What, exactly, do warmists think that deniers are denying?

[IanC]

just to make things clear, I am talking about legitimate public figures who have been called deniers, like McIntyre, Watts, Lindzen, Curry or the Pielkes. hell, I'll even throw in Monckton if your side takes credit for Mann.


let's start with the basics-

1. my side says there has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. 0.7C was the acknowledged concensus amount circa Y2K. after Y2K the massive amounts of 'corrections' to the temperature data make the total very uncertain.

2. my side says that doubling atmospheric CO2 should theoretically warm the surface by 1.0-1.2C, with everything else being equal. your side?

3. my side says that CO2 has increased and that human burning of fossil fuels is responsible for a significant portion of that increase. yours?


those three things are the basis of AGW and I would like to point out that both warmists and skeptics agree to a very close degree on them. it may seem like baby steps but I would like to document our agreements before we diverge into our differences and the reasons for them.

are most people who are interested in the science rather than the politics OK with it so far?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is an Article of Faith. You are a "denier" if you don't believe

 

[IanC]

AGW is an Article of Faith. You are a "denier" if you don't believe

the main problem with ad hominems is that the other side will just adopt the good ones and claim them for their own, as is exemplified by mamooth. sure, it was fun to point out that many of the common man believed in catastrophic AGW simply because he accepted what some of the more strident climate scientists were saying but the same thing can be said about many of the skeptics who only take the position of contrarian because they want to be different. many or most on both sides arent being swayed by the actual evidence, otherwise they wouldnt be so sure that they are right.

 

[mamooth]

after Y2K the massive amounts of 'corrections' to the temperature data make the total very uncertain.

That's really what defines you denialists, the way you claim that some rather mundane ordinary science is actually a vast conspiracy.

2. my side says that doubling atmospheric CO2 should theoretically warm the surface by 1.0-1.2C, with everything else being equal. your side?

A large portion of your side denies it will have any effect. Look at Westwall, with his constant "But it's a trace gas!" line of reasoning.

The AR5 number was 1.5C - 4.5C, but newer data indicates the lower end is very unlikely. So more like 3.0C-4.5C.

 

[Crystalclear]

Global Warming is something bigger than us, it is just not caused by human beings.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh well.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh well.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Why has there been no warming these past 15 years

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

after Y2K the massive amounts of 'corrections' to the temperature data make the total very uncertain.

That's really what defines you denialists, the way you claim that some rather mundane ordinary science is actually a vast conspiracy.

2. my side says that doubling atmospheric CO2 should theoretically warm the surface by 1.0-1.2C, with everything else being equal. your side?

A large portion of your side denies it will have any effect. Look at Westwall, with his constant "But it's a trace gas!" line of reasoning.

The AR5 number was 1.5C - 4.5C, but newer data indicates the lower end is very unlikely. So more like 3.0C-4.5C.

Great! That's a testable theory. Take 2 tanks of air with the only variance being an additional 400ppm of CO2 and compare the difference in temperature against your expected 3 degree increase

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Abraham3]

o The Earth is getting warmer at a rate unprecedented in millions of years
o That warming is being caused by the Greenhouse Effect operating on increasing levels of GHGs in Earth's atmosphere.
o The primary source of those GHGs are human activities: the combustion of fossil fuel for power and transportation and deforestation for development, mining and agriculture.
o This warming represents a threat to our well being from a number of directions: rising sea level, alterations in rain patterns, alteration in seasonal timing, increased weather intensity and so forth.
o To minimize the harm this process will cause, humans need to minimize their GHG emissions. This is best accomplished by replacing coal and petroleum combustion with renewable sources such as solar (PV and thermal), wind, tide, OTEC, geothermal, hydroelectric as well as nuclear.

So, you agree with all of that, don't you. Any reasonable person would.

 

[Old Rocks]

But we are not dealing with reasonable people here. We are dealing with people that are ideologically driven, that will deny reality that is biting them in the ass, because their ideology says that reality cannot exist. They are today's communists with their own little Lysenkos.

 

[bripat9643]

But we are not dealing with reasonable people here. We are dealing with people that are ideologically driven, that will deny reality that is biting them in the ass, because their ideology says that reality cannot exist. They are today's communists with their own little Lysenkos.

 

[IanC]

after Y2K the massive amounts of 'corrections' to the temperature data make the total very uncertain.

That's really what defines you denialists, the way you claim that some rather mundane ordinary science is actually a vast conspiracy.

2. my side says that doubling atmospheric CO2 should theoretically warm the surface by 1.0-1.2C, with everything else being equal. your side?

A large portion of your side denies it will have any effect. Look at Westwall, with his constant "But it's a trace gas!" line of reasoning.

The AR5 number was 1.5C - 4.5C, but newer data indicates the lower end is very unlikely. So more like 3.0C-4.5C.

I'm sorry, I should have spent more time clarifying my statements but I usually assume that people understand the basics.

there is a specific amount of warming associated with doubling CO2 in the atmosphere, without feedbacks, calculated by simple radiative properties. that amount is ~1C/2xCO2. all the rest is dependent on feedbacks. I am stating that both skeptics and warmers are starting from this basic first step. warmers believe that there are strong positive feedbacks, skeptics do not. the evidence supports our case more closely. We are roughly 4/10ths into a doubling, which should produce 0.6 or 0.8C (remember, its logrithmic). your figure that includes large positive feedbacks would be showing at least 1.5C and more likely over 2C.

BTW, have you actually read the AR5 report on climate sensitivity? you seem to be confused as to what it says.



and as to your first point on temp data.....why for instance is conUS reading for say, 1995 different in 1998, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013? and why does it keep going up? didnt we know how to read a thermometre before? what exactly changed between 2010 and 2012 that we knew that the temperature was actually higher than we previously thought?

 

[Politico]

Warmers? Is that the newest buzz word?

 

[westwall]

But we are not dealing with reasonable people here. We are dealing with people that are ideologically driven, that will deny reality that is biting them in the ass, because their ideology says that reality cannot exist. They are today's communists with their own little Lysenkos.

Yes, you guys ARE the modern Lysenko's. Just like him you mandate that there can be no discussion. Thanks for bringing him up. He must be your poster child.

 

[westwall]

Warmers? Is that the newest buzz word?

I prefer "revisionists". You know, like the Neo Nazi revisionists who rewrote the history books trying to make the Holocaust disappear? Mann revised the worlds history trying to make the MWP disappear, Hansen revised the historical temperature record to make the 1930's disappear.. Etc. etc. etc.

 

[IanC]

But we are not dealing with reasonable people here. We are dealing with people that are ideologically driven, that will deny reality that is biting them in the ass, because their ideology says that reality cannot exist. They are today's communists with their own little Lysenkos.

Yes, you guys ARE the modern Lysenko's. Just like him you mandate that there can be no discussion. Thanks for bringing him up. He must be your poster child.

just like I told Frank....we started bringing up Lysenko because climate science couldnt be criticized, even though it doesnt make sense scientifically, and now the other side is accusing us of the same thing. we complained that research counter to CO2 theory was not being sufficiently funded and journals were biased against publishing skeptical papers and now the propaganda is out that skeptics are the ones with unlimitied big oil funding, and that skeptics are the ones manipulating journals to avoid publishing papers.

 

[IanC]

o The Earth is getting warmer at a rate unprecedented in millions of years
o That warming is being caused by the Greenhouse Effect operating on increasing levels of GHGs in Earth's atmosphere.
o The primary source of those GHGs are human activities: the combustion of fossil fuel for power and transportation and deforestation for development, mining and agriculture.
o This warming represents a threat to our well being from a number of directions: rising sea level, alterations in rain patterns, alteration in seasonal timing, increased weather intensity and so forth.
o To minimize the harm this process will cause, humans need to minimize their GHG emissions. This is best accomplished by replacing coal and petroleum combustion with renewable sources such as solar (PV and thermal), wind, tide, OTEC, geothermal, hydroelectric as well as nuclear.

So, you agree with all of that, don't you. Any reasonable person would.

I, and all the mainstream skeptics agree that the earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age. you are just drinking the kool-aid if you honestly believe the rate is the highest in millions of years. you just dont understand the concept of limited sensitivity in proxy data. do you think that proxy data taken a thousand, or ten thousand, or a hundred thousand years from now will show the same sharp spike that instrumental data shows now? hell, tree ring proxy taken today shows that we are cooling! but we agree that there has been some warming in the last dozen decades so dont call me a denier on that point.

I have agreed that CO2 is a GHG and is rising in concentration in the atmosphere, therefore it must have some impact on radiative distribution of energy. you consider it the climate control knob, I consider it just one of many factors. only time will tell which one of us is closer to being correct. but the 17 year pause in significant warming is not looking good for your case. again, we agree that CO2 is a GHG, is increasing, and has some impact on climate temperatures so dont call me a denier on that point.

even the IPCC seems to be scaling back its doomsday predictions for the next century of warming. your declaration of extreme weather is not supported by actual data. other claims like species extinctions and mass refugees are totally bogus. so far it seems like warming and excess CO2 has actually been beneficial to life on Earth. sea level rise is an interesting subject. it seems that tide gauges tell us that SLR is much like it has been in the last 100 years, satellites tell us that there has been a 50% increase but only out in the oceans where we just have to take there word for it (and where they say there are areas that have been dramatically rising for twenty years right next to areas that have been dramatically dropping for twenty years. I guess gravity works differently in places that we cannot actual see for ourselves). So yes, you can call me a denier of extreme weather. but could you explain to me how that is proof of anything? it is certainly not proof of warming.

 

[Abraham3]

just like I told Frank....

Crusader Frank? The-Moon-is-an-artificial-and-hollow-satellite Frank? Thank goodness someone is keeping him abreast. Or anass.

we started bringing up Lysenko because climate science couldnt be criticized, even though it doesnt make sense scientifically, and now the other side is accusing us of the same thing.

I haven't reviewed this thread but I have seen no one accusing deniers of Lysenkoism and given how few and how powerless you all are, it'd be a silly comparison. The only thing you have in common with Lysenko is the worthlessness of your science and the damage you would do WERE you to have power.

we complained that research counter to CO2 theory was not being sufficiently funded and journals were biased against publishing skeptical papers

The error of perspective Ian. Research counter to CO2 theory is more than sufficiently funded - the difference of course being our views on sufficiency in this regard. Your second statement is simply a factual error. Skeptical papers do not fail to get published due to an unjustified bias. They fail to get published because they consistently display bad science. And such submissions are few and far between to boot. The number of scientists willing to waste their time and their careers working for the Disinformation Campaign is actually quite low. The human species seems to have a higher intrinsic moral standing than for which the Christians would give us credit.

and now the propaganda is out that skeptics are the ones with unlimited big oil funding, and that skeptics are the ones manipulating journals to avoid publishing papers.

Well, skeptics HAVE had several hundred million dollars worth of funding from fossil fuel and extreme conservative sources - far more than the science would justify and more than enough to buy a few "journals". I hear Heartland has a few for sale to the highest bidder.

Ian, when someone suggests to you that the fossil fuel industry has a great deal of money and that it quite reasonably views climate concerns and impending climate regulations as a threat to its profits, what goes through your mind? Do you or do you not believe they are working to minimize public opinions and public action in response to AGW?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

just like I told Frank....

Crusader Frank? The-Moon-is-an-artificial-and-hollow-satellite Frank? Thank goodness someone is keeping him abreast. Or anass.

we started bringing up Lysenko because climate science couldnt be criticized, even though it doesnt make sense scientifically, and now the other side is accusing us of the same thing.

I haven't reviewed this thread but I have seen no one accusing deniers of Lysenkoism and given how few and how powerless you all are, it'd be a silly comparison. The only thing you have in common with Lysenko is the worthlessness of your science and the damage you would do WERE you to have power.

we complained that research counter to CO2 theory was not being sufficiently funded and journals were biased against publishing skeptical papers

The error of perspective Ian. Research counter to CO2 theory is more than sufficiently funded - the difference of course being our views on sufficiency in this regard. Your second statement is simply a factual error. Skeptical papers do not fail to get published due to an unjustified bias. They fail to get published because they consistently display bad science. And such submissions are few and far between to boot. The number of scientists willing to waste their time and their careers working for the Disinformation Campaign is actually quite low. The human species seems to have a higher intrinsic moral standing than for which the Christians would give us credit.

and now the propaganda is out that skeptics are the ones with unlimited big oil funding, and that skeptics are the ones manipulating journals to avoid publishing papers.

Well, skeptics HAVE had several hundred million dollars worth of funding from fossil fuel and extreme conservative sources - far more than the science would justify and more than enough to buy a few "journals". I hear Heartland has a few for sale to the highest bidder.

Ian, when someone suggests to you that the fossil fuel industry has a great deal of money and that it quite reasonably views climate concerns and impending climate regulations as a threat to its profits, what goes through your mind? Do you or do you not believe they are working to minimize public opinions and public action in response to AGW?

Given the actual science, it's far more likely that the Moon is artificial than a 100ppm extra CO2 will cause floods and drought and ice to increase and melt.

I'll walk you through it when you're ready

 

[CrusaderFrank]

o The Earth is getting warmer at a rate unprecedented in millions of years
o That warming is being caused by the Greenhouse Effect operating on increasing levels of GHGs in Earth's atmosphere.
o The primary source of those GHGs are human activities: the combustion of fossil fuel for power and transportation and deforestation for development, mining and agriculture.
o This warming represents a threat to our well being from a number of directions: rising sea level, alterations in rain patterns, alteration in seasonal timing, increased weather intensity and so forth.
o To minimize the harm this process will cause, humans need to minimize their GHG emissions. This is best accomplished by replacing coal and petroleum combustion with renewable sources such as solar (PV and thermal), wind, tide, OTEC, geothermal, hydroelectric as well as nuclear.

So, you agree with all of that, don't you. Any reasonable person would.

o The Earth is getting warmer at a rate unprecedented in millions of years

Absolute fiction bordering on a lie

o That warming is being caused by the Greenhouse Effect operating on increasing levels of GHGs in Earth's atmosphere.

And there's no observable warming these past 15 years because....?