sine dues - 30 October 2012 12:40 PM

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

You really need to educate yourself before you express an opinion otherwise you are just making ignorant comments. Take at least one science class ( In a real educational institution not fox news) before you expound on matters of chemistry, physics, and climate. If you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas then you really have nothing of value to say because you don’t understand even the basic irrefutable concepts involved here.

Hey mcgyver, do you read for content ? My statement….” disagree that CO2 is the driving greenhouse gas”....does not mean that I deny co2 is a ghg. It is not the important one…that is water vapour….but how do you make that into a villain ?

SD, you just proved macgyver correct. You need to stop parroting denialist propaganda and study the science.

We are all parrots darrons….are you a climate scientist ? Do you hold a science degree or an arts degree?

On a related topic, PZ came up with a very poignant pie chart:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/11/24/i-usually-dont-like-pie-charts-but/

Here is the article he got the pie chart from:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

sine dues - 24 November 2012 08:01 AM

We are all parrots darrons….are you a climate scientist ? Do you hold a science degree or an arts degree?

I am a senior at St. Edward’s University in Austin, TX, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Integrated Studies with concentrations in Environmental Policy & Communications. No, I am not a climate scientist, but I have access to the peer reviewed literature and have read a lot of it over the past few years. I have also studied the tactics global warming deniers use, and your posts merely repeat the obfuscations, misdirections and lies the energy industry funded PR agencies spread.

Take this recent post, for example:

sine dues - 22 November 2012 11:01 AM

it is a diversion if you ignore solar output
it is a diversion if you ignore that the antarctic is accumulating ice
it is a diversion if you include urban heating effect
yup….we could do that all day couldn’t we…...

Solar output is not variable enough to account for recent climate change. If it were the first decade of the 21st Century would have been unusually cool, as the Sun was unusually quiet.

Parts of the Antarctic are accumulating ice, other parts are losing ice increasingly quickly.

The urban heat effect is included in models. BEST

Yep, we can do it all day, except I have better things to do than chasing you around these forums playing Whack a Mole with your unreasoned opinions. You’re taking the deniers’ arguments seriously and dismissing the scientists’ arguments.

sine dues - 24 November 2012 08:01 AM

We are all parrots darrons….are you a climate scientist ? Do you hold a science degree or an arts degree?

There’s a difference between mindlessly parroting something and repeating things you’ve learned and thought about.

In case you are curious about learning more about atmospheric CO2 in the grand scheme of things here’s and easy start…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=co2&x=0&y=0

sine dues - 22 November 2012 11:01 AM

it is a diversion if you ignore that the antarctic is accumulating ice

I wonder if you can explain the dynamics causing the accumulation of ice in parts of Antarctica?

I ask this because the next question is - Why do you think accumulating ice in parts of Antarctica undercuts the validity of the scientific consensus regarding global warming? 
{...and you can’t answer that without some conception of the dynamics at work}

dansmith62 - 23 November 2012 04:52 AM

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.

Indeed.  If we started work on a SuperGrid system for energy distribution in the US, it would yield a number of benefits for us outside of greenhouse gas reductions.  There would be the technological innovations which would spread to other industries rapidly, the hydrogen delivered to every house would eliminate the chicken/egg problem faced by car manufacturers in building hydrogen powered cars, additionally, people who couldn’t afford to buy a new hydrogen powered car, could have their current vehicle converted to run on hydrogen relatively inexpensively (and with government subsidies, even the poorest of the poor could afford it), and there would be a tremendous boost to the economy with all the jobs created to build the SuperGrid.  Its a win/win for everyone but the fossil fuel companies, but even they could still continue to thrive if they would make some minor shifts in their organizations.

sine dues - 24 November 2012 07:55 AM

Hey mcgyver, do you read for content ? My statement….” disagree that CO2 is the driving greenhouse gas”....does not mean that I deny co2 is a ghg. It is not the important one…that is water vapour….but how do you make that into a villain ?

OK I’ll allow that that was my error and what you really meant is CO2 is not the main gas driving global warming. At least you understand CO2 still is an important greenhouse gas, which at least brings the conversation to a different level. Climate is an immensely complex subject and as you so correctly pointed out to Darron, we are not climate scientists. Therefor it is almost comical for us to pretend to have a scientific conversation on the individual merits of one point or another concerning the evidence for athropogenic climate change.

In these situations you can either accept the consensus of the scientific community ( a group of people who have spent their lives studying the subject) or reject it simply because the conclusions are uncomfortable or don’t fit your world view. There seems to be a strong trend among many people today to do exactly that.

A consensus of scientists can and have been wrong on issues in the past but if you were building a bridge would you go with the opinion of a large group of well respected engineers or the opinion of a handful of dissenters even as their small numbers were decreasing and even the most outspoken ones were coming around to agree with the majority? The only reason to side with the dissenters would be either because you have special knowledge ( which the public, Fox news, and the rest of the deniers certainly do not ) or because you simply don’t like the conclusions for personal reasons that have nothing to do with logic or science which seems to be the primary motive in my opinion.

I think that I like you mcgyver, I have many questions regarding climate. I bristle when people confidently state that climate science is settled. No human can understand or predict climate or weather. The system is large complex and dynamic. Time scales are too long and historical data compromised at best. People like simple answers and crave consensus…...I know that I do…...I may stand on shaky ground but I don’t think that we are going to see any consensus with third world nations giving up energy sources because other countries tell them they must for the good of the planet. I do not want a single central world government….look at the terrible mess the United Nations makes out of most of the things that they touch…..imagine that incompetence on a global scale…....I have concerns with the USA but I align myself with them against all other forms of human control! I would much rather take my chances with the cold uncaring dynamics of planet earth than with any form of human control…......and thank-you for your patience and time spent increasing my knowledge…..I don’t mean any sarcasm ( I find it difficult to not sound snarky with my comments ) I am ignorant in so many areas…..but that is not stopping me. Change takes work.

sine dues - 24 November 2012 09:47 AM

I bristle when people confidently state that climate science is settled.

That is a straw man argument. As I mentioned earlier, science is never settled. What we have told you, repeatedly, is that 98 percent of climate scientists agree mankind’s CO2 emissions are driving climate change. That is consensus, not settled science.

No human can understand or predict climate or weather.

That is just plain wrong. You are ignoring James Hansen’s 1988 testimony before Congress where he correctly predicted global temperatures in 2008.

The system is large complex and dynamic. Time scales are too long and historical data compromised at best.

How are the historical data compromised?

People like simple answers and crave consensus…...I know that I do…...

There are no simple answers. As you noted, climate is complex, but the cause of current unprecedented global climate change is clear.

I may stand on shaky ground…

Then why do you insist upon believing nonscientists who receive energy company money for spreading false information?

... but I don’t think that we are going to see any consensus with third world nations giving up energy sources because other countries tell them they must for the good of the planet.

The third world countries are trying to get the United States to take the lead on mitigating climate change.

I do not want a single central world government….

Who is advocating a central world government? This is another straw man argument.

I am ignorant in so many areas…..but that is not stopping me. Change takes work.

Then educate yourself. We have given you the links.

darrons- dont give me the strawman thing…..it is a fact…if you get distracted too bad. 98% of climate scientists…..give me that list….I hope that there are no repeats or dead people or joke names ( Iona Prius ) on this list…....
Because you are not a climate scientist you do not understand the science behind the research. You are as easily duped as I am. You talk lawyer talk but you dont talk science. I completed three years in a neuro-biology degree before dropping out…..the only courses that I was failing were English and Calculus. I still have a good grasp of basic science. You don’t seem to. You can read a review but you cannot dispute the science.

Edit: Hat tip to Mriana for the link.

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility

Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.

Edit: I have a PDF on my computer where professors Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago published the results of a survey in the American Geophysical Union. They found 97.2 percent of active climate researchers believe “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.” OK, I was off eight-tenths of one percent; still well within the margin of error. Doran and Kendall concluded:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate

The communication part is my area of expertise. I’ve shown you where you’ve been wrong about everything regarding climate change, yet you still insist scientists are wrong and regurgitate lies and distortions spread by energy company funded think tanks and PR firms. I have been studying climate change on my own since 2005, and in college since 2010. I understand the research. I may not be able to write a climate model in C++, but I can read what researchers publish and understand their methodologies and conclusions. I also have a firm grasp of the scientific method, having studied astronomy and physics in college as well has being an avid reader of popular scientific books. Your assertion that I cannot understand the research is not only wrong, it is insulting.

Wow, I have never seen someone get so definitively crushed by a pie chart before.