2 of 7
2
What’s really behind Global Climate Change denial
Posted: 09 July 2012 10:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4291
Joined  2010-08-15

I am so temped to work dingle berries into there somewhere. . .  {gotta visit page one for that story}
But, on the serious side.
~ ~ ~

Some of you folks probably remember “Mike from OZ” well he’s got a website
Watching the Deniers

That’s building an interesting reference library he’s calling the

Evidence Library
Strategy documents

Documents from key members of the denial movement that detail their strategies and how they try to mislead.
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/the-damning-evidence/

There you’ll find solid information about what’s really behind Global Climate Change denial.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2012 10:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1191
Joined  2011-08-01

Nice find, citizen. Thanks.

 Signature 

Free in Kentucky
—Humanist
“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”—Edith Sitwell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2012 05:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2012-10-29

Do you think the reasons for denial may be as simple as not wanting to change? If you admit that global warming is man made, then to change that, would mean changing the way you live. For those leading a western lifestyle, it means a fundamental shift in the way you use the planet.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2012 06:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4812
Joined  2007-10-05
Missdufus - 29 October 2012 05:25 PM

Do you think the reasons for denial may be as simple as not wanting to change? If you admit that global warming is man made, then to change that, would mean changing the way you live. For those leading a western lifestyle, it means a fundamental shift in the way you use the planet.

I used to think that, but if you read Six Aspects of Denial on the Watching the Deniers site linked above you’ll find the real answer in aspect #6.

For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth.

This is the key. Climate change not only requires we change our lifestyles, it requires free market advocates to abandon their cherished anti-government worldview, for we cannot mitigate climate change without regulations.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2012 12:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  150
Joined  2012-07-25

Climate change denial is silly.
Climate has never been stable
Temperatures go up
Temperatures go down
I disagree that CO2 is the driving greenhouse gas
I don’t see a problem with increased CO2….it is good for the planet
Increased CO2 -increased plant mass- increased number of humans enjoying the Earth

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2012 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2010-04-22
sine dues - 30 October 2012 12:40 PM

I disagree that CO2 is the driving greenhouse gas

The effect of greenhouse gases is one of physics. Have you ever looked the essentials up?

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2012 01:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  150
Joined  2012-07-25

tromboneandrew- Yes, I have looked up the essentials….it has a very small part in the ‘greenhouse effect’. It does not drive temperature…it follows temperature….

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2012 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4812
Joined  2007-10-05
sine dues - 30 October 2012 01:45 PM

tromboneandrew- Yes, I have looked up the essentials….it has a very small part in the ‘greenhouse effect’. It does not drive temperature…it follows temperature….

Where did you look it up? I have researched the peer reviewed literature and saw a different consensus. If you don’t have access to peer reviewed literature you should start at:

Skeptical Science

Then go to

Real Climate

and the NOAA’s

Climate Research pages.

That should give you enough to chew on for a few weeks.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2012 12:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2010-04-22
sine dues - 30 October 2012 01:45 PM

tromboneandrew- Yes, I have looked up the essentials….it has a very small part in the ‘greenhouse effect’. It does not drive temperature…it follows temperature….

Well, at least you have a good start.

But, I roughly remember seeing that study come out . . . and seeing it overturned a year later.

By essential, I mean a basic understanding of what a greenhouse effect is, in terms of planets. How gases transmit, scatter, and block light at different wavelengths - including in the ultraviolet and infrared and radio and so on. How the Earth, without the total of it’s current greenhouse gases, would have a global average temperature just below freezing, making Earth an ice ball. How the greenhouse effect has affected the other planets in our solar system, using the exact same physics but with different atmospheres. Stuff like that.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2012 02:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1765
Joined  2007-10-22
citizenschallenge.pm - 06 July 2012 10:28 PM
DarronS - 06 July 2012 07:12 PM
sanchezal28 - 06 July 2012 09:43 AM

The reason to call it man-made is so that the government can tax cow farts.

C’mon, man. Get your facts straight. Cow belches contribute to global warming, not cow farts.

are you cherry picking?

Who the hell let the cows into the cherry orchard?  LOL


CC;

I posted a review of the following in another thread.  Originally I thought you might it might be useful to you.  Then the discussion began.  shut eye
The Carbon Crunch: How We’re Getting Climate Change Wrong—and How to Fix It. By Dieter Helm

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 07:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  123
Joined  2012-11-15
sine dues - 30 October 2012 12:40 PM

I don’t see a problem with increased CO2….it is good for the planet
Increased CO2 -increased plant mass- increased number of humans enjoying the Earth

Really? What about life in the oceans? Does the term ocean acidification mean anything to you? What about marine plankton at the bottom of the food chain?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 08:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4812
Joined  2007-10-05
dansmith62 - 20 November 2012 07:06 AM
sine dues - 30 October 2012 12:40 PM

I don’t see a problem with increased CO2….it is good for the planet
Increased CO2 -increased plant mass- increased number of humans enjoying the Earth

Really? What about life in the oceans? Does the term ocean acidification mean anything to you? What about marine plankton at the bottom of the food chain?

Global warming is not good for plants on land. Plants kinda find it hard to thrive when subjected to alternating drought/flood cycles. Also, climatic zones are shifting toward the poles, and plants cannot simply uproot themselves and move to their preferred zone. But wait, there’s more! A warming planet means insects don’t die off as much in the winter because freezes aren’t as hard, so there are more insects to feed on the plants.

Bottom line is, if you read the research you won’t fall for this type of denier nonsense. Actually, it is beyond nonsense, it is an outright lie. The deniers have access to the same information I read, but choose to spread lies such as increased CO2 is good for plants.

I could write a whole bunch more, but I have a paper due in my conflict resolution class.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 09:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4291
Joined  2010-08-15
dansmith62 - 20 November 2012 07:06 AM
sine dues - 30 October 2012 12:40 PM

I don’t see a problem with increased CO2….it is good for the planet
Increased CO2 -increased plant mass- increased number of humans enjoying the Earth

Really? What about life in the oceans? Does the term ocean acidification mean anything to you? What about marine plankton at the bottom of the food chain?

Ooh-ooh I know the answer to that one:  Silly the ocean is alkaline… how can it possibly be becoming acidic.  shut eye
for the record

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

But on the serious side as it happens I stopped by over here because I’ve been reading some interesting stuff about Gerlich and Tscheuschner 2009 and that whole crazy-making about the “greenhouse theory” being disproven.  It’s always bizarre how some people can be convinced that they’ve proven many thousands of thousands of scientists and experiences wrong with one great insight.

In any event this post impressed me and then I was trying to remember from where I’m familiar with “logicman” I thought it was over here, but guess I’m wrong (probably skepticalscience.com) but then, I saw this thread and “sine dues” confusion.  And it seems to me this post directly addresses sd’s foolishness.

(http) climatephysicsforums(dot)com/topic/3292392/2/index(dot)html (it’s not spam I promise)

post #13 ~ logicman:

This is going to be a very short comment, just to keep the ball rolling.

It might be better if the term ‘greenhouse gas’ had never been coined. The basic principle of every greenhouse or cloche is that warmed air is trapped and kept from rising as a thermal.

As to the papers under discussion, I think we have a straw man argument:

“a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment”

Firstly, an atmosphere is an integral part of a planetary surface environment.

Secondly, a planetary atmosphere is a heat engine driven by a sun.

The second law of thermodynamics is often stated to demand that heat can only flow from a hot to a cold body. If that is the stance taken by the authors as a founding argument then their conclusions must inevitably be wrong.

The notion that heat can only flow from a hot to a cold body is a basic principle of the caloric theory of heat. Whilst being a very useful fiction in the case of conductive heat transfer it completely fails to describe reality in the case of radiative heat transfer.

Caloric heat flow is unidirectional. Radiative heat transfer is bidirectional.

The temperature of a body is determined by the net radiative transfer.

When two radiating bodies are in proximity there will be a flow of radiated energy from each to the other. If they are of different temperatures then there will be a net flow of energy from the hotter to the colder body.

Unlike caloric theory, the law of net radiative transfer does not completely prohibit the transfer of heat energy from a colder to a hotter body. It prohibits a net positive transfer from cold to hot.

If you consider CO2 and radiative transfer then you must not treat the atmosphere as a single homogenous body. For the purpose of discussion it is a support matrix of Nitrogen with embedded radiating bodies - CO2 molecules.

A CO2 molecule can emit a photon in any direction. In atmosphere, that photon can be directed towards the ground or towards space.

There is no mechanism by which a hot ground surface can force a CO2 molecule to emit a photon towards space.

In the correct model, the planetary surface is a body and each individual CO2 molecule is a body.

By intercepting photons and returning some of them to the surface, CO2 molecules reduce the net radiative transfer between a hot planetary surface as source and empty space as sink.

A CO2 molecule, just like any reflector, can return photons towards their source.

The CO2 effect is less like a greenhouse, more like an assemblage of corner reflector antennas. The more such antennas you hang on your plastic boat, the greater the chance that an echo will be returned to the supertanker that’s headed your way.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Missdufus has a point, but I think Darron nailed it

DarronS - 29 October 2012 06:11 PM
Missdufus - 29 October 2012 05:25 PM

Do you think the reasons for denial may be as simple as not wanting to change? If you admit that global warming is man made, then to change that, would mean changing the way you live. For those leading a western lifestyle, it means a fundamental shift in the way you use the planet.

I used to think that, but if you read Six Aspects of Denial on the Watching the Deniers site linked above you’ll find the real answer in aspect #6.

For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth.

This is the key. Climate change not only requires we change our lifestyles, it requires free market advocates to abandon their cherished anti-government worldview, for we cannot mitigate climate change without regulations.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2012 04:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  123
Joined  2012-11-15

What’s really behind Global Climate Change denial?

Irrational fear of having to leave the comfort zone of modern civilization. Climate change deniers fail to understand that replacing dirty technology with green technology doesn’t mean we are going back to the days of the cavemen.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2012 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

True.  Additionally, those who produce and profit from carbon based energy sources recognize that general acceptance of global climate change will reduce or prevent them from selling their products so they promote denial.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 7
2
 
‹‹ Weather forecast      The Vanishing North ››