick climate graph wasn't debunked years ago is weird. Or pretending that most scientists believe in man made global warming. All of this is just passionate nonsense.
Also, the global warming fanatics do show a religiosity by providing a moral code when it comes to the blasphemers who dare ask questions about the religiously biased pseudo-science of climate change. The "evil" deniers are often accused of not caring about people, children, or the Earth they share. In other words, the deniers are accused by the warming fanatics of being immoral. Hence, my observation that warming fanatics decide what they consider to be a fact, and then drape their beliefs in the trappings of religious fervor by adding a moral code. The best comparison to the warming fanatics I could come up with would probably be Scientology.