What do AGW 'Deniers' actually deny?

[edthecynic]

I don't know anyone who denies that temperatures have gone up. Are you a denier if you think it is natural warming with a small anthropogenic component?

I don't know anyone who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has an impact on global temperatures. Are you a denier if you disbelieve the 1C increase for doubling CO2 magically turns into 5C after it is put into a computer climate model?

I could go on about many other things but I am interested in what the alarmists on this board consider the hallmarks of a 'Denier'.

Well, you are denying that deniers deny the Globe is warming.

globe cooling 1998 - Google Search

 

[westwall]

I don't know anyone who denies that temperatures have gone up. Are you a denier if you think it is natural warming with a small anthropogenic component?

I don't know anyone who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has an impact on global temperatures. Are you a denier if you disbelieve the 1C increase for doubling CO2 magically turns into 5C after it is put into a computer climate model?

I could go on about many other things but I am interested in what the alarmists on this board consider the hallmarks of a 'Denier'.

Well, you are denying that deniers deny the Globe is warming.

globe cooling 1998 - Google Search

wrong

 

[konradv]

I don't know anyone who denies that temperatures have gone up. Are you a denier if you think it is natural warming with a small anthropogenic component?

I don't know anyone who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has an impact on global temperatures. Are you a denier if you disbelieve the 1C increase for doubling CO2 magically turns into 5C after it is put into a computer climate model?

I could go on about many other things but I am interested in what the alarmists on this board consider the hallmarks of a 'Denier'.

The link between higher GHGs and higher temps. Logically, if you have the first, how can you expect anything but the second?

Then with what do you lay blame for earlier warming events?

Other causes. That's the point of the research, to tease out the contribution of man, considering that the heat-trapping properties of GHGs are well-documented. You tell me where the heat's going.

 

[konradv]

I don't know anyone who denies that temperatures have gone up. Are you a denier if you think it is natural warming with a small anthropogenic component?

I don't know anyone who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has an impact on global temperatures. Are you a denier if you disbelieve the 1C increase for doubling CO2 magically turns into 5C after it is put into a computer climate model?

I could go on about many other things but I am interested in what the alarmists on this board consider the hallmarks of a 'Denier'.

The link between higher GHGs and higher temps. Logically, if you have the first, how can you expect anything but the second?

That is pretty vague. There aren't many deniers here if that is the definition.

Then give us your definition. You deny That AGW theory is true, don't you. Quit talking in circles.

 

[konradv]

Mankind is too insignificant to affect the climate. We can poison our environment and kill ourselves off that way, but change the weather? No. Not hardly. Not when nature outdoes us in all aspects by a scale of hundreds or thousands to one in scale.

Well, that's a theory, too. You got data? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

 

[konradv]

Mankind is too insignificant to affect the climate. We can poison our environment and kill ourselves off that way, but change the weather? No. Not hardly. Not when nature outdoes us in all aspects by a scale of hundreds or thousands to one in scale.

That's ridiculous. The amount of gas we emit each day, are you kidding? This just sounds like an excuse to keep on guzzling gas, to drive you're huge, fast cars, to live a life of excess... so that you don't have to try and change, to actually care about something other than your own interests. that's what GW deniers sound like to me.

So you're got nothing but envy based rhetoric. Gotcha.

Listen, go to wikipedia, and look for "Atmospheric Composition". Look at the sheer mass of the atmosphere. Then look at the percenage of ALL CO2 regardless of source. Then understand that we produce only .6% of that at most. The numbers are mindbogglingly small compared to the real thing. We're talking 1 part per billion is our creation. You cannot keep up with the production of nature. We just don't have the power as a species.

Now you mean to tell me that our ability to generate 0.00234% of the atmospheric composition will produce such changes to catastrophically change this planet? Shit. A good sized fart from a moderate volcano does more faster and many times a year.

Face it, the dream of green global fascism is dead. Send flowers.

Total BS. Man puts out more CO2 days than all the volcanoes on earth do in an average year.

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

 

[Big Fitz]

Mankind is too insignificant to affect the climate. We can poison our environment and kill ourselves off that way, but change the weather? No. Not hardly. Not when nature outdoes us in all aspects by a scale of hundreds or thousands to one in scale.

Well, that's a theory, too. You got data? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

I gave you the numbers. Found every day on wikipedia who sourced it from the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The numbers have remained constant for decades. what does that tell me? Since at least the 1960's we have not significantly increased the content of CO2 in the atmosphere, yet the climate changed. It didn't bump even one 100th of a percent.

Therefore, our input to the atmosphere is INSIGNIFICANT. Or are you saying we put out more CO2 in say 1910 when our economy was much more dirty (SO2 was very high compared to today, that's a fact) but there was far less of it and very few cars.

Simple elementary logic defeats your whole premise. The climate does what it wants to and we can only adapt. If you cannot follow this elementary logic, it's not worth explaining to you, for you are all about your green religion based on lies and aimed towards achieving global fascism.

Put up or shut up? You forgot the option you're going to get: **** off.

 

[Big Fitz]

I don't know anyone who denies that temperatures have gone up. Are you a denier if you think it is natural warming with a small anthropogenic component?

I don't know anyone who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has an impact on global temperatures. Are you a denier if you disbelieve the 1C increase for doubling CO2 magically turns into 5C after it is put into a computer climate model?

I could go on about many other things but I am interested in what the alarmists on this board consider the hallmarks of a 'Denier'.

Well, you are denying that deniers deny the Globe is warming.

globe cooling 1998 - Google Search

wrong

Damn that Solar Cycle 24! Damn the sun for thwarting our global warming predictions! Why can't reality be more like the models????

 

[Old Rocks]

**** off yourself, foul mouthed ignoramous.

A very small organism, blue green alge, totally change the composition of the atmosphere between two and three billion years ago. To say that creating a 40% and 150% increase in the primary GHGs in the atmosphere is insignificant simple demonstrates your level of ignorance.

We are changing the climate, and have already seen significant changes. We will see many more in the coming decades.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, you are denying that deniers deny the Globe is warming.

globe cooling 1998 - Google Search

wrong

Damn that Solar Cycle 24! Damn the sun for thwarting our global warming predictions! Why can't reality be more like the models????

What are you talking about? The present sunspot cycle is turning out weak, as expected. And with only a moderate El Nino, we are having a year that may tie 1998 for warmth.
Pundita: Solar Cycle 24

Bob said that SC24, which began in January 2008, is already showing signs that it will have a weak maximum. He also explained that scientists have projected that about every 200 years an entire solar cycle is weak and that the current cycle is showing signs of being that type. He added that if SC24 does turn out to be as weak as projected it would be arriving right on time -- 200 years after the last weak solar cycle!

In fact, Dr. Roy Spencer has been completely taken aback after predicting that this year would start cooling in September because of the present La Nina.

September 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.60 deg. C | Watts Up With That?

Past experience (and radiative-convective equilibrium) dictates that the global tropospheric temperature, still riding high at +0.60 deg. C for September, must cool in response to the cool ocean conditions.

But given Mother Nature’s sense of humor, I’ve given up predicting when that might occur.

 

[westwall]

**** off yourself, foul mouthed ignoramous.

A very small organism, blue green alge, totally change the composition of the atmosphere between two and three billion years ago. To say that creating a 40% and 150% increase in the primary GHGs in the atmosphere is insignificant simple demonstrates your level of ignorance.

We are changing the climate, and have already seen significant changes. We will see many more in the coming decades.

It took around two BILLION Years and the algea was everywhere. We have been around for a nanosecend of the Earths history. If what you were saying were true it would be obvious to all, but no. It is not obvious. In fact for all that konrad loves to poo poo volcanos they actually DO have an immediate and measurable effect when a large one erupts.

Your theory is false. It is merely a fraud perpetrated so that a very few elite people can become very, very, very rich. You twits rail about "big oil" and yet they provide a product that is ESSENTIAL to our lives, and they do it for less than the price of a gallon of milk.
If Cap and Trade and all of its clones get passed Goldman Sachs ALONE will make over a TRILLION dollars and they will have produced nothing for it.....well that's not exactly true. The middle class will be eventually destroyed by the taxes and fees that will be put in place to pay the leeches and their minions.

olfraud you are a fool and a blustering bafoon. You claim to care about the environment and you work for a company KNOWN for polluting the areas where it operates, even your own section of Oregon. You work in a industry that is known for its levels of pollution (the steel industry)
and you have the gall to tell us we should live a cleaner life? To hell with you, clown. You are absurd, you are a boil on a skunks ass. You are the epitomy of environmental hypocrite.

Do what REAL environmentalists do...think globally and act locally. Clean up the company you work for then you can come back here and pontificate, until then realise that you are not taken seriously here.

 

[westwall]

wrong

Damn that Solar Cycle 24! Damn the sun for thwarting our global warming predictions! Why can't reality be more like the models????

What are you talking about? The present sunspot cycle is turning out weak, as expected. And with only a moderate El Nino, we are having a year that may tie 1998 for warmth.
Pundita: Solar Cycle 24

Bob said that SC24, which began in January 2008, is already showing signs that it will have a weak maximum. He also explained that scientists have projected that about every 200 years an entire solar cycle is weak and that the current cycle is showing signs of being that type. He added that if SC24 does turn out to be as weak as projected it would be arriving right on time -- 200 years after the last weak solar cycle!

In fact, Dr. Roy Spencer has been completely taken aback after predicting that this year would start cooling in September because of the present La Nina.

September 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.60 deg. C | Watts Up With That?

Past experience (and radiative-convective equilibrium) dictates that the global tropospheric temperature, still riding high at +0.60 deg. C for September, must cool in response to the cool ocean conditions.

But given Mother Nature’s sense of humor, I’ve given up predicting when that might occur.

Tell that to the English moron. I predicted that this year would be cooler, you predicted it would be hotter, looks like I've jumped out to an early lead eh what!

Snow falls in Yorkshire - In October! - Telegraph

 

[Queen]

Mankind certainly impacts his environment. What is your definition of significant? One part in a thousand, 5 in a 100, 50/50?

Why not end your impact on the earth, lead by example.

Really, what do you mean?

He means save the planet, kill yourself.

 

[IanC]

westwall's new signature line says it all.

science is the belief that the experts have an incomplete or even wrong understanding of the problem. the deniers think climate science needs a whole lot of work.

 

[Annie]

The link between higher GHGs and higher temps. Logically, if you have the first, how can you expect anything but the second?

Then with what do you lay blame for earlier warming events?

Other causes. That's the point of the research, to tease out the contribution of man, considering that the heat-trapping properties of GHGs are well-documented. You tell me where the heat's going.

Actually the point of research is to discover the truth of whatever is being studied. If 'other causes' caused before, what are they? Are they again in play? In this case it seems the cause was named, then a grand effort to make data fit the conclusion. That's not science.

 

[Annie]

Why not end your impact on the earth, lead by example.

Really, what do you mean?

He means save the planet, kill yourself.

Yep, that's what I assumed. Another great mind at work.

 

[Old Rocks]

Then with what do you lay blame for earlier warming events?

Other causes. That's the point of the research, to tease out the contribution of man, considering that the heat-trapping properties of GHGs are well-documented. You tell me where the heat's going.

Actually the point of research is to discover the truth of whatever is being studied. If 'other causes' caused before, what are they? Are they again in play? In this case it seems the cause was named, then a grand effort to make data fit the conclusion. That's not science.

First, yes, there were other causes in past warming and coolings. However, GHGs played a part in all of them. If you are really interested in the science, and not just playing more partisan politics, as your last sentence indicates, here are some sites where you can study the science.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - NCDC Paleoclimatology Branch

Paleoclimatology : Feature Articles

Paleoclimatology of the Central Andes Workshop - Presentation Abstracts

Paleoclimatology Records — OSS Foundation

 

[Old Rocks]

Damn that Solar Cycle 24! Damn the sun for thwarting our global warming predictions! Why can't reality be more like the models????

What are you talking about? The present sunspot cycle is turning out weak, as expected. And with only a moderate El Nino, we are having a year that may tie 1998 for warmth.
Pundita: Solar Cycle 24

Bob said that SC24, which began in January 2008, is already showing signs that it will have a weak maximum. He also explained that scientists have projected that about every 200 years an entire solar cycle is weak and that the current cycle is showing signs of being that type. He added that if SC24 does turn out to be as weak as projected it would be arriving right on time -- 200 years after the last weak solar cycle!

In fact, Dr. Roy Spencer has been completely taken aback after predicting that this year would start cooling in September because of the present La Nina.

September 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.60 deg. C | Watts Up With That?

Past experience (and radiative-convective equilibrium) dictates that the global tropospheric temperature, still riding high at +0.60 deg. C for September, must cool in response to the cool ocean conditions.

But given Mother Nature’s sense of humor, I’ve given up predicting when that might occur.

Tell that to the English moron. I predicted that this year would be cooler, you predicted it would be hotter, looks like I've jumped out to an early lead eh what!

Snow falls in Yorkshire - In October! - Telegraph

Eh, you are still full shit, that what.