Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[Crick]

Then why can't you explain that thinking? Why were Wry Catcher's two articles "garbage"?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Then why can't you explain that thinking? Why were Wry Catcher's two articles "garbage"?

I see you have a reading comprehension problem... Now go back and try again as I explained it once already..

 

[Crick]

You explained nothing. After classifying his articles as "garbage" and then being asked to explain, you jumped to a different article concerning the effects of high aragonite levels on carbonate fixing organisms and the attempted to draw a conclusion from their work that they, themselves had not found. This was quite obviously "ducking and dodging" and the result of having difficulty finding any work supporting your claims.

You called those articles garbage. You are obliged, both out of common courtesy and by the rules of this forum, to explain that charge.

 

[flacaltenn]

is CO2 a pollutant?

The extraordinary claim that was not supported was " In other words you can double the amount and nothing will happen."

Try to stay focused.

You didn't address my question, I asked is CO2 a pollutant?

You are correct. I didn't address the question you ask each and every time you want to divert the direction of an online conversation. Now, stay focused.

again, is CO2 a pollutant?

Prove that doubling the global concentration of CO2 will have no effect.

Generally agreed by skeptic and warmer alike, that the CO2 ONLY effect of doubling would cause about a 1degC change at the surface.. Any Atmos physics book is my reference.. WE have yet to see the end of the first doubling since the Industrial Age..

Now --- can you answer HIS question?

 

[flacaltenn]

Calling this garbage is easy, name calling always is. Now, post some substantive comments critical of these "failed predictions" (BTW, how can you determine a prediction into the future has failed?).

Southern Ocean acidification A tipping point at 450-ppm atmospheric CO2

And this one too:

Discovering the Effects of Carbon Dioxide Levels on Marine Life and Global Climate

You wanted a discussion? Let's have it @wrycatcher ...

What does the first paper concern itself with? (your second link is broken and is probably not "a paper"..

It's talking about the magnitude of the seasonal variability of PH and therefore aragonite undersaturation that occurs in the waters off of Antarctica within a couple 100 miles. It shows a rather high NATURAL seasonal variation that for contemporary purposes overwhelms any CURRENT pH changes and tries to predict trends for the next 50 to 100 years. From the paper...



Oceanic absorption of anthropogenic CO2 has lowered the pH and concentration of carbonate ion (CO32−) substantially since preindustrial times (1–3). These changes, particularly with respect to carbonate ion, strongly vary between ocean basins. Over the 21st century, the carbonate ion levels over most of the surface ocean are expected to remain supersaturated with respect to aragonite (2, 3), the more soluble form of calcium carbonate. Despite this, studies have demonstrated that calcifying organisms depend on variations in aragonite saturation state (3–5). Aragonite saturation in seawater allows marine organisms to adequately secrete and accumulate this carbonate mineral during growth and development. The Southern Ocean (south of 60°S), however, is predicted to begin to experience aragonite undersaturation by the year 2050 if assuming surface ocean CO2 equilibrium with the atmosphere, while most ocean models suggest that mean surface conditions throughout the Southern Ocean will become undersaturated by the year 2100 (3). Aragonite undersaturation both enhances the dissolution of aragonite and reduces formation of aragonite shells of marine organisms (4–7), making the prediction of aragonite undersaturation by the end of this century of particular concern to the Southern Ocean marine ecosystem. Systematic natural seasonal variations of pH and CO32− can either amplify or depress the onset of future ocean acidification and aragonite undersaturation. Although seasonal variability has been suggested to hasten the onset of aragonite undersaturation (3), observational evidence in the Southern Ocean has been lacking.

Here's the deal. Observational evidence is STILL LACKING after this paper. The paper (2008) uses even earlier (failed) predictions from the IPCC for CO2 and temperature predictions to drive "their models". In addition, the actual biological studies required to CONFIRM these wild ass guess is ALSO still lacking.

Largely because of the general unknowns of the area they are discussing and the fact that scientists routinely get stranded in ice ATTEMPTING to study these waters and creatures.

But also because MOST of what LIVES down there is ALSO "seasonal". And we have yet to determine if the critical plankton would be in formative stage during the higher PH deep winter months.

BTW -- the "threat" comes NOT FROM WARMING, but by deep cold water upwellings with previously TRAPPED CO2 conc. higher than the "average".

Another piece of work with it's science exceeded by the requirement to make outrageous claims in order to qualify for funding under the huge feedbucket of AGW financing...


Go read it. It's really just freshman college science. And get back to me..

 

[flacaltenn]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.

The American Institute of Physics is simply the biggest Scientific Society in the world. This site has many links to information and papers concerning the climate. It is not a blog by undegreed people with no credentials, but a site put together by real working scientists.

We can hope that one day climate change deniers will be held accountable as the criminals they are.
Arrest Climate-Change Deniers

We can hope, but the power elite is rife with polluters, as is the congress with biddable members whose life-blood, campaign bribes, helps them keep their job.

But gee whiz, how could that be? How, when deniers all know in their hearts, that a conspiracy of scientists and governments prevents virtuous multi national corporations from getting the real truth out. Because energy corporations have no interest in trying to shape the narrative.

exactly!!!

And now the Pope is in on the conspiracy too.

Thread topic is "deniers".. Not about "promoters"..
And how is it that no one on the "promoting" side wants to discuss any science? Go ahead -- I'm one of your deniers -- take a swing at my last couple posts. That's what you and Dottie want out of this -- dontcha?

 

[Liminal]

Yes that is right the climate change deniers are the AW cult as well as hating real science..

But remember, people who hate science believe God is on their side.
How the Religious Right Is Fueling Climate Change Denial Alternet

Oh look a far left rag blog site being used by an AGW religious cult member..

How about post those datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

Deniers of the world, unite!
Why Climate Change Skeptics and Evolution Deniers Joined Forces Mother Jones

 

[Kosh]

Here is something else for the AGW science deniers..

 

[Liminal]

But remember, people who hate science believe God is on their side.
How the Religious Right Is Fueling Climate Change Denial Alternet

Oh look a far left rag blog site being used by an AGW religious cult member..

How about post those datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

Deniers of the world, unite!
Why Climate Change Skeptics and Evolution Deniers Joined Forces Mother Jones

And then does it again!

See how the AGW is a religious cult not based on any real science..

You want to see me do it again?
Who are the climate change deniers Randal S. Olson

And they do it again using science denying blog sites..

I really like this one, a gold mine of information on deniers.
Global Warming Deniers Database

 

[flacaltenn]

We can hope, but the power elite is rife with polluters, as is the congress with biddable members whose life-blood, campaign bribes, helps them keep their job.

But gee whiz, how could that be? How, when deniers all know in their hearts, that a conspiracy of scientists and governments prevents virtuous multi national corporations from getting the real truth out. Because energy corporations have no interest in trying to shape the narrative.

exactly!!!

And now the Pope is in on the conspiracy too.

Thread topic is "deniers".. Not about "promoters"..
And how is it that no one on the "promoting" side wants to discuss any science? Go ahead -- I'm one of your deniers -- take a swing at my last couple posts. That's what you and Dottie want out of this -- dontcha?

Take a swing at what? I don't pretend to understand the science of climate change.

Thanks for the brutal honesty, but I don't buy that you can't read simple graphs and follow arguments about what all those pesky "sciency" links actually mean. So you COULD --- but you don't..

So why are you on threads like this if you can't understand the arguments? If this thread was about stock market "bears vs bulls" it would be meaningless without even CARING about the underlying fundamentals of the market..

Not that this particular thread is useless...

 

[Liminal]

But gee whiz, how could that be? How, when deniers all know in their hearts, that a conspiracy of scientists and governments prevents virtuous multi national corporations from getting the real truth out. Because energy corporations have no interest in trying to shape the narrative.

exactly!!!

And now the Pope is in on the conspiracy too.

Thread topic is "deniers".. Not about "promoters"..
And how is it that no one on the "promoting" side wants to discuss any science? Go ahead -- I'm one of your deniers -- take a swing at my last couple posts. That's what you and Dottie want out of this -- dontcha?

Take a swing at what? I don't pretend to understand the science of climate change.

Thanks for the brutal honesty, but I don't buy that you can't read simple graphs and follow arguments about what all those pesky "sciency" links actually mean. So you COULD --- but you don't..

So why are you on threads like this if you can't understand the arguments? If this thread was about stock market "bears vs bulls" it would be meaningless without even CARING about the underlying fundamentals of the market..

Not that this particular thread is useless...

Well then here's my argument: No one on this forum has anything like the expertise needed to put the science into any kind of actual context. Demonstrations of knowledge commonly available on Wikipedia do nothing to argue the contrary.

 

[flacaltenn]

exactly!!!

And now the Pope is in on the conspiracy too.

Thread topic is "deniers".. Not about "promoters"..
And how is it that no one on the "promoting" side wants to discuss any science? Go ahead -- I'm one of your deniers -- take a swing at my last couple posts. That's what you and Dottie want out of this -- dontcha?

Take a swing at what? I don't pretend to understand the science of climate change.

Thanks for the brutal honesty, but I don't buy that you can't read simple graphs and follow arguments about what all those pesky "sciency" links actually mean. So you COULD --- but you don't..

So why are you on threads like this if you can't understand the arguments? If this thread was about stock market "bears vs bulls" it would be meaningless without even CARING about the underlying fundamentals of the market..

Not that this particular thread is useless...

Well then here's my argument: No one on this forum has anything like the expertise needed to put the science into any kind of actual context. Demonstrations of knowledge commonly available on Wikipedia do nothing to argue the contrary.

Well put your hands in the air --- like you just do not care.. Your view of non-participatory debate would make us all victims of any carelessly constructed ruse that govt or industry or actual criminals would foist on you..

I'd bury my head and ass in the sand before I decide on issues depending on WHO is on a particular side. What if we decided justice that same way? (( and I WOULD like an answer on that one))

 

[Crick]

Well then here's my argument: No one on this forum has anything like the expertise needed to put the science into any kind of actual context. Demonstrations of knowledge commonly available on Wikipedia do nothing to argue the contrary.

Then I also have to ask, why are you here?

 

[westwall]

Well then here's my argument: No one on this forum has anything like the expertise needed to put the science into any kind of actual context. Demonstrations of knowledge commonly available on Wikipedia do nothing to argue the contrary.

Then I also have to ask, why are you here?

Wow.....a useful response! Good job! And yes, I actually mean that!

 

[Kosh]

Well then here's my argument: No one on this forum has anything like the expertise needed to put the science into any kind of actual context. Demonstrations of knowledge commonly available on Wikipedia do nothing to argue the contrary.

Most of the AGW cult members are not here for an actual discussion, it is about pushing their religious dogma.

To have an actual debate/discussion the AGW crowd has to prove their stance with actual science, such as datasets and source code that proves CO2 controls climate. None have in the past 40+ years since James Hansen used this to push his Nazi style environmental beliefs..

Science no longer exists in the Climate Change realm, it is all politics and politicians using this to subjugate the masses. Such as carbon taxes on all those mean and rich countries like the US and redistribute that money elsewhere.

Europe even tried a carbon tax on airlines flying in their airspace, even Obama said NO to that..

 

[Davey T]

It's great to see our education system turn out people who simply say

"You are lying."

I have yet to see anything that supports the claim yet.

Me, I am undecided.

But I get a little sick of people wasting bandwidth with these constant tripe chants.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.

The American Institute of Physics is simply the biggest Scientific Society in the world. This site has many links to information and papers concerning the climate. It is not a blog by undegreed people with no credentials, but a site put together by real working scientists.

ah, the old sock stupid post. Been awhile, you must have been having withdrawals. Dude you're too funny. Herr Koch 1901. I love the opportunity everytime to put up my hero's name. The one you all can't debunk. hahahahahahahaha

I love the term "denier". It is very inquisition-like.

 

[bripat9643]

It's great to see our education system turn out people who simply say

"You are lying."

I have yet to see anything that supports the claim yet.

Me, I am undecided.

But I get a little sick of people wasting bandwidth with these constant tripe chants.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.

The American Institute of Physics is simply the biggest Scientific Society in the world. This site has many links to information and papers concerning the climate. It is not a blog by undegreed people with no credentials, but a site put together by real working scientists.

ah, the old sock stupid post. Been awhile, you must have been having withdrawals. Dude you're too funny. Herr Koch 1901. I love the opportunity everytime to put up my hero's name. The one you all can't debunk. hahahahahahahaha

I love the term "denier". It is very inquisition-like.

The resemblance of the epithet "denier!" is so alarmingly like the accusation "heretic!" The AGW cult doesn't seem to understand the image the give off.

 

[Dot Com]

97%

Scientists Climate change is happening

 

[Billy_Bob]

97%

Scientists Climate change is happening

Cook Et Al.....

fucking hilarious.... a lie... DOT.FAIL

 

[Crick]

The results of Cook et al are correct Billy Boy. You have found no flaw with their methodology. That their author interview found even higher concurrence than their abstract review throws out the common denier accusation that they grossly misclassified the studies they reviewed. They line up with a dozen other studies. I can understand how you might seek desperately to reject them, but you have no grounds. None.

Tell us something: what percentage of climate scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals do you believe accept the theory that the primary cause of the global warming of the last century is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissionis? That is, what number do you think Cook et al would have found if the study had been done as you'd have it done (and I'd be curious to hear that described)?

Alternatively, what percentage of climate scienists publishing in peer reviewed journals do you believe hold basically to YOUR position, whatever that might actually be?