Deniers - what is it that you deny in particular?

Question

Deniers - what is it that you deny in particular?

Answer 1

Oh, you want a serious answer.



I don,t deny there is warming, I merely observe that the climate is demonstrably highly variable and it was already in a generally warming trend before greenhouse warming could have become important.



Which, of course, leads to the conclusion that perhaps the interpretation that greenhouse gases are the sole or only important cause of warming is improbable.



Then, when one evaluates the relationship between greenhouse contents and global temperatures through geological time, one arrives at a very very poor correlation.



As to the conclusion that greenhouse gas increases are the only well-substantiated explanation, I find that the only real "proof" of this is from the models.



Now, my experience with modelling of geological processes (geochemistry, hydrothermal systems, and groundwater) is that the models use proxys, if you will accept the term, to reflect certain processes (we cannot solve the diffferential equations because of the complexities involved, so we use arithmetic approximations that we believe are good, and there are reasons to believe in many cases these approximations are true, of course)



Basically, an arithmetic approximation is used, and the arithmetic approximation uses derived constants as "basket" terms (adjustable constants) to represent aspects of reality, sometimes including a whole slew of things because we conclude (for acceptable reasons) that certain terms can be ignored or incorporated into the equation by use of those basket terms.



Basically, I am not convinced that the proxy terms and what is attributed solely to greenhouse gases are actually representing just the input of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gas contents may be intimately tied to other things that are not being considered in the model, so the conclusion of the importance of greenhouse contents may be a misleading conclusion.



And finally, I am not at all convinced of the long term predictive capability of the models, for similar reasons.



Secondly, looking at global temperature variations over time, both in the short term (thousands of years) and long term (millions of years), I find that the earth is prone to going into warm and cold periods, of its own volition according to responses that have never been human-caused, and it is thus veryreasonable to interpret the present conditions as a manifestation of the same sort of variation.



Third, we are in an interim warm period in of an "ice age". I don't perceive warming as a catastrophic event. In fact, we are not even as warm as it was in the period following the crash of the roman empire, and many historians have actually attributed the soft crash fo society in that period to the generally mild climate of that period. Vineyards thrived in England at the time, as just one of many possible examples of the agricultural benefits of the warm period easing the impact of the collapse of civilization in Europe.



Also, there was a severe warming that occurred at the end of the last glacial period, starting around 12000 years ago, and the impacts of that abrupt climate change are a primary cause for the rise of civilization. Warming is thus, NOT, of necessity, a catstrophic event and those that keep screaming that it is are misguided, to say the least, from my view.



And along these same lines of thought, the northern hemisphere at least was in a really nasty cold spell that only really ended around 1800, when the present warming trend began. And most people would agree that the warmer conditions of the 19th and 20th century were a lot easier to deal with than the cold of the first half of the millenium. Certainly, those of us living in the northern part of north america (and Europe) have a lot better climate than during the period of settling of North America, longer growing seasons, milder winters, and all that.



As an added reason for my lack of conviction that there is a problem, I even raise the question of the validity of the data. Michael Mann's famous hockey stick may be more an artifact of the measurement and calculation techniques than a real abrubt warming. I am wondering if there is a step function and not an exponential increase taking dominance, which will manifest in the long term as a continuance of the more gentle rise preceding the "hockeystick" change, but that is a more speculative argument.



A final thing that really bugs me about the whole thing, apart from the politicization of the issue (which includes scare tactics pointing to changes like glacial retreats that have been in progress, with fits and starts, for 14,000 years and pretending they are only happening because of US and our profligate ways), is the way that the predictions allow just about any short term weather phenomena to be explained in terms of the "warming" caused by man. There are apparently no weather phenomena that cannot be explained by the models, whether extreme cold, extreme warmth, mildness, big storms, or whatever and when you predict everything, you predict nothing



Edit: ran out of space lol



A final thing that really bugs me about the whole thing, apart from the politicization of the issue (which includes scare tactics pointing to changes like glacial retreats that have been in progress, with fits and starts, for 14,000 years and pretending they are only happening because of US and our profligate ways), is the way that the predictions allow just about any short term weather phenomena to be explained in terms of the "warming" caused by man. There are apparently no weather phenomena that cannot be explained by the models, whether extreme cold, extreme warmth, mildness, big storms, or whatever.



Greenhouse warming proponents always say "we predict that", no matter what it is, no matter how disparite the events. When you predict everything will happen, you predict nothing because all of those things will happen whether you are right or wrong.



Look, it is very clear to me that mankind, in large part because of our consumptive ways, has been causing an immense amount of change in the quality of the environment and the stability of ecosystems, but this is true whether or not greenhouse warming is a reality. And the reliance on petroleum and other fossil fuels has a huge destablizing impact on the economy and political situation.



I completely agree that we need to modify our activities, particularly as concerns the reliance on fossil fuels. But I just have a bad feeling about the validity of the whole greenhouse warming argument and are going to put a lot of effort and money into a problem that isn't really a problem, and thus we will be taking away from the money and energy and effort needed to fix all of the problems that we know we are responsible for and are certain to have an adverse impact on our and our planets quality and variety.



We are diverting our energies into the wrong things because of the high profile of this suspect issue, and when time proves the issue to be less severe than predicted, there will be a huge loss of credibility of the environmental sciences in the public perception.



you asked. I took the time to answer.



In sum, I do not deny warming or climate change. In fact, I expect them to occur through the natural course of events, in line with the way these things have changed in the past.



I would NEVER expect the climate to stay the same, unlike evidently most unschooled people (the average populace).



But I do doubt very seriously that greenhouse changes are important and negative to the extent that proponents wish us to believe.

Answer 2

The term denier is idiotic but it does demonstrate that global warming is a religious belief to those who use it. CO2 doesn't drive climate. It is a minor greenhouse gas and the actual warming will much more likely be beneficial than harmful. I realize that it is heresy to think that being warmer can actually be beneficial. Climate isn't static so the change of the name to climate change shows that it is a political movement and those that are part of it have no concept or care about the actual science behind it. They just want to punish humans for destroying the planet. It is about that irrational.

Answer 3

I have a problem with the notion that human co2 increases can have such a large effect on temperatures that should have us worried.

Answer 4

Considering the depository of web based knowledge. Every one with access should understand what's going on. Some of us don't question the science at all, just the methodology and alarmist views. In fairness most if not all, true scientific studies always leave room for plausibility.



Onset and transitional phases: 1880's to current or at least the minimum 30yr averages. What happen to the information that predates those time lines. It's not used for current averages, so we see it as a argument of convenience. Even so that leaves room for poxy data that may be bias, or strictly open to a variety of interpretations. "I don't envy the Scientific community when it comes to reviewing and interpreting"



I could go on and on about environmental severity that not only predates GW, but also runs congruent with it. This takes one to the next level. If the data gathered from CO2 and temperature spikes is so accurate. Why are predictability factors based on probabilities?



My biggest fear is the unscrupulous taking advantage of the ignorant.

Answer 5

Why are you so willing to believe that humans are the cause of climate change?

Answer 6

I don't deny that climate has and will continue to change.

I don't believe if we stopped doing everything it would help anything.

Change is inevitable.

Answer 7

Questions 1 – 3 I accept completely. i.e. No, No and No.



I start having a problem at question 4. I have doubts that the effects of GHGs on global temperature have been correctly calculated. Given that the current observed temperature is below *any* of the predictions made by the models relied upon by the IPCC, *something* must be wrong somewhere.



A comparison between the rise in global temperature over the last three decades and the rise in CO2 shows that, in the last decade (’96 – ’06) CO2 rose 30% more than the average of the previous 2 decades, while temperature rose 40% less. Thus, while CO2 (the thing that we are lead to believe is causing the temperature rise) is rising faster than ever, temperatures are suddenly rising much slower.



Clearly there’s something going on that no-one has accounted for. Thus more research is required.



Thus, I am *not* a denier, as you insist on calling me. I am someone who is looking at the *actual* evidence and is saying “Hmmmm? Something doesn’t add up here.”



So, I have doubts. So I’m a sceptic.



The alternative is to turn a blind eye to the problems and assume that the theory is still valid. That’s called blind faith, isn’t it?



As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.

Answer 8

I don't deny nothing.

Answer 9

if your talking about co2 your "large concentration" is currently about 1/30 of 1% of atmospheric gasses or around .038 parts per million.

its widely claimed that the human contributions to co2 over the last 150 years is about 1/3 of that 1/30 of 1%. that's a virtually infinitesimal amount not a large concentration.

our pollution undoubtedly has some effect on the climate but whether its speeding up or slowing down the warming trend of the last 13,000 or so years is not readily apparent.

for example solar dimming from the particulate pollution we put into the upper atmosphere apparently has a cooling effect.

its all rhetorical anyway because with an ever increasing population theres no possible way we can hold pollution to current levels much less reduce it.

Answer 10

I'm not a denier, I'm a skeptic. You guys came up with the term "denier" to equate skeptics with people who deny the holocaust.



1) I'm skeptical that any current climatologists aren't politically motivated.



2) I'm skeptical that there actually is a concensus. There's a concensus among scientists who agree, not among scientists.



3) I'm quite certain that humans are utterly incapable of effecting the climate as much as the sun.



4) I'm also quite certain that global temperatures follow sunspots.



5) I'm also quite certain that compared to the amount of natural CO2 that exists our effect is nil.



6) I'm absolutely certain that the AGW believers want to control human''s behavior, they hate industry, they hate oil companies, and no matter what the results of burning oil are, they want it gone.



7) I'm absolutely certain that .5 degrees of temperature change (as measured by us, with poor means at best for most of that time) is utterly meaningless.



8) And just because certain gas concentrations in the environment have increased since the industrial revolution doesn't mean that the industry has caused that increase.



9) I'm certain that CO2 is plant food, and thereby the earth's atmosphere is self-stabilizing.



10) I'm also certain that the sun is more powerful than we are.

Answer 11

Here's why so many 'deniers' can't deal with the reality of Science. There is a concentrated effort by the oil companies to spread misinformation, and doubt among the functionally illiterate. Combine that with the barely educated right wing religious crowd, and the confusion becomes unbearable. They love to bash Gore, just because Bush was so successful in stealing the election, and now Gore is the laughing stock of the ignorant right wingers. Just like the bullies on the playground, once they target a victim, all the bullies focus their attacks on that person. When anyone confronts their flawed science, all you get is a circular argument that goes nowhere. First they'll claim that the Earth has gone through changes before. Then you'll hear that there is no AGW. Then they'll say that there is nothing that can be done to stop it. After that, they'll claim that somehow all the countries in the world are in on the biggest "hoax" or "fraud" in Earth's history. Another of their favorites is something good may come from AGW. Don't forget the claims that scientists aren't intelligent enough to accurately collect the data. Then you'll hear crazy schemes to try to block out the Sun as a way to stop what they claim is not happening. A few will make a wild claim that somehow scientists have failed to notice that the Sun has gotten hotter. Then there is the "wobble" of the Earth. You, see how the "denialmachine" grinds on, polluting the minds of the World with their deliberate misinformation and outright lies. The problem will come to a head when these people are totally revealed as frauds by the towering amount of evidence that is rapidly now becoming available, with the lifting of the cesorship of the Bush-ROVE-Cheney admin.! Then I fear that these formerly ignorant types will just stampede and panic. Then you'll see a real threat to civilized America, and the World. It''l be every man for themselves, but no one can escape what is coming . Their so called [god], if it does exist, will not to willing to go through the trouble to whip up another little planet for us to trash.

Answer 12

1. NO. C02 is not a major greenhouse gas

2. Yes, it is illogical and the science does not lead to that conclusion.

3. Not special, humans just produce .28% of the gas which is an negligible amount and does not cause warming. Look toward the sun and other physical factors.

4.Wrong, C02 based on data follows the warming of the earth which is entirely logical and sound scientific theory.

5. Huh.

6. The science of the warmers is incorrect, using flawed computer models and a science that is only 20 years old. Go back to school and learn science and logic. In order to sufficiently answer a complex question like this YOU have to be knowledgeable in all the physical sciences as they all are linked together. Don't watch and then believe ridiculous Hollywood movies like "The Day After Tommorrow" and expect to get facts. The great Ice Shelf that was knocked off in that movie was caused by storm activity originating in Alaska, not GW. Now go and study. You have been brainwashed by the left which was Gore's intention to make a lot of money over this.

Answer 13

I am a skeptic, whose main problem with AGW is that it is based on what is very likely faulty data. Until that very important issue is adequately addressed, I cannot give the topic of AGW much.... if any.... credibility.



"Another serious problem is that thermometers are often located where human activity can directly influence the local temperature. This is not only the urban heat island (UHI) effect, where heat generated by traffic, industry and private homes and then trapped by the man-made physical environment causes elevated temperatures. There is also a land use effect, where human activity has modified the microclimate of the local environment through buildings or changes such as land clearing or agriculture. Only recently have the climatic impacts of these human changes started to receive detailed scrutiny, but many older meteorological records are inescapably contaminated by them."

Answer 14

David S. - Your "all you need to know" attitude seems to convey a self-induced filtering mechanism of other extremely relevant data. Anyone who cares about understanding science or distinguishing between 2 different views on a complex issue should want to know as much as possible about the subject. Believe it or not, every single climate scientist that is now warning about AGW, is well aware (probably much more so than you) that the climate has gone through cycles in the past, so the proper position for you to take would be "they might know something I don't which would be important to understand this issue".



In answer to the question, when it comes down to it I suspect 95% of the people who deny AGW do so because of scientific ignorance or a strong political bias (often both). There are probably 5% who have a decent level of knowledge on the subject that aren't political conservatives, who aren't convinced AGW is enough of a danger to justify significant economic expenses.



No one with any reasonable level of knowledge on the subject could disagree that humans are increasing the level of GHG in the atmosphere or that GHG are a significant part of the system that keeps our planet comfortable.

Answer 15

hi

Answer 16

All you need to know is that the planet has been going through warm and glacial periods for millions of years before humans ever existed.

----------------

Edit: It doesn't mean anything? I beg to differ. And yes, it is all you need to know to understand why some of us are skeptical that human beings are the cause of climate change.