10 Common Climate Change Denier Myths

[CrusaderFrank]

Anyone? I know it seems popular to use any thread as an excuse to argue about whatever is on your mind, but we're supposed to be talking about the material in the OP. Since the above listed items are the bulk of AGW deniers arguments, those of you in that category must have some points to make here. Let's hear them.

Where's the lab work? What's the relationship between increases in CO2 and temperature? I saw something that purports to be a "formula" but has it been tested in the lab?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh look.... Another Crick regurgitation of false statements.... How many times must you be beat over the head, by your propaganda being destroyed, will it take to teach you that you believe a lie?

I'm still waiting for the first dear Billy. Which of these ten items from the OP would you care to demonstrate are not myths?

Myth #1: It's the sun.
Myth #2: Carbon dioxide levels are tiny. They can't make a difference.
Myth #3: Scientists disagree on the cause of climate change.
Myth #4: The climate has always changed. It's natural.
Myth #5: It's cold out. What happened to global warming?
Myth #6: In the 1970s scientists warned about a coming ice age. They were wrong. So why should we believe them now?
Myth #7: The temperature record is rigged or unreliable
Myth #8: Climate models are not accurate.
Myth #9: Grand Solar Minimum is coming. It will counteract global warming.
Myth #10: Scientists claim climate change will destroy the planet by 2030.

#3 isn't a myth, and the 97% number is a total lie.....In fact, it was debunked by lunchtime on the day it was released.

#6 is only one example where the "experts" got things wrong, and demanded that the whole world re-arrange their lives around their errors.... The Catholic church, Malthus, Marx, JM Keyenes, JK Galbraith, Paul Ehrlich -just to name a few "experts"- were all wrong, yet their "research" was supposedly unassailable.

#8 is correct...Nobody needs anymore evidence than the fact that they have never ever been predictive.

The 97% figure is not a lie. Studies by Oreskes in 2004, Doran in 2009, Anderegg in 2010, Cook in 2013, Verheggen in 2014, stenhouse in 2014 and Carlton in 2015 all show consensus values between 91 and 100%. If you think you can debunk them all, have at it. Just saying it doesn't mean squat.

As to #6: can we conclude that you reject all experts? And if you do not reject them all, please explain how you pick and choose.

As to the accuracy of climate models, mentioned in Myth #8, refute the following:

 

[Oddball]

 

[Oddball]

 

[Crick]

Myth #8: Climate models are not accurate.

Climate models take into consideration only known factors ... we don't include any of the many unknown factors that effect climate ... the biggest unknown factor is climate sensitivity ... we're just guessing what value this is and this is why the more honest computer runs give wide flat distribution curves ...

In computation fluid dynamics, we have something called a "unit volume" ... this is how we divide up our atmosphere into small parts and analyze climate ... of course, the smaller this unit volume, the more accurate the computer run results will be ... but that's balanced against how long it take to run on our fastest computers ... if we used cubic centimeters for our unit volume, we could very likely obtain very accurate results, but this takes 10,000 years to predict just 100 years from now ... what's the point? ... so we sacrifice accuracy to get results in a timely manner ... as of a few years ago, our unit volume was 7.5º x 7.5º x full height of atmosphere ... this unit volume is huge and completely ignores convection ... we have to gut accuracy to get timely results ...

When we plug in values into our climate models from 100 years ago ... they do not predict today's conditions ... if you have a citation that says otherwise, I'd honestly love to read it ... so climate models are inaccurate over the past ... there's nothing that says they will be accurate in the future ... this is an area of very active research ... we are getting better models with each passing season ... plus computers are still being tortured by Moore's Law (double transistors per square inch per year) ...

I already addressed the fraud in the article that claimed there were only 17 climate models over a 27 year period ... filthy lie ... there's been thousands of models developed in that time ... even cherry-picking the best of the best, the authors still could only find 14 that "worked" ... go ahead and look at the distribution curves, okay, sure, that "worked" at some level I suppose ...

Looks like the RCP6.5 scenario is all but abandoned by actual scientists as being crazy batshit ... RCP8.5 scenario is still used to create click-bait and get authors a spot on Opera's Coffee Clatch show right before General Hospital comes on ... there's cash value for Daytime Emma Awards, worth convincing folks the oceans will boil off in 30 years ...

Please rebut ... and show your math please ...

You are making a mistake that has always seemed to me to be common among deniers. You find all the potential error sources in climate models and throw them at us. You then conclude, with no further examination, that modeling is worthless. That is a logical failure. Models have predictive value. Models have accurately hindcast and such performance was presented in the OP's linked article, to wit:

Finally, we do not need models to come to reasonable and supported conclusions as to what has been happening vis-a-vis global warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and what is happening NOW. Increasing levels of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are warming the planet. The continued release of GHGs will continue to warm the planet. This has not been an arguable point for many years.

 

[Oddball]

Oh look.... Another Crick regurgitation of false statements.... How many times must you be beat over the head, by your propaganda being destroyed, will it take to teach you that you believe a lie?

I'm still waiting for the first dear Billy. Which of these ten items from the OP would you care to demonstrate are not myths?

Myth #1: It's the sun.
Myth #2: Carbon dioxide levels are tiny. They can't make a difference.
Myth #3: Scientists disagree on the cause of climate change.
Myth #4: The climate has always changed. It's natural.
Myth #5: It's cold out. What happened to global warming?
Myth #6: In the 1970s scientists warned about a coming ice age. They were wrong. So why should we believe them now?
Myth #7: The temperature record is rigged or unreliable
Myth #8: Climate models are not accurate.
Myth #9: Grand Solar Minimum is coming. It will counteract global warming.
Myth #10: Scientists claim climate change will destroy the planet by 2030.

#3 isn't a myth, and the 97% number is a total lie.....In fact, it was debunked by lunchtime on the day it was released.

#6 is only one example where the "experts" got things wrong, and demanded that the whole world re-arrange their lives around their errors.... The Catholic church, Malthus, Marx, JM Keyenes, JK Galbraith, Paul Ehrlich -just to name a few "experts"- were all wrong, yet their "research" was supposedly unassailable.

#8 is correct...Nobody needs anymore evidence than the fact that they have never ever been predictive.

The 97% figure is not a lie. Studies by Oreskes in 2004, Doran in 2009, Anderegg in 2010, Cook in 2013, Verheggen in 2014, stenhouse in 2014 and Carlton in 2015 all show consensus values between 91 and 100%. If you think you can debunk them all, have at it. Just saying it doesn't mean squat.

As to #6: can we conclude that you reject all experts? And if you do not reject them all, please explain how you pick and choose.

As to the accuracy of climate models, mentioned in Myth #8, refute the following:

You didn't think that them there goalposts were gonna move themselves, didja?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oh look.... Another Crick regurgitation of false statements.... How many times must you be beat over the head, by your propaganda being destroyed, will it take to teach you that you believe a lie?

I'm still waiting for the first dear Billy. Which of these ten items from the OP would you care to demonstrate are not myths?

Myth #1: It's the sun.
Myth #2: Carbon dioxide levels are tiny. They can't make a difference.
Myth #3: Scientists disagree on the cause of climate change.
Myth #4: The climate has always changed. It's natural.
Myth #5: It's cold out. What happened to global warming?
Myth #6: In the 1970s scientists warned about a coming ice age. They were wrong. So why should we believe them now?
Myth #7: The temperature record is rigged or unreliable
Myth #8: Climate models are not accurate.
Myth #9: Grand Solar Minimum is coming. It will counteract global warming.
Myth #10: Scientists claim climate change will destroy the planet by 2030.

#3 isn't a myth, and the 97% number is a total lie.....In fact, it was debunked by lunchtime on the day it was released.

#6 is only one example where the "experts" got things wrong, and demanded that the whole world re-arrange their lives around their errors.... The Catholic church, Malthus, Marx, JM Keyenes, JK Galbraith, Paul Ehrlich -just to name a few "experts"- were all wrong, yet their "research" was supposedly unassailable.

#8 is correct...Nobody needs anymore evidence than the fact that they have never ever been predictive.

The 97% figure is not a lie. Studies by Oreskes in 2004, Doran in 2009, Anderegg in 2010, Cook in 2013, Verheggen in 2014, stenhouse in 2014 and Carlton in 2015 all show consensus values between 91 and 100%. If you think you can debunk them all, have at it. Just saying it doesn't mean squat.

As to #6: can we conclude that you reject all experts? And if you do not reject them all, please explain how you pick and choose.

As to the accuracy of climate models, mentioned in Myth #8, refute the following:

Lets see how they do without training them and having no predictive phase seen.

The empirical evidence says your models not only failed but failed so badly even 2 standard deviations was to narrow an error band. Now what do you call a GCM that has no predictive capabilities? FAILED... And what do you call the hypothesis the model is built on? Falsified...

At what point will you idiots start over on your failed hypothesis?

 

[Crick]

View attachment 309892

Your contention is false.

or, from the OP

 

[Billy_Bob]

And then came Karl Et Al which cooled the past and warmed the present.... Adjustment number 3,456,987,543......

 

[Crick]

A more accurate comment would have been, "let's see how they do if we disingenuously set them up to fail from the start".

Anyone who has been looking at Dr Roy Spencer's creation here and wondering how the world's scientists could make such gaping errors, would benefit from having a look at the following article: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception | HotWhopper, For what it was worth, Spencer essentially destroyed his own academic career with the release of this glaringly deceptive graphic.

[
Lets see how they do without training them and having no predictive phase seen.

View attachment 309891

The empirical evidence says your models not only failed but failed so badly even 2 standard deviations was to narrow an error band. Now what do you call a GCM that has no predictive capabilities? FAILED... And what do you call the hypothesis the model is built on? Falsified...

At what point will you idiots start over on your failed hypothesis?

 

[OldLady]

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

Awesome article. Thanks. I'm going to save this for the next head-in-the-sand-er who tells me there is no reason to do anything.

 

[Billy_Bob]

A more accurate comment would have been, "let's see how they do if we disingenuously set them up to fail from the start".

[
Lets see how they do without training them and having no predictive phase seen.

View attachment 309891

The empirical evidence says your models not only failed but failed so badly even 2 standard deviations was to narrow an error band. Now what do you call a GCM that has no predictive capabilities? FAILED... And what do you call the hypothesis the model is built on? Falsified...

At what point will you idiots start over on your failed hypothesis?

Now that's funny....

Your crying because you want to continuously adjust the fudge factor to get the desired output...

My Gawd man...... Your an idiot!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A more accurate comment would have been, "let's see how they do if we disingenuously set them up to fail from the start".

Anyone who has been looking at Dr Roy Spencer's creation here and wondering how the world's scientists could make such gaping errors, would benefit from having a look at the following article: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception | HotWhopper, For what it was worth, Spencer essentially destroyed his own academic career with the release of this glaringly deceptive graphic.

[
Lets see how they do without training them and having no predictive phase seen.

View attachment 309891

The empirical evidence says your models not only failed but failed so badly even 2 standard deviations was to narrow an error band. Now what do you call a GCM that has no predictive capabilities? FAILED... And what do you call the hypothesis the model is built on? Falsified...

At what point will you idiots start over on your failed hypothesis?

The actual temperature readings are DENIERS!!!

 

[Crick]

And then came Karl Et Al which cooled the past and warmed the present.... Adjustment number 3,456,987,543......

The people in charge of collecting and publishing that RSS data do not agree with you.

 

[Oddball]

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

Awesome article. Thanks. I'm going to save this for the next head-in-the-sand-er who tells me there is no reason to do anything.

Don't you already embarrass yourself enough?

 

[Billy_Bob]

A more accurate comment would have been, "let's see how they do if we disingenuously set them up to fail from the start".

Anyone who has been looking at Dr Roy Spencer's creation here and wondering how the world's scientists could make such gaping errors, would benefit from having a look at the following article: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception | HotWhopper, For what it was worth, Spencer essentially destroyed his own academic career with the release of this glaringly deceptive graphic.

[
Lets see how they do without training them and having no predictive phase seen.

View attachment 309891

The empirical evidence says your models not only failed but failed so badly even 2 standard deviations was to narrow an error band. Now what do you call a GCM that has no predictive capabilities? FAILED... And what do you call the hypothesis the model is built on? Falsified...

At what point will you idiots start over on your failed hypothesis?

The actual temperature readings are DENIERS!!!

Those damn radiosonds balloons we've been using for over 100 years are so inaccurate.... Crick keeps shooting himself in the foot. Those balloons are what we gauge every satellites accuracy on earth with. They are the gold standard... PERIOD!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A more accurate comment would have been, "let's see how they do if we disingenuously set them up to fail from the start".

Anyone who has been looking at Dr Roy Spencer's creation here and wondering how the world's scientists could make such gaping errors, would benefit from having a look at the following article: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception | HotWhopper, For what it was worth, Spencer essentially destroyed his own academic career with the release of this glaringly deceptive graphic.

[
Lets see how they do without training them and having no predictive phase seen.

View attachment 309891

The empirical evidence says your models not only failed but failed so badly even 2 standard deviations was to narrow an error band. Now what do you call a GCM that has no predictive capabilities? FAILED... And what do you call the hypothesis the model is built on? Falsified...

At what point will you idiots start over on your failed hypothesis?

The actual temperature readings are DENIERS!!!

Those damn radiosonds balloons we've been using for over 100 years are so inaccurate.... Crick keeps shooting himself in the foot. Those balloons are what we gauge every satellites accuracy on earth with. They are the gold standard... PERIOD!

But but but but but in a process that they don't understand nor can they explain, the heat is trapped - like a rat!!! in the deep ocean

If Bernie Madoff could have told his investors that "your investments are trapped -- in the deep ocean!" he'd still be raising equity funds

 

[Crick]

A more accurate comment would have been, "let's see how they do if we disingenuously set them up to fail from the start".

[
Lets see how they do without training them and having no predictive phase seen.

View attachment 309891

The empirical evidence says your models not only failed but failed so badly even 2 standard deviations was to narrow an error band. Now what do you call a GCM that has no predictive capabilities? FAILED... And what do you call the hypothesis the model is built on? Falsified...

At what point will you idiots start over on your failed hypothesis?

Now that's funny....

Your crying because you want to continuously adjust the fudge factor to get the desired output...

My Gawd man...... Your an idiot!

You have NEVER addressed the points in the article on Spencer's "Hotwhopper". That graph that you've thrown up here a hundred times as if it's the holy bible is - demonstrably - complete and unexpurgated bullshit.

PS: Did you ever publish the results of the experiment with your magic pipe that you contended would show greenhouse warming to be a fiction? Have a link?

 

[Billy_Bob]

A more accurate comment would have been, "let's see how they do if we disingenuously set them up to fail from the start".

[
Lets see how they do without training them and having no predictive phase seen.

View attachment 309891

The empirical evidence says your models not only failed but failed so badly even 2 standard deviations was to narrow an error band. Now what do you call a GCM that has no predictive capabilities? FAILED... And what do you call the hypothesis the model is built on? Falsified...

At what point will you idiots start over on your failed hypothesis?

Now that's funny....

Your crying because you want to continuously adjust the fudge factor to get the desired output...

My Gawd man...... Your an idiot!

You have NEVER addressed the points in the article on Spencer's "Hotwhopper". That graph that you've thrown up here a hundred times as if it's the holy bible is - demonstrably - complete and unexpurgated bullshit.

PS: Did you ever publish the results of the experiment with your magic pipe that you contended would show greenhouse warming to be a fiction? Have a link?

Nice jump to deflection.... Hotwhopper is a slanderous site and they have zero credibility. I can however get Dr Spencers data and check it.... You just take the bait... hook, line, and sinker..

 

[ReinyDays]

Try again.

The point of my post was to show that the region affected by loss is the region which penetrates and warms our oceans to depth.

It in no way invalidates Wein's Law. The region affected is in the UV spectrum. This loss of penetrating energy should cause our oceans to cool. As our oceans go so does our climate. Photosynthesis occurs due to total spectrum not just a very narrow upper UV slice.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-019-1172-2

The solar flux and heating rate in the ocean are greatest at the surface and decrease exponentially with depth, in accord with the Lambert–Bouguer–Beer Law, as described in Chapter 3. Under average conditions, the solar flux and heating rate are reduced to half of their surface value by a depth of about 1 m, but significant heating can still be present at more than 100 m below the surface. Since the solar heating is deposited over a depth of several tens of meters in the upper layers of the ocean, and cooling by evaporation and sensible heat transfer to the atmosphere occurs at the surface, an upward flux of energy in the upper ocean is required to maintain an energy balance between surface loss terms and subsurface heating.

(bolding emphasis mine)

Near Infrared Radiation - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Neither of your citations address solar output ... and do not verify your own claim of a 6-18% reduction of energy output in the 200-600 nm range ... I'll try again as soon as you attempt to rebut ... I understand you have a 1st Amendment right to say this doesn't invalidate Wein's Law, but your claims indicate you don't know what Wein's Law says ... the energy output at any and all wavelengths depend solely on temperature ... the only way to reduce 400 nm output of the sun is to reduce the sun's temperature ... horsefeathers I say, physically impossible ...

UV radiation is ionizing ... and ionizing radiation and liquid water don't play well together ... water quickly ionizes ... ionizing radiation and air are also a bad mix, most of the sun's ionizing radiation is absorbed in the top 1% of the atmosphere, the ozone layer is roughly at 10 mb ... I know charts scaled in meters don't show this very well, which is why we use charts scaled in millibars ... but I'll bite, show me your ocean temperature profile, let's see the cusp at 100 meters ... yeah, see, no convection due to solar energy, ouch ...

Dig out your old astrophysics textbook and review please ... the stuff we learned back in the 1970's is still valid today ...

And another thing ...

Any reduction in solar energy output would immediate cause the sun to shrink is physical size ... 6-18% smaller you say ... as rapid as you claim, we'd create a concentric pressure wave that will meet at the sun's center ... maybe carbon flash ... that'll ruin these fine warm spring afternoons ... pair instability anyone? ... nothing says climate change like stripping mass off Sirius ... yeesh ...

That's never been observed in a sub-dwarf main sequence star ... why are you saying it's happening right now? ...