10 Common Climate Change Denier Myths

[Sunsettommy]

10 common myths about climate change — and what science really says

These will all be familiar to anyone whose been here more than a day and a half

What a great example of a misleading dishonest article that was. they make it seem that the Sun doesn't change hardly at all, but it does in certain wavelengths, which the article didn't mention at all. No science research was posted for #1..., they use the PISS highly manipulated temperature data set as source.... ha ha ha....

Then they use the useless consensus arguments, which doesn't prove anything, just a popularity claim often used in politics, science advancement runs on REPRODUCIBLE research, which the article didn't mention at all.

CO2's warm forcing foot print is so small, by the time it reached 400 ppm, that any additional CO2 adds warm forcing is now near zero, using the LOGARITHMIC formula, this is standard 101 stuff. The crappy article didn't mention that at all either...….

Most warming since 1979 have been driven by El-Nino's, heck you can see the effect easily in a chart, when La-Nina comes around, it begins to cool as it did for a couple years after 2016, then stopped when El-Nino came back. CO2 isn't causing the big warm ups we have been seeing since 1979, it is the EL-NINO's doing it.

Myth #5 is highly misleading since they completely left out the numerous IPCC warming per decade prediction/projections rate, which has been running at the .30C rate since 1990. When it is warming for decades, it will reach a higher peak, which is unsurprising, but no evidence that CO2 is driving it since it never gets above .20C per decade, which is actually a major failure for the AGW conjecture. Gee they completely left that inconvenient failure out of their dishonest article..

Myth #6 is a flat out lie, they refer to that stupid Connolly paper, which has been debunked years ago, when a few hundred papers were brought up showing that there were indeed cooling concerns in them. This shows the author is a poor researcher, since it is EASY to find the cooling papers on the internet.

Myth #7 is also a lie since PISS has been well known to change their temperature data over the years, it always gets cooler in the early years, and warmer in the later years. Heck just using their published charts over the last 20 years, changed starting points from 1880, greatly reduced the cooling from the 1940's to the 1970's and so on.

I have done enough to show that the article is propaganda level garbage.

 

[Oddball]

The 97% number is a total lie, and they know it.

It's roughly accurate, as it's been confirmed multiple ways.

At this stage, only the most desperate deniers still try to deny they own status as a kook fringe anti-science minority.

It's not even roughly accurate....It's a goddamn lie, and you've been presented with the proof that it is numerous times.

This is more evidence that you warmers are full of shit....When you get caught in your lies, you go for bullshit goalpost moving responses like " it's roughly accurate", when it's not even remotely so...You're a bunch of goddamn lying liars.

 

[mamooth]

It's not even roughly accurate....It's a goddamn lie, and you've been presented with the proof that it is numerous times.

I understand. Your cult told you that. And you always agree with what your cult tells you. The cult is your life, and you won't do anything that risks your status in the cult.

 

[Oddball]

It's not even roughly accurate....It's a goddamn lie, and you've been presented with the proof that it is numerous times.

I understand. Your cult told you that. And you always agree with what your cult tells you. The cult is your life, and you won't do anything that risks your status in the cult.

You understand nothing, least of all science....And I know that you've been shown proof that the 97% number is a total lie, because I've been online when you were presented with the proof.

Fucking liar.

 

[mamooth]

What a great example of a misleading dishonest article that was. they make it seem that the Sun doesn't change hardly at all, but it does in certain wavelengths,

So, please tell us how this affects climate. With data and references.

You do understand that "I have a wildass theory, therefore it's right!" isn't science, right?

Most warming since 1979 have been driven by El-Nino's, heck you can see the effect easily in a chart,

That's not what the data shows.

Myth #5 is highly misleading since they completely left out the numerous IPCC warming per decade prediction/projections rate, which has been running at the .30C rate since 1990.

That's an interesting denier urban legend, but like all deniers myths, it's contradicted by reality. The IPCC has been predicting 0.20C/decade for a long time.

Myth #6 is a flat out lie, they refer to that stupid Connolly paper,

Actually, they refer to seven papers.

since it is EASY to find the cooling papers on the internet.

Yes, along with the far, far more numerous warming papers. That's the point Remember, your cherrypicking fallacies have no effect on honest and informed people.

Myth #7 is also a lie since PISS has been well known to change their temperature data over the years, it always gets cooler in the early years, and warmer in the later years.

By making the past look warmer, the adjustments to temperature data have made the warming look _smaller_. Thus, your conspiracy theory faceplants.

<data:blog.pageTitle/>

 

[mamooth]

You understand nothing, least of all science....And I know that you've been shown proof that the 97% number is a total lie, because I've been online when you were presented with the proof.

You poor thing. You actually think that your cult ravings are some kind of proof.

Now, head over to the dining hall. I bet they're having pudding tonight. You know how much you like that.

 

[ReinyDays]

We know solar output is dropping now, while climate is warming. Thus, the "it's the sun!" argument is debunked. If you disagree, explain to everyone how a cooling sun makes it warmer.

We know solar output is dropping now

This has to be the single most stupid thing every posted ... solar output isn't dropping, what sort of nonsense is this? ... that is so far beyond physical possibilities I am shocked that is should come up at all ... you state we "know" this somehow and you couldn't be more wrong ... if this is passes for knowledge with you ...

... the rest of your posts are ignorant drivel ..

 

[Billy_Bob]

What a great example of a misleading dishonest article that was. they make it seem that the Sun doesn't change hardly at all, but it does in certain wavelengths,

So, please tell us how this affects climate. With data and references.

You do understand that "I have a wildass theory, therefore it's right!" isn't science, right?

Most warming since 1979 have been driven by El-Nino's, heck you can see the effect easily in a chart,

That's not what the data shows.

Myth #5 is highly misleading since they completely left out the numerous IPCC warming per decade prediction/projections rate, which has been running at the .30C rate since 1990.

That's an interesting denier urban legend, but like all deniers myths, it's contradicted by reality. The IPCC has been predicting 0.20C/decade for a long time.

Myth #6 is a flat out lie, they refer to that stupid Connolly paper,

Actually, they refer to seven papers.

since it is EASY to find the cooling papers on the internet.

Yes, along with the far, far more numerous warming papers. That's the point Remember, your cherrypicking fallacies have no effect on honest and informed people.

Myth #7 is also a lie since PISS has been well known to change their temperature data over the years, it always gets cooler in the early years, and warmer in the later years.

By making the past look warmer, the adjustments to temperature data have made the warming look _smaller_. Thus, your conspiracy theory faceplants.

<data:blog.pageTitle/>

Nice of you to use Dana Nuttercellie's Skeptical-Shit-Science reply's. Its rather telling that you use propaganda points from SKS and Hotwhopper.....

 

[Oddball]

You understand nothing, least of all science....And I know that you've been shown proof that the 97% number is a total lie, because I've been online when you were presented with the proof.

You poor thing. You actually think that your cult ravings are some kind of proof.

Now, head over to the dining hall. I bet they're having pudding tonight. You know how much you like that.

East shit and die, lying krazy kat.

 

[ReinyDays]

... that any additional CO2 adds warm forcing is now near zero, using the LOGARITHMIC formula, this is standard 101 stuff. The crappy article didn't mention that at all either...

Standard 301 stuff ... Climatology is offered during the junior year in college ... the students needs two years calculus to work log functions ...

I have done enough to show that the article is propaganda level garbage.

Except that paragraph under #10 that talks about the profuse amount of articles that are propaganda level garbage ... where it discusses how actual climatologists' statements are twisted and abused into click-bait ... I thought that was honestly done ...

 

[Weatherman2020]

And every Leftard leader flies private jets and lives in several mansions.

Even if true, and it's not, it doesn't affect the science one bit.

And every bit of that science says you're part of a kook fringe anti-science liars' cult.

Have a nice day with your

Believe in the science...

Science says it's bad to eat shit. Therefore, by your standard, everyone should be eating shit.

Do you now understand how dumb your "This bit of science was once wrong, so we should reject all science!" standard is?

call us when palm trees return to the arctic circle.

 

[skookerasbil]

You understand nothing, least of all science....And I know that you've been shown proof that the 97% number is a total lie, because I've been online when you were presented with the proof.

You poor thing. You actually think that your cult ravings are some kind of proof.

Now, head over to the dining hall. I bet they're having pudding tonight. You know how much you like that.

"cult ravings"

s0n.....not for nothing but you're an intellectual cripple. "Cult" by definition implies fringe in terms of numbers. If your view was a majority view, climate change action would have occurred long ago. Instead, we havent seen dick which means the voting public thinks the science is a bunch of hooey.

Which makes your side the cult s0n....that would be the fringe minority view.

We're all real proud of ya!

 

[flacaltenn]

10 common myths about climate change — and what science really says

These will all be familiar to anyone whose been here more than a day and a half

As usual, CBS has all of this wrong.. I'll only address #1 because it's obvious they don't understand anything about the sun than Milosevich cycles....

But the pace of the recent temperature spike has been markedly faster — taking place over 150 years, with the majority happening over just the past few decades. At that same time, the sun's output has been going in the opposite direction, diverging from the direction in temperature. As this NASA graph shows, solar irradiance is down slightly from a peak in the 1950s.

THAT --- is a horrid explanation... The forcing due to CO2 responsible for GWarming and which I totally accept is about 3 watts/m2... This RUNUP in Total Solar Irradiance in their graph is about 1 watt/m2... And the fact that this SOLAR RISE plateaus in or around the 60s DOES NOT IN ANY WAY mean that this higher level of solar irradiance --------------------------------------------------------------

1) Is NOT BEING STORED -- in the oceans like for GW or not ADDING DAILY to a new thermal equilibrium at the surface.. EVEN if it's PLATEAUED, it's still adding ENERGY (not just forcing power) into the system and boosting the temp... The Earth has too much inertia in it's thermo system to start or stop on a dime..

2) IS not SIGNIFICANT... Unlike the forcing from GHouse gases which retards the LOSS of heat from the surface 24/7/365 -- SOLAR forcing puts the energy INTO the system in the 1st place.. So it's a MORE LIKELY source of "heat in the oceans" and other storage mechanisms than LW InfraRed...

3) Because this is the ENERGY SOURCE, it's effect is over time.. NOT JUST the "resistance" to loss... And like your furnace being "stuck on" -- EVEN THO IT"S CONSTANT TEMPERATURE furnace air" it can cause TEMP RISES within the house -- NO MATTER WHAT INSULATION is retarding the loss...

4) Since for GW there are short and LONG term "climate sensitivities that PROLONG the GW effect and make it last LONGER than the forcing from CO2 today,, THE SAME REASON AND LOGIC applies to solar forcings.. It could be DECADES before the halt to the solar rise is "thermodynamically equalized"....

THAT'S what the fucking science says about "the sun"... What CBS wrote, is the "Idiot's Guide to Sun and GW"....

Bottom line is -- LIKELY SOME of the small blip in temperature DOES INDEED have to do with that 100 year increase in Total Solar Irradiance that they had no chance of understanding.....

 

[flacaltenn]

I'll skip the rest of the CBS analysis if you please... OK Crick? The level of understanding is SO damn bad, it aint worth the Million Watts of broadcast power that CBS News has...

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW Crick -- go back and look at "The Oceans Ate My Global Warming" papers by Trenberth et al.... That RISE of stored energy in the oceans is almost a linear sloped line with NO higher "accelerations" in it... That's what calculus tells you that get from INTEGRATING (storing) a CONSTANT FORCING....

If that ocean storage was responding to INCREASING SURFACE TEMPS due to GHouse gases -- it would have higher "terms" in it's slope.. Because Surface temp has not been a CONSTANT.. But the SUN has.... And the long wave IR from GH gases cannot warm the oceans much at all compared to the FULL SPECTRUM of solar irradiance...

SO -- it's ENTIRELY possible that because the oceans are the VAST MAJORITY OF SURFACE AREA --- that this BLIP we're reading and you panicking about does has a substantial dependence on that solar increase in the past 100 years or so....

 

[flacaltenn]

Last line of that article in the first section about the sun is also PURPOSELY or IGNORANTLY misleading...

Still, that change in output is minor, having varied by only 0.1% since 1750.

It's in the same ballpark as the forcing for GW at the surface... 3watts/m2 for GW.. 1.3Watts for the sun...

To use the TOTAL POWER of the sun at the surface and DISMISS 0.1% of it as TOO SMALL to have an effect ----------------------------------- is Fraud...

The calculation is roughly 0.1% of 1375 watts AVG on the planet surface (for 8 to 10 hours a day)

These folks might flunk HS math and science with boo boos in understanding like that..

 

[BS Filter]

 

[Sun Devil 92]

#1 is running fast and loose with the facts ... we didn't measure the Sun's output 1 million years ago, it's impossible to tie that to climate ... the writers touch upon Milankovitch cycles, which are a set orbital cycles mostly unrelated to each other ... however none of the individual cycles correlates to the current glacial/interglacial cycles we've been seeing, despite what the article implies ... causation does equal correlation, and if not we have a serious problem ...

I agree that the claims of recent fluctuations, those in the past fifty years, are completely bogus ... the solar constant has been 1360 W/m^2 for the past 10 million years, up from 1350 W/m^2 ... maybe we'll hit 1370 in another 10 million years ...

#2 is our basic theory, demonstrating this theory is correct doesn't seemed to have happened yet ... (anyone with a citation is welcome to post it) ... the antithesis of the above, correlation never equals causation ... there's also a very serious break in the math; and in physics, the math has to be right or it ain't so ... theories without a rigid mathematical basis is generally called conjecture ...

The Temperature vs. Carbon Dioxide graph is fraudulent ... that's not the temperature curve and I believe CO2 has only been being regularly measured since 1945 (and I'd be happy to be wrong in that guess) ...

#3 is an example of selective pooling ... pick your sources for best results ... plus they count the "no comment" as positives ... maybe part of that 3% are folks who know something about computational fluid dynamics ... just a thought ...

[whimper]

#7 is agreeable to me ... NOAA's system isn't perfect but it is public ... read it yourself and find a better way ... it's the best we have right now ...

#8 is seriously misinformed ... on several different levels ... this insults me: "A recent study evaluated 17 climate model projections published between 1970 and 2007, with forecasts ending on or before 2017." ... what about the other 1700 climate model projections? ... that should be 14 of the 1717 projections are right, or 0.8% chance ...

Filthy lies ...

#9 and the Big Rip would too ... nothing like the entire universe disassociating into it's component Marinara sauce to ease the effects of climate change ...

#10 is the example that proves it's point ... the whole article does use "select bits of scientific data to fuel the impression of impending Armageddon." ... I can only give credit to the fact they didn't violate any of the laws of thermodynamics, 'cause that's annoying ...

You hit this one so hard (out of the park), it hasn't landed yet.

Great post.

 

[mamooth]

But the pace of the recent temperature spike has been markedly faster — taking place over 150 years, with the majority happening over just the past few decades.

According to your theory, the rate of increase should be decreasing. That isn't happening, so your theory is wrong. Do I really need to go over with you about what the response of a transfer function to a step function input is?

What's more, your theory requires that heat be hiding in the oceans. But we've been measuring ocean temps for a long time. The heat was not hiding there. So your theory fails on that account as well.

And for those reasons, among others, all the smart people know your theory is wrong. But wait, I forget, you're the super-genius who knows more than the brightest minds on the planet.

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”
-- Richard P. Feynman.

Your theory doesn't agree with experiment.

 

[mamooth]

This has to be the single most stupid thing every posted ... solar output isn't dropping, what sort of nonsense is this?

Did your cult not send you the memo? Most deniers tell us that solar output is dropping, and the world will enter a new ice age soon. You're even out of step with your own cult.

At least they get part of that right. TSI has been dropping since the peak around 1970. That's not debatable, and yet here you are trying to debate it.

... the rest of your posts are ignorant drivel ..

Which you ran from, vainly flinging insults to cloak your retreat, and leaving a trail of piddle behind you. I gave you an asswhupping in front of the whole board. Ah, life is sweet.

If you disagree, we can still discuss the points I raised that debunked your cult nonsense. Or you can keep power-weeping at me. I'm find with that, as I find denier tears to be a bitter yet tasty delicacy.