Climate Change Denial

[SummerlinChiro]

Tony Heller spitting pearls

There is really no point in conservatives denying climate change. No one is fooled. The debate should be about the severity of the risks and what measures to take to sufficiently mitigate the risks, not whether or not it is actually happening. That is what it should have always been about.

Conservatives should be pushing hard to replace fossil fuel power plants with renewable or nuclear. No one gives a crap where their electricity comes from, as long as it's there, and renewables can be sufficient and reliable with appropriate stationary storage. The quicker and more completely you change over stuff like that, the more room in the risk budget there is to keep CO2 emitting stuff you want, like vroom vroom sports and classic cars

Despite the title of this thread I haven’t seen anyone here deny climate change

But I DO deny that there’s any proof that humans have caused climate change

We have posted undeniable proof here that it was warmer in the 1930s than is currently.

This eviscerates the theory that CO2 is the climate control knob.

You guys can continue with your AGW religion if you want, but the rest of us who actually study the science, and understand the science, know that it’s a religion under the guise of science.

 

[MitchP85D]

So I guess we should send ships to harvest those ice for the drought elsewhere? LOL

Or, how about this - sprinkle coal dust on the Arctic ice to help it melt. Yes, that idea was actually bandied about in 1970!!!

 

[MitchP85D]

Except you have no idea who I am, or what my qualifications are. I could be a “leading scientist” for all you know.

One again, you have taken pure speculation as a “matter of fact”.

Let's just call it something I surmise. And I reckon that what I surmise is accurate. Dr. Koonin was a high ranking scientist in the Obama Administration. It does not require a great deal of reckoning that an Obama Administration scientist is by far knowledgeable about climate than you are.

 

[MitchP85D]

Why the focus on the annual minimum and not average ice extent?

Better yet - let's check out the entire world - checkmate!

https://i2.wp.com/www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif?ssl=1

 

[ohmman]

Better yet - let's check out the entire world - checkmate!

https://i2.wp.com/www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif?ssl=1

I believe this contradicts your position, unless I'm misinterpreting the chart.

 

[SummerlinChiro]

Let's just call it something I surmise. And I reckon that what I surmise is accurate. Dr. Koonin was a high ranking scientist in the Obama Administration. It does not require a great deal of reckoning that an Obama Administration scientist is by far knowledgeable about climate than you are.

You see here how the climate cult members never actually argue the facts.

They instantly go to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Yet another way this is a religion.

You cannot question the high priests without being one yourself.

it was far hotter in the 1930’s, when CO2 levels were lower.

This incontrovertible fact disproves man-made climate change being caused by CO2.

Those of you who believe this claptrap are nothing short of gullible.

“Denier is a religious term, not a scientific term.

You've turned science into a religion, where the opinions of scientific authorities are considered to be unquestionable.

Science itself is a method, not faith in authorities.”

 

[SummerlinChiro]

Science shows heat wave related deaths on the decline
Empirical evidence of declining global vulnerability to climate-related hazards

 

[JRP3]

You see here how the climate cult members never actually argue the facts.

They instantly go to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Yet another way this is a religion.

You're replying to a warming denialist like yourself who doesn't understand that the person to whom he's referring as an authority actually acknowledges human influenced climate change. I admit it's getting confusing when climate denialists start referencing people who admit humans have influenced the climate as proof there is no human influenced climate change.

 

[JRP3]

Science shows heat wave related deaths on the decline
Empirical evidence of declining global vulnerability to climate-related hazards

That paper shows impacts correlating with wealth so it's no surprise that as economic conditions improve modern technologies such as fans and A/C units would help mitigate impacts.

 

[ohmman]

That paper shows impacts correlating with wealth so it's no surprise that as economic conditions improve modern technologies such as fans and A/C units would help mitigate impacts.

Yes, literally right in the abstract:

We further show a clear negative relation between vulnerability and wealth, which is strongest at the lowest income levels. This has led to a convergence in vulnerability between higher and lower income countries. Yet, there is still a considerable climate hazard vulnerability gap between poorer and richer countries.

 

[Skotty]

Despite the title of this thread I haven’t seen anyone here deny climate change

But I DO deny that there’s any proof that humans have caused climate change

We have posted undeniable proof here that it was warmer in the 1930s than is currently.

This eviscerates the theory that CO2 is the climate control knob.

You guys can continue with your AGW religion if you want, but the rest of us who actually study the science, and understand the science, know that it’s a religion under the guise of science.

I think there is a high probability that you are just trolling. But if not, let me explain why you should support efforts to slow or stop the accused human caused climate change, if you don't, even if you don't believe in it and think everyone is wrong.

It's all about consensus levels within the expert community. That's how society typically progresses. There is a strong consensus among experts that humans are causing climate change, and that it's a serious problem. Just like if 90+% of civil engineers were to say that a bridge isn't safe, but I say it is safe and they are all wrong, who are you going to side with? You should side with the consensus if you want the best probability of good outcomes. You can say you think they are wrong and keep trying to sway them to your side, but as long as your side is lonely, you should continue to support the consensus.

Point being, make sure you don't try to impede efforts to subvert human caused climate change, even if you don't think it is necessary and wish to continue to argue against it being a problem. You call AGW a religion, but religion would be going against scientific consensus, a consensus based on the evidence, and scientific consensus currently supports AGW. YOU are currently the religion until you can build a bigger evidence based community for your viewpoints.

 

[MontyFloyd]

@MitchP85D @SummerlinChiro

The Occam's razor proof.

Focusing on the major mechanism (not counting rare variations, ie volcanos)
There is Carbon (C) that is actively circulated by living things for millenniums.
There is Carbon that was trapped in the earths crust for eons (millennium x10^5 and longer)

In Human existence the earth system worked with a stable amount of C in circulation.
In the last 120 years Humans have extracted just over 1 TRILLION tons of C (graph shows yearly, so add up each year).
(Note: All that C will combine with 2 Oxygen, actually reducing O levels (not enough to impact breathing by healthy animals).)

All that newly released C -> CO2 increases the Greenhouse effect, because hoomans unlocked more C into atmosphere.
(man CAN move a mountain, or build one (pyramids), just takes more time).

Basic statistics and science fully explain and support this Cause - Effect. We do not need to look at ice sheets to prove it.


Crude Analogy.
There is a big container of salt. Table salt is made of Chlorine and Sodium (one example) in harmonious balance, and when dry is harmless / inert.
There also exists a container of 100% Chlorine. If that Chlorine is released its fumes will be fatal to animals and highly corrosive to materials, wanting to create all manner of salts.

In short:
For the last few millennium the earth atmosphere was in equilibrium.
Over last 120 years man has released enough trapped C the equilibrium is changing.

 

[MontyFloyd]

Just like if 90+% of civil engineers were to say that a bridge isn't safe, but I say it is safe and they are all wrong, who are you going to side with? You should side with the consensus if you want the best probability of good outcomes

When it comes with hoooomans, even a 99.999% consensus will not convince some.

(sarcasm)
God made COVID to remove that 0.001%
/s

 

[CyberGus]

Let's just call it something I surmise. And I reckon that what I surmise is accurate. Dr. Koonin was a high ranking scientist in the Obama Administration. It does not require a great deal of reckoning that an Obama Administration scientist is by far knowledgeable about climate than you are.

Ah, I get it now! When you said "matter of fact", you actually meant "something I surmise" without any actual facts. Now that I know your definition of the word "fact", your posts make complete sense now. Thanks!

 

[eevee-fan]

Ah, I get it now! When you said "matter of fact", you actually meant "something I surmise" without any actual facts. Now that I know your definition of the word "fact", you posts make complete sense now. Thanks!

Alternative facts, like Faux News.

 

[Amped412]

If humans aren't the cause then what is the cause? In history it's usually been a massive volcano eruption or asteroid that's caused climate change. I don't think we've had any climate changing volcano eruptions or asteroid strikes in the past 100 years. Just the industrial revolution, created by humans.

 

[iPlug]

Better yet - let's check out the entire world - …

Oh good, you agree it is declining too:

Sea Ice and Snow Cover Extent | Snow and Ice | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

 

[nwdiver]

We have posted undeniable proof here that it was warmer in the 1930s than is currently.

So why are sea levels higher today than in 1930? Reality says it's due to thermal expansion since warmer ocean water occupies more space. Is reality wrong?

 

[SummerlinChiro]

I think there is a high probability that you are just trolling. But if not, let me explain why you should support efforts to slow or stop the accused human caused climate change, if you don't, even if you don't believe in it and think everyone is wrong.

It's all about consensus levels within the expert community. That's how society typically progresses. There is a strong consensus among experts that humans are causing climate change, and that it's a serious problem. Just like if 90+% of civil engineers were to say that a bridge isn't safe, but I say it is safe and they are all wrong, who are you going to side with? You should side with the consensus if you want the best probability of good outcomes. You can say you think they are wrong and keep trying to sway them to your side, but as long as your side is lonely, you should continue to support the consensus.

Point being, make sure you don't try to impede efforts to subvert human caused climate change, even if you don't think it is necessary and wish to continue to argue against it being a problem. You call AGW a religion, but religion would be going against scientific consensus, a consensus based on the evidence, and scientific consensus currently supports AGW. YOU are currently the religion until you can build a bigger evidence based community for your viewpoints.

Science has nothing to do with consensus

it is a method to arrive at truth, not a popularity contest

The American Academy for the Advancement of Science used to espouse the consensus science that people not of white european descent were genetically and intellectually inferior

The AAAS current consensus on climate change is just as accurate

 

[SummerlinChiro]

So why are sea levels higher today than in 1930? Reality says it's due to thermal expansion since warmer ocean water occupies more space. Is reality wrong?

Sea levels have been rising steadily for about 6 thousand years, since the last glaciation melt slowed down

About 3.5 mm a year

Old pictures prove there has been little rise in sea levels vs now

La Jolla beach, the old pic is from 1871

No acceleration in the tidal gauge data, which is the most reliable

The oceans will drop again when the next glaciation hits