EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:00 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:08 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
I found this interesting from the c3 denier blog. I enjoy a good smack down type conversation. If this group is interested I would like to collect the science info that counters the false assertions about climate science.


http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/06/what ... say-e.html

What Is A "Climate Change Denier"? Are They Just Imaginary Beings That Climate Doomsday Alarmists Say Exist?
A recent Nature journal article was loaded with the provocative and non-scientific terms, including 'climate change denier' - it's terminology completely disconnected from reality and specifically used to incite hatred and revulsion
Read here. The terms climate change 'denier' and 'denial' are used frequently for the sole purpose of denigrating opponents. They are terms of hate that the feeble-minded employ with delight, including the once highly esteemed science journal Nature.

In reality, the vast majority of 'IPCC global warming' skeptics are not climate change deniers, which honest, objective scientists and reporters know. Factually speaking, there are very few climate change deniers, if any, who can be identified and named - basically, they really don't exist.

As did many others, CAGW skeptic Joanne Nova took umbrage with a recent Nature "science" article that was loaded with variations of the term 'climate change denier'. She wrote an excellent letter to the lead author of the article, challenging his ignorance and biases. Below is a brief list summarizing her letter's main points that most skeptics believe/accept, plus additions by 'C3':

1.That the earth has warmed in the last century
2.That humans produce CO2
3.That CO2 levels are rising
4.That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming
5.That earth may experience a 1.2°C temperature increase from a doubling of CO2
6.That humans can cause climate change via other means than CO2
7.That natural/solar/cosmic forces are responsible for majority of warming since the end of the Little Ice Age

8.That modern warming is not "accelerating"
9.That modern warming is not "unprecedented"
10.That modern warming is not "unequivocal"
11.That past IPCC global climate model predictions have been spectacularly wrong
12.That climate model simulations are not empirical evidence
13.There is no empirical evidence supporting an temperature amplification from 1.2°C to 4°C
14.There is no empirical evidence of positive feedback from atmospheric water vapor
15.There is no empirical evidence for a human caused tropical atmosphere 'hot spot'
16.There is no empirical evidence for CO2-induced climate 'tipping points' (ie, runaway positive feedbacks)

•Finally, that the IPCC has zero climate observation datasets that support the last 4 points
•Finally, that the IPCC has zero studies based exclusively on empirical evidence (sans computer predictions) that support the last 4 points
So, what really is a 'climate change denier'?

Well it's not someone who believes the above, which represents the majority of skeptics (and 'lukewarmers') regarding the IPCC's human-caused catastrophic global warming "science". If there was actual empirical measurements and irrefutable studies (sans climate model simulations) supporting the IPCC's CAGW claims and predictions, then skeptics, and any of those in-the-bedroom-closet boogieman deniers, would likely not exist except in the conspiracy-addled brains of climate doomsday believers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:30 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
Ole Nova doesn't believe humans produce Co2, eh? She just outdoes herself. doesn't she?

Basically, that article seems to been written by someone who's decided they no longer want to discuss the subject in any way but the way that makes them happy and feel protected.
As is often the case in the climate-debate, denigelicals attack those that won't drink their koolaid as such horrible left-leaning commies out to yet again to take over the world. They, of course, intend to save the rest of us from this, whether we like it or not.

What is a Climate-denier?

One that refuses to look at the data with their mind working.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:33 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 284
Iowanic wrote:
What is a Climate-denier?

One that refuses to look at the data with their mind working.


Holy double post Batman. I don’t find this particularly useful. This is demeaning and an ad hominem attack. I think we can do better don’t you?

I’m sorry folks but this kind of rhetoric really provokes concern if you are a student of history. Words mean things. Words mean things. Words mean things. Be careful with your words.

I left the public education system under the belief of “warming” or “climate change” was happening. In my childhood bedroom you can still find old ecology flag stickers on my door. A green “E” where the stars on the United States flag would be, and differing strips of green where the red and white strips would be. Then something happened. Someone and I don’t remember who suggested Nuremberg style trails for those who are typically called deniers. It was at that point I thought that there is something else going on here. Something wrong. Something out of sight. Something hidden. It is at that point I decided to seek out the "denier" side. To find out just what they were all about. The jury is still out but I must admit their side has just as much merit as the side I have grown up with. I will field any questions put to me following that remark.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:36 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Iowanic wrote:
Ole Nova doesn't believe humans produce Co2, eh? She just outdoes herself. doesn't she?

Basically, that article seems to been written by someone who's decided they no longer want to discuss the subject in any way but the way that makes them happy and feel protected.
As is often the case in the climate-debate, denigelicals attack those that won't drink their koolaid as such horrible left-leaning commies out to yet again to take over the world. They, of course, intend to save the rest of us from this, whether we like it or not.

What is a Climate-denier?

One that refuses to look at the data with their mind working.


Read the OP. Point 2 may be of interest to you.

Clearly you are extreemly close minded. You should understand thsi about yourself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:03 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Iowanic wrote:
What is a Climate-denier?

One that refuses to look at the data with their mind working.


Holy double post Batman. I don’t find this particularly useful. This is demeaning and an ad hominem attack. I think we can do better don’t you?

I’m sorry folks but this kind of rhetoric really provokes concern if you are a student of history. Words mean things. Words mean things. Words mean things. Be careful with your words.

I left the public education system under the belief of “warming” or “climate change” was happening. In my childhood bedroom you can still find old ecology flag stickers on my door. A green “E” where the stars on the United States flag would be, and differing strips of green where the red and white strips would be. Then something happened. Someone and I don’t remember who suggested Nuremberg style trails for those who are typically called deniers. It was at that point I thought that there is something else going on here. Something wrong. Something out of sight. Something hidden. It is at that point I decided to seek out the "denier" side. To find out just what they were all about. The jury is still out but I must admit their side has just as much merit as the side I have grown up with. I will field any questions put to me following that remark.


You mean "merit" which does not include evidence and actual science?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:14 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Iowanic wrote:
Ole Nova doesn't believe humans produce Co2, eh? She just outdoes herself. doesn't she?

Basically, that article seems to been written by someone who's decided they no longer want to discuss the subject in any way but the way that makes them happy and feel protected.
As is often the case in the climate-debate, denigelicals attack those that won't drink their koolaid as such horrible left-leaning commies out to yet again to take over the world. They, of course, intend to save the rest of us from this, whether we like it or not.

What is a Climate-denier?

One that refuses to look at the data with their mind working.


Read the OP. Point 2 may be of interest to you.

Clearly you are extreemly close minded. You should understand thsi about yourself.


What would make one closed minded to not accept the fact that human actions add multiple gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each and every year? Or are you falling back on that old strawman meme about breathing and cycling carbon through the system?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:47 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
I seem to have touched a nerve.

Banana: you seem to have a fine job of imply all manner of grim threats....but no details. What horrid threat is behind global warming, praytell?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:53 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Quote:
What would make one closed minded to not accept the fact that human actions add multiple gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each and every year? Or are you falling back on that old strawman meme about breathing and cycling carbon through the system?


No, I say you are close minded because you have not read the second point in the OP where she says the humans are adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere. And point 3, and point 4. Try reading the OP slowly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:54 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Iowanic wrote:
What is a Climate-denier?

One that refuses to look at the data with their mind working.


As opposed to refusing to read 19th century Frency poetry with one's heart working?

Not everyone understands French, nor science, nor have the ability to interpret data (including a handsome portion of scientists themselves). Speaking another's language is key here.

Isn't it amazing how folks tend to get defensive/offensive when something they regard highly isn't accepted by others?

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:13 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Quote:
What would make one closed minded to not accept the fact that human actions add multiple gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each and every year? Or are you falling back on that old strawman meme about breathing and cycling carbon through the system?


No, I say you are close minded because you have not read the second point in the OP where she says the humans are adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere. And point 3, and point 4. Try reading the OP slowly.


I have and she still says that she has only discussed the points with who she calls the main leaders of the skeptics, which is not the deniers and certainly not "most" deniers by any means. I was just recently told that a single volcano releases more CO2 than mankind has in all of history, which is just as false as when I first heard it.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:41 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
And if your a climate denier what's the worst that can happen to you. If you can write a newspaper pays money for a opinion piece?

Lets not get excited, your not an oppressed minority.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:47 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
:- :-k


http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2010/0 ... 150-years/


http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2012/0 ... re-record/

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:31 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Quote:
What would make one closed minded to not accept the fact that human actions add multiple gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each and every year? Or are you falling back on that old strawman meme about breathing and cycling carbon through the system?


No, I say you are close minded because you have not read the second point in the OP where she says the humans are adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere. And point 3, and point 4. Try reading the OP slowly.


To be fair, the 2nd point says humans produce CO2, and nothing is stated about the levels produced. You seem to think it says "lots" to the atmosphere, which is not the case.

The 3rd point is unconnected to point 2 in that levels may be admittedly rising according to some, but possibly due to "natural" causes.

The 4th point is even disputed by some folks we have seen in recent forum discussions in other locations.

Even some of Jo Nova's blog comments show similar disagreement with some of the points.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:59 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 284
Wayne Stollings wrote:
You mean "merit" which does not include evidence and actual science?


On the contrary I have found reams of research that goes against the consensus.


http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/1 ... rting.html

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:14 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 67
Milton Banana wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
You mean "merit" which does not include evidence and actual science?


On the contrary I have found reams of research that goes against the consensus.


http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/1 ... rting.html


Mostly Junk but see
http://www.skepticalscience.com/meet-the-denominator.html

Quote:
Numerator, meet The Denominator! What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents. That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him.


Quote:
The outcome was, without even addressing the accuracy of the numerator, that the percentage does not change dramatically. My first cursory search returned 0.1%. The more detailed work resulted in 0.45%


And this is the view of Roger Pielke one of the few scientists who question climate the severity of climate.

Quote:
After repeated communication with the authors of http://www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which I am a coauthor as "skeptical." Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so.


I also note the number of articles that have been published in what I can only describe as second rate journals.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group