Global Warming Deniers Become More Desperate By the Day

[ScienceRocks]

Dude,

Every year that this pause last = the louder the deniers will get. This is just a fact of life.

If it was still warming like it was in the 1990's the deniers would have nothing.

 

[skookerasbil]

When fossil fuels stop dominating.......as they are and as they will be in 2040.......then I might think about paying attention but by then, I'll be in my box so who cares?


The OP is a miserable phoney......like all far lefties.......because he is losing. Nobody gives a rats ass about CO2 or the science. Been proven with many, many, many, links posted by me and my skeptic pals for years now.


Years!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

6. Instead of acting like responsible scientist and welcome and demand their assumption be challenged, they yell DENIER!!! Michelson Morley could have set physics back 100 years by calling Einstein and other "ETHER DENIERS!!"

 

[Vigilante]

 

[asterism]

"Personal attacks are common among deniers."

That one is funny right there.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Stephanie]

Why should this world be denied jobs, commerce, economic vitality, and quality of life?
Those are the very things that will be flushed down the shitter by this Climate Change crusade.

exactly, but you can't get that through to the cult of globull warmers aka "climate change"

 

[Stephanie]

perfect
yet people still fall at their feet when they call other's Deniers

 

[80zephyr]

And yet not one scientific fact posted by the AGW cult.

Not one!

Your usual delusional insanity, Klod. Facts are posted here all the time, facts are available at many sources of real science on the internet, you're just in such deep denial of reality, you pretend they don't exist.

Here's some facts for you.

Global Warming Fast Facts
National Geographic News
Updated June 14, 2007
Is It Happening?

Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change.

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

Are Humans Causing It?

• "Very likely," the IPCC said in a February 2007 report.

The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change.

• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. (See an interactive feature on how global warming works.)

• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.

• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming.

• Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.

• Other recent research has suggested that the effects of variations in the sun's output are "negligible" as a factor in warming, but other, more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.

What's Going to Happen?

A follow-up report by the IPCC released in April 2007 warned that global warming could lead to large-scale food and water shortages and have catastrophic effects on wildlife.

• Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by century's end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia.

• Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk.

• Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water.

• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.

• More than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.

• The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe and other rapid changes.

• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water.

I have one question. Are the temperatures in these bullet points actual temperature readings, or "adjusted" temperatures?

Mark

 

[Mr. H.]

Hydrocarbons and their resultant emissions can be controlled.

But there's no money to be made in that mess.

So we create a whole new model and call it "renewables".

Carbon-free!

We write books, we go on speaking circuits, we publish papers.

Because that's where the money is. Screw jobs, screw GDP, screw economic development.

Screw the fact we ourselves are made of hydrocarbons and exhale Co2.

Create a boogyman and supplant it with a money-maker.

 

[Stephanie]

Hydrocarbons and their resultant emissions can be controlled.

But there's no money to be made in that mess.

So we create a whole new model and call it "renewables".

Carbon-free!

We write books, we go on speaking circuits, we publish papers.

Because that's where the money is. Screw jobs, screw GDP, screw economic development.

Screw the fact we ourselves are made of hydrocarbons and exhale Co2.

Create a boogyman and supplant it with a money-maker.

Bingo

 

[skookerasbil]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis


Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

 

[Andylusion]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis


Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

This has almost always been true.

I think the eco-tards also know this is true, which is why the majority of their surveys ask questions like "Does human activity contribute to global warming?"

Which of course the answer is obviously, with or without science involved, yes.

If you live in a mud hut in Africa, and gather sticks, and make a fire, you are creating heat, you are also contributing CO2. On a purely technical level, you are contributing to global warming.

The question is not "does human activity contribute", of course it does.

The question is, in the broad scheme of the environment, does that contribution make any difference, compared to natural changes?

The answer is no. It's like peeing into the ocean is going to cause global flooding.

Are you saying peeing into the ocean doesn't contribute to rising water levels??? DENIER! DENIER!!! ANTI-SCIENCE!!!

People are crazy. Yes of course it does. But compared to all of nature, it's nothing. Completely irrelevant. Same with man-made CO2. Yes it contributes, but compared to the entire ecosystem, it's nothing.

 

[mamooth]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Skook once more posts a survey of Alberta tar sands petroleum engineers, and pretends that it represents scientists worldwide.

He's been busted doing it before. He doesn't care. Deniers consider it a competition, who can lie most brazenly on behalf of the cult. Deniers are usually socialists, and everyone knows the dishonest history of socialists.

 

[RollingThunder]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

Why, thank you, kooky. It would be hard to find a better example of the kind of denier desperation the OP is talking about....i.e. - a fraudulent article written by a lawyer working for a fossil fuel industry front group and propaganda outlet. An article full of lies and distortions that even the authors of the original paper have denounced as a phony misrepresentation of their study.

This kind of attempted deception, knowing that it would be revealed, represents deep desperation on the part of the fossil fuel industry propagandists.

Denialism From Forbes Courtesy of Heartland Hack James Taylor
February 15, 2013
It’s fascinating when you catch the start of a new bogus claim enter the denialsphere, bounce from site to site, and echo about without any evidence of critical analysis or intelligence on the part of the denialists. A good example of this was an article by Heartland Institute’s contributor to Forbes, James Taylor, falsely claiming only a minority of scientists endorse the IPCC position on the causes of global warming. This new nonsense meme gets repeated by crank extraordinaire Steve Milloy, bounces the next day to Morano’s denialist aggregation site, and before long I’m sure we’ll be seeing it on Watt’s site, Fox news, and in a couple more weeks, in an argument with our conservative uncles.

The claim is, of course, a deception (or possibly total incompetence) on the part of Heartland’s “senior fellow for environment policy” (I wonder if there is significance to the use of “environment” as opposed to “environmental”). Linking this paper in the journal Organization studies, Taylor makes a false claim that a mere 36% of scientists, when surveyed, hold the consensus view. Anyone want to guess at the deception? Cherry-picking! It was a survey of largely industry engineers and geoloscientists in Alberta, home of the tar sands. In the study authors’ words:

"To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries. Not only are we interested in the positions they take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: framing, professions literature, and institutional theory."​

This is pretty classic denialist cherry-picking and and is one of the most common deceptive practices of denialists like Taylor. By suggesting a survey of industry geoscientists can be generalized to scientists as whole, Taylor has demonstrated the intellectual dishonesty inherent in denialist argumentation. You might as well make claims about the consensus that tobacco causes lung cancer by surveying scientists in the Altria corporation headquarters.

The paper is actually quite interesting, and I’m glad I read it, as it is consistent with our thesis that ideological conflicts result in refusal to accept science that contradicts one’s overvalued ideas or personal interests. The authors surveyed a professional association of geoscientists in Alberta Canada (APEGGA), most of whom are working for the petroleum industry, and then performed a detailed analysis of their free-text responses on why they accept or reject climate science. What they found was there are 5 general “frames” used by respondents that their answers conformed to. The most common response was that global warming is real, and we need to act with regulation to address the problem (at 36%, the number quoted by Taylor to suggest there is no consensus), another 5% expressed doubt at the cause but agreed green house gases needed to be regulated. The second most common responses were “it’s nature” or “it’s a eco-regulatory conspiracy” and these responses showed a great deal of hostility in language towards environmentalism, proponents of global warming, liberalism etc. These came in at about 34% of responses and were more common from older white males in the higher tiers of the oil industry corporate structure. The most common remaining frame was a “fatalist” frame (17%) which could take or leave the science because hey, we’re screwed no matter what we do.

The authors weren’t attempting to validate the consensus with this study, but rather were trying to understand how scientists working in industry justify their position on global warming, as they often reject the consensus view of climate science. When a true cross-section of climate scientists is sampled, agreement with consensus is found among about 90% of scientists and 97% of those publishing in the field. A more appropriate summary of what these authors showed was that oil industry geoscientists and engineers most frequently express a view consistent with the consensus IPCC view and a need for regulation of green house gases. A similar but slightly smaller number express hostility to the consensus view and about half as many as that think we’re screwed no matter what we do.

It all would have been short-circuited if Forbes had exercised any kind of appropriate editorial control over this crank James Taylor. Or, if the echo chamber had read some of the comments on the initial post before rebroadcasting a false claim far and wide, but then, that would require intellectual honesty and a desire to promote factual information. Does Forbes have any interest that one of their bloggers is misrepresenting the literature in this way? Is this acceptable practice among their contributors? Is this the kind of publication they wish to be?

Finally, I see the authors of the paper (who I alerted to the Forbes article’s presence – they clearly were not contacted by Taylor for comment) have response. From their comment:

"First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions."​

Incompetence or deception by Taylor? You tell me. Either way, this is the kind of shoddy, non-academic discourse we get from bogus ideological think tanks like Heartland. They should be embarrassed.

Article Cited:
Lianne M. Lefsrud and Renate E. Meyer
Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change Organization Studies November 2012 33: 1477-1506, doi:10.1177/0170840612463317

 

[skookerasbil]

font is too small s0n ^^^!!!


Im squnting to see it!!!


Oh.....and by the way......losing >>>

 

[Kosh]

Two charts that defeats all the AGW cult posts and their religion:

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.

Like I posted earlier, the AGW religious cult has not posted one science fact.

Not One!

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody is caring about "climate change".......even if Thunder puts the font in 7 pt.


These 5 charts show why the world is still failing on climate change - Vox


Give him an A for effort though!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

Two charts that defeats all the AGW cult posts and their religion:

Only in the retarded mind of a delusional denier cult dingbat like yourself, Klod.

In the real world of actual science...

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Nature
Jeremy D. Shaku, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Published online 04 April 2012
Abstract
The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

 

[Kosh]

And the AGW cult keeps proving that they believe AGW religious dogma vs. real science.

AGW cult member = anti science.