Debunking the Deniers

[konradv]

Q&A: Debunking the Deniers :: PEJ News :: Stories, Features, Opinion and Analysis :: Peace, Earth & Justice News

(EXCERPT)
Q: Where is the vehement opposition to the very idea that we need to do something about climate change?

A: Some of it is ideological, part of a long history in the United States that equates environmental regulation as going down the slippery slope to socialism. And some is religious. Christian evangelicals don't like science in general and have found common cause with the coal industry as a way to be able to teach creationism. Obviously, the motivation of the coal industry is rather different but now these people have come together to undermine science in general.

As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up.

 

[gslack]

Well intense regulation to support an unsound hypothesis unsupported by real data, a tax on life, and a new market for the ultra wealthy to play with is my issues with climate change legislation right now. Socialism is already here in many regards and will come regardless of climate regulations.

 

[konradv]

an unsound hypothesis unsupported by real data,
-------------------------

You're just repeating talking points. Everyone knows that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation. The concentrations in the atmosphere, including some not found in nature, have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is INEVITABLE. It's the simple, logical application of the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. The data is extensive and no misrepresentation by deniers can touch it in the long run.

 

[Truthmatters]

Someome wants to keep us sending huge chucks of our money to the middle east.

 

[gslack]

an unsound hypothesis unsupported by real data,
-------------------------

You're just repeating talking points. Everyone knows that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation. The concentrations in the atmosphere, including some not found in nature, have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is INEVITABLE. It's the simple, logical application of the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. The data is extensive and no misrepresentation by deniers can touch it in the long run.

Talking points or not the they are nonetheless true. And the term talking points could just as easily be applied to most of the pro-AGW claims as well. Especially in light of the latest findings of data padding, and misrepresentations of reports.

The reality is despite the fact we were a non-factor before, the planet was warmer both millions of years ago and just a few hundred years ago. It was warmer and due to the warming the permafrost melted, causing the release of more CO2 into the atmosphere which resulted in more warming until a saturation point was reached the planet cooled.

Why is it there is no consideration of the sun and our position at various points in time in the solar system and galaxy in any IPCC report or study? Why do they consider the sun the primary reason we even have a climate at all a non-factor in climate change now?

Simple, it doesn't help them tax you on life....

 

[Bern80]

Q&A: Debunking the Deniers :: PEJ News :: Stories, Features, Opinion and Analysis :: Peace, Earth & Justice News

(EXCERPT)
Q: Where is the vehement opposition to the very idea that we need to do something about climate change?

A: Some of it is ideological, part of a long history in the United States that equates environmental regulation as going down the slippery slope to socialism. And some is religious. Christian evangelicals don't like science in general and have found common cause with the coal industry as a way to be able to teach creationism. Obviously, the motivation of the coal industry is rather different but now these people have come together to undermine science in general.

As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up.

Funny that's what the 'deniars' say about the 'true believers'. The science currently indicates the planet is not getting warmer.

It also depends on what you mean by denier. While denying that the climate change is occuring is ridiculous, that man is the major cause of it is up for a bit more debate.

To me anyway the perspective on climate change is horribly narrow. We humans tend to have this interesting aversion to change. That's what I don't get. What do the tue believers want out of the climate? What do they think is 'normal'? Half a degree cooler on avg? We also don't recognize our time on this planet relative to the age of the planet. Claiming we are irreversibly changing the earth in the relative bink of an eye of time we have had to effect change is a bit like some make believe organism with a lifespan of one day believing the world must be ending because it's getting dark out.

Then forget about why it's happening and lets just look at the consequences of clmate change for a second. What if it gets warmer? Well the main threat to man is probably flooding in coastal areas. But does that mean we should be trying to keep it colder because we didnt have the forsight to realize climate changes and the waters edge might not always be 100 feet from your house. There is also considerable upside to warmer climate. If you think about it we humans and most other animals do better in warmer temperatures. Comfortable to us is generally about 70 degrees or so. In a lot of the world it is colder than that for most of the year (it is here anyway in MN). The avg. temperature of the earth is less than that. Warmer temperatures would make for longer growing seasons.

So where climate change is concerned where is the real danger? Given worst case projections by true believers over how much the climate might increase on avg. the greatest danger to us is undeniably a colder planet, not a warmer one. Consider the range of temparatures man has lived in. For the most part we have been fortunate enough to live in a time where it is relatively warm at the warmer end of the temperature. But humans are probably not ready for the next ice age. Aside from an asteroid that is the other mass extinction level event this planet will see and it's a question of when, not if.

 

[konradv]

And the term talking points could just as easily be applied to most of the pro-AGW claims as well
-----------------------------------

What talking points have I presented? I speak for on one else but myself, so please limit it to that. I presented a logical syllogism, which can either be valid or invalid, if it has a flaw. If you can find it, please do, but don't dismiss it as a talking point. It's the way real scientists do real science. Talking points are the realm of the political flack and 99.9% of the AGW deniers.

 

[manu1959]

hmmmmmmmmmmm.....

i am all for no fossil fuel ... all wind, hydroelectric, solar, nuclear, green america.....

how do you propose controlling china and india.....they are in the middle of an industrial revolution and destroying their / our enivronment....

 

[konradv]

that man is the major cause of it is up for a bit more debate.
------------------------------------

What's debatable? There are potent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that aren't found in nature. Where did they come from, if not from man? You are also drawing a conclusion in your statement, unsupported by any facts, that it would only be a concern if man were a "major cause". That begs the questions: what would be a "major cause" and how do you know a minor contribution by man wouldn't lead to runaway GW? After all, the small warming we've seen so far is leading to the melting of permafrost and consequent release of trapped methan, another potent greenhouse gas.

Siberian Methane Could Fast-Track Global Warming - Science and Tech - The Atlantic

 

[Bern80]

that man is the major cause of it is up for a bit more debate.
------------------------------------

What's debatable? There are potent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that aren't found in nature. Where did they come from, if not from man? You are also drawing a conclusion in your statement, unsupported by any facts, that it would only be a concern if man were a "major cause". That begs the questions: what would be a "major cause" and how do you know a minor contribution by man wouldn't lead to runaway GW? After all, the small warming we've seen so far is leading to the melting of permafrost and consequent release of trapped methan, another potent greenhouse gas.

Siberian Methane Could Fast-Track Global Warming - Science and Tech - The Atlantic

Because it is up for debate. Man's contribution to the gases in the atmosphere can be measured in literally fractions. That is a fact. Is there stuff in the air that wasnt there before? Of course. Is that contribution enough for us to reasonably conclude that we changed the climate as oppossed to the climate naturally changing on it's own? Again, debatable.

And you are ignoring the main point. This whole 'who dun it' debate centers around an assumption as well. That the earth getting warmer is in of itself a bad thing.

 

[editec]

Q&A: Debunking the Deniers :: PEJ News :: Stories, Features, Opinion and Analysis :: Peace, Earth & Justice News

(EXCERPT)
Q: Where is the vehement opposition to the very idea that we need to do something about climate change?

A: Some of it is ideological, part of a long history in the United States that equates environmental regulation as going down the slippery slope to socialism. And some is religious. Christian evangelicals don't like science in general and have found common cause with the coal industry as a way to be able to teach creationism. Obviously, the motivation of the coal industry is rather different but now these people have come together to undermine science in general.

As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up.

Let's assume, for purposes of advancing the discussion that everybody agreed that Global Wamrning (or I think Climate Chaos is actually a more descriptive term) was a fact., and let us also assume that we were prepared to do whatever it takes to stop it.

Now what?

I do NOT think Cap and Trade is the solution. Do you?

I personally think that once this climate destabilizes enough, science's ability to grasp what happens next is fairly tenuous

As to whether we have arrived at some tipping point where what we can do in response will guarantee us happy outcomes?

Hey, you guess is as good as mine.

Read about choas theory and you'll eventually (if you don't already, I mean) understand why I think we're lost up some creek (which may or may not be that famous "shit creek") without a paddle.

 

[Bern80]

Q&A: Debunking the Deniers :: PEJ News :: Stories, Features, Opinion and Analysis :: Peace, Earth & Justice News

(EXCERPT)
Q: Where is the vehement opposition to the very idea that we need to do something about climate change?

A: Some of it is ideological, part of a long history in the United States that equates environmental regulation as going down the slippery slope to socialism. And some is religious. Christian evangelicals don't like science in general and have found common cause with the coal industry as a way to be able to teach creationism. Obviously, the motivation of the coal industry is rather different but now these people have come together to undermine science in general.

As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up.

Let's assume, for purposes of advancing the discussion that everybody agreed that Global Wamrning (or I think Climate Chaos is actually a more descriptive term) was a fact., and let us also assume that we were prepared to do whatever it takes to stop it.

Problem is you can't advance the debate without addressing the assumptions right here. Why we would we assme that we should stop it? I would have to assume if that is a course of action we plan to take we are trying to correct an UNnatural cycle. If we aren't the reason the earth is warming then we are trying to alter the climate of the earth for purely selfish reasons.

 

[gslack]

And the term talking points could just as easily be applied to most of the pro-AGW claims as well
-----------------------------------

What talking points have I presented? I speak for on one else but myself, so please limit it to that. I presented a logical syllogism, which can either be valid or invalid, if it has a flaw. If you can find it, please do, but don't dismiss it as a talking point. It's the way real scientists do real science. Talking points are the realm of the political flack and 99.9% of the AGW deniers.

Okay then do not dismiss my post as talking points either.... Its simple really, thats how dismissals off-hand go. They aren't fair and they are not proper debate.

All I did was tell you a counter point that given the latest findings are completely legitimate. You dismissed it as being talking points, and I reciprocated. You did not even address anything I said...

 

[code1211]

Q&A: Debunking the Deniers :: PEJ News :: Stories, Features, Opinion and Analysis :: Peace, Earth & Justice News

(EXCERPT)
Q: Where is the vehement opposition to the very idea that we need to do something about climate change?

A: Some of it is ideological, part of a long history in the United States that equates environmental regulation as going down the slippery slope to socialism. And some is religious. Christian evangelicals don't like science in general and have found common cause with the coal industry as a way to be able to teach creationism. Obviously, the motivation of the coal industry is rather different but now these people have come together to undermine science in general.

As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up.

Lost the scientific fight and yet no proof has been presented to support your case.

Who are the referees in this debate?

 

[code1211]

an unsound hypothesis unsupported by real data,
-------------------------

You're just repeating talking points. Everyone knows that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation. The concentrations in the atmosphere, including some not found in nature, have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is INEVITABLE. It's the simple, logical application of the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. The data is extensive and no misrepresentation by deniers can touch it in the long run.

The warming started before the Industrial Revolution.

With one or two exceptions in 4.5 Billion with a B years, CO2 has always followed temperature up and down. Your thesis is based on the assertion that the future causes the past.

 

[code1211]

And the term talking points could just as easily be applied to most of the pro-AGW claims as well
-----------------------------------

What talking points have I presented? I speak for on one else but myself, so please limit it to that. I presented a logical syllogism, which can either be valid or invalid, if it has a flaw. If you can find it, please do, but don't dismiss it as a talking point. It's the way real scientists do real science. Talking points are the realm of the political flack and 99.9% of the AGW deniers.

From a previous post by you:

"As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up. "


It's difficult to find something in this statement that is not a "talking point".

 

[code1211]

that man is the major cause of it is up for a bit more debate.
------------------------------------

What's debatable? There are potent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that aren't found in nature. Where did they come from, if not from man? You are also drawing a conclusion in your statement, unsupported by any facts, that it would only be a concern if man were a "major cause". That begs the questions: what would be a "major cause" and how do you know a minor contribution by man wouldn't lead to runaway GW? After all, the small warming we've seen so far is leading to the melting of permafrost and consequent release of trapped methan, another potent greenhouse gas.

Siberian Methane Could Fast-Track Global Warming - Science and Tech - The Atlantic

Without trying to steer you too close to reality, it is worth noting that the temperatures at the end of every previous interglacial have been higher than today and the CO2 was lower.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying.

 

[Gremlin]

Why is it there is no consideration of the sun and our position at various points in time in the solar system and galaxy in any IPCC report or study? Why do they consider the sun the primary reason we even have a climate at all a non-factor in climate change now?

Simple, it doesn't help them tax you on life....

What do you mean? AR4 contains multiple sections that deal with solar activity, such as 2.4 which is titled "Radiative Forcing Due to Solar Activity and Volcanic Eruptions". There is certainly consideration given.

 

[Gremlin]

The warming started ...

The warming? This is one of the fundamental things I don't understand about the discussion. Why can't there be more than one reason that there is warming? Obviously there are natural mechanisms and cycles. On the other hand, I haven't seen anyone say that (if it exists) man made climate change some how turns them off. As we start solar cycle #24, will the sun have an effect on the atmosphere? Sure. Does that somehow prove that human-produced CO2 is having no effect? Surely not.

 

[Old Rocks]

an unsound hypothesis unsupported by real data,
-------------------------

You're just repeating talking points. Everyone knows that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation. The concentrations in the atmosphere, including some not found in nature, have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is INEVITABLE. It's the simple, logical application of the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. The data is extensive and no misrepresentation by deniers can touch it in the long run.

Talking points or not the they are nonetheless true. And the term talking points could just as easily be applied to most of the pro-AGW claims as well. Especially in light of the latest findings of data padding, and misrepresentations of reports.

Links? To real scientists, not raving lunatics.

The reality is despite the fact we were a non-factor before, the planet was warmer both millions of years ago and just a few hundred years ago.

The amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere very nicely tracks the highs and lows in geological history. This is from the recent American Geophysical Union convention;

A23A

It was warmer and due to the warming the permafrost melted, causing the release of more CO2 into the atmosphere which resulted in more warming until a saturation point was reached the planet cooled.

You really need to research what you are talking about. You can begin here:


NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Educational Outreach, Introduction to Paleoclimatology

Why is it there is no consideration of the sun and our position at various points in time in the solar system and galaxy in any IPCC report or study?

Look fellow, look up the Milankovic Cycles. And while you are at it, you might look up Total Solar Irradiance. You see, for the last 30 years, the TI has actually declined slightly.


Why do they consider the sun the primary reason we even have a climate at all a non-factor in climate change now?

Because the very slight decline in the total energy the earth recieves from the sun is not significant.

Simple, it doesn't help them tax you on life....

Fellow, before you post your ignorance for all to see, do some simple research.