EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

What is a climate denier?
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18990
Page 5 of 12

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What is a climate denier?

Everyone loses with CAGW, you won nothing except your own denial. [-X :razz: 8) :lol:

Author:  spot1234 [ Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What is a climate denier?

Well if you don't like the label climate denier and you set yourself in opposition to something you need a label.
What do you want us to call you snow?

I mean you're not a skeptic in the classical sense are you?

Author:  Snowy123 [ Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What is a climate denier?

spot1234 wrote:
Well if you don't like the label climate denier and you set yourself in opposition to something you need a label.
What do you want us to call you snow?

I mean you're not a skeptic in the classical sense are you?


There are plenty of good reasons to be skeptical of AGW and skeptical of mass CAGW.

One of them being that we do not know what Cloud Cover has done over the 20th Century.

Author:  Snowy123 [ Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What is a climate denier?

Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Everyone loses with CAGW, you won nothing except your own denial. [-X :razz: 8) :lol:


So what is it that I am denying besides disagreeing with your opinion?

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What is a climate denier?

Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
One of the better explanations of the CERN experiments in a more lay presentation.

http://theconversation.edu.au/do-cosmic ... -cern-3246


CERN did not disprove anything about the Cosmic Ray hypothesis. They will be testing to see if the particles formed by Cosmic Rays can grow into CCNs in their next paper.


Other than the number of particles produced being insufficient in number and size to account for the observed effects? Even if they can grow to sufficient size that whole insufficient number really leaves a hole in the hypothesis.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What is a climate denier?

Snowy123 wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Everyone loses with CAGW, you won nothing except your own denial. [-X :razz: 8) :lol:


So what is it that I am denying besides disagreeing with your opinion?


And the science over the last 150 years in the hopes each and every new straw presented for you to grasp actually has some basis in refuting that existing science.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What is a climate denier?

Around and around the old arguments go, with the denialists always rehashing very old arguments. (i.e. cloud cover increase was found to have a net positive feedback or temperature rise in an old post here).
Here is a 2010 article based on the the 2009 reports that are no longer here.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 06484.html

Of course, things have gotten worse since then. It isn't an opinion, but a fact as HGHGs rise ever higher.

Author:  spot1234 [ Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What is a climate denier?

Snowy123 wrote:

There are plenty of good reasons to be skeptical of AGW and skeptical of mass CAGW.

One of them being that we do not know what Cloud Cover has done over the 20th Century.


Well the fact that you can think up reasons not to believe something does not make you a skeptic I could believe that the Royal family are lizard people and not members of the human race, an ex Coventry city goalkeeper believes it, so why shouldn't I?

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What is a climate denier?

Snowy123 wrote:
renewable guy wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Good question, what is a denier? Is it a name that advocates use to libel genuine skeptics on the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming? Is it a nasty way of labeling someone who disagrees with their opinions?

The answer is all of the above.

The evidence is simply enormous for solar driven climate change over the last 150 years, since there are so many ways in which the sun can impact the climate. It has been documented in various peer reviewed papers that you can predict the temperature anomalies of the Earth to a high degree of accuracy by basing the prediction off of direct and indirect solar variables like the geomagnetic index and the Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-you ... enier.html

Having talked to you for several years now Snowie, why are you so passionate about your position and not listen to the IPCC position on climate? Your predetermined postion excludes the mainstream science position based in evidence. At the environment site you were just adamant that there can't be any deep sea warming during the hiatus. Evidnece doesn't seem to move Snowie, its my observation that you are totally bonded to your predetermined viewpoint.


Consider the following definitions. Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views.


Can I ask you Renewable, what Cloud Cover variations were doing over the 20th Century?

Thanks.


http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/ ... -print.pdf

The mean clear-sky SSR series shows no relevant changes between the 1930s
to the 1950s, then a decrease from 1960s to 1970s, and ends with a strong increase
from the 1980s up to the present.
During the last three decades the estimated clearsky
SSR trends reported in this study are in line with previous findings over Switzerland
based on direct radiative flux measurements.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What is a climate denier?

Snowy123 wrote:
The evidence and correlations I am showing for the solar theory are better than the correlation for CO2 and temperature.

There are significant uncertainties that still reside with GCRs-clouds and climate, I agree. If the impact of GCRs was strong enough to create a 10% decrease in Low Cloud Cover over the 20th Century (which we do not know) then it would equate to a forcing of 8 w/m^2. For comparison, the net anthropogenic radiative forcing estimated by the IPCC is 1.6 w/m^2.

That is why it is necessary to be skeptical of the IPCC position that most of the warming is anthropogenic.


Causation from one variable would only track if no other variables changed. That is why correlations with higher numbers of variables is suspect, especially when there is no evidence for a mechanism for the cause.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What is a climate denier?

Snowy123 wrote:
renewable guy wrote:

Consider the following definitions. Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views.


Then I guess most of the AGW Advocates on this forum are deniers.


Where is there evidence of cause being ignored? It seems you have leaped to a conclusion without sufficient supporting evidence as a "skeptic" while claiming those who do not move from the majority position without some real evidence to support such a move.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What is a climate denier?

Snowy123 wrote:
spot1234 wrote:
Well if you don't like the label climate denier and you set yourself in opposition to something you need a label.
What do you want us to call you snow?

I mean you're not a skeptic in the classical sense are you?


There are plenty of good reasons to be skeptical of AGW and skeptical of mass CAGW.

One of them being that we do not know what Cloud Cover has done over the 20th Century.


So, you hope it may have done something so the prevailing science can be overturned, but in the interim you will act as if that were the case insted of the following the fact that it has not been supported by the evidence.

Author:  Tim the Plumber [ Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What is a climate denier?

Quote:
Having talked to you for several years now Snowie, why are you so passionate about your position and not listen to the IPCC position on climate? Your predetermined postion excludes the mainstream science position based in evidence. At the environment site you were just adamant that there can't be any deep sea warming during the hiatus. Evidnece doesn't seem to move Snowie, its my observation that you are totally bonded to your predetermined viewpoint.


Since I get called a denier for presenting the IPCC's figures and pointing out that there will be no catastrophy from such a minor, erm.. well benefit actually, the act of putting forward a scientifically strong and sceptical view will only get worse responses.

Snowie,

Could you start a new thread to explain the basics of the geomagnetic thing? I am unsure what it's about as it's a bit beyond me unless it's the cosmic ray/cloud formation rate as altered by solar weather. (Is that it??)

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What is a climate denier?

Tim the Plumber wrote:
Quote:
Having talked to you for several years now Snowie, why are you so passionate about your position and not listen to the IPCC position on climate? Your predetermined postion excludes the mainstream science position based in evidence. At the environment site you were just adamant that there can't be any deep sea warming during the hiatus. Evidnece doesn't seem to move Snowie, its my observation that you are totally bonded to your predetermined viewpoint.


Since I get called a denier for presenting the IPCC's figures and pointing out that there will be no catastrophy from such a minor, erm.. well benefit actually, the act of putting forward a scientifically strong and sceptical view will only get worse responses.


It is the historical and mathematical evidence of the problem which you have ignored here. The rapid change in temperature patterns is already showing us signs of significant problems with plants not being able to adapt and pests being able to expand. Not to mention the whole dikes will be easy to build atound the whole ocean systems position. The math on that one is staggering just for one state here in the US.

Quote:
Snowie,

Could you start a new thread to explain the basics of the geomagnetic thing? I am unsure what it's about as it's a bit beyond me unless it's the cosmic ray/cloud formation rate as altered by solar weather. (Is that it??)


The hypothesis is the solar output increases and more of the cosmic rays are deflected, the solar output decreases and more of the cosmic rays reach theatmosphere. The rays supposedly cause cloud formation which either cools or insulates the planet affecting temperature. Some of the reconstruction data to support the hypothesis is adjusted significantly, the mechanism is not supported by experimentation, and even some of those doing the specific research admit the effect on the climate is minor. Yet, it is the latest in straws which are supposed to overturn the science known now.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What is a climate denier?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 425985.htm

According to Smith and Heikkila, solar activity is likely to have only a minor role in climate change over the past century. But it may have had a much more significant role over longer periods.

"This will allow us to discover whether there's an historical relationship between solar activity and climate change on Earth," says Smith.

During the Maunder Minimum, between 1645 and 1715, very few sunspots were observed. This coincided with the Little Ice Age, a period when temperature in Europe were below the long term average, causing the River Thames to freeze over.

"Satellites and neutron monitors can provide data on solar activity over the past 50 years or so, and prior to that we have sunspot records going back to when Galileo began using the telescope," says Smith.

Page 5 of 12 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/