What, exactly, do warmists think that deniers are denying?

[editec]

WE cannot have a rational discussion when people cannot agree on the BASIC FACTS regarding the issue at hand.

AT BEST All that ends up happening is that people cite their different facts, facts they took from sources THEY TRUST, and facts that differ from other people's FACTS.

That brings the discussion to an IMPASSE, folks.

All that's left after people arrive at that impasse is for true believers (who cannot understand the problem stems from two sets of conflicting facts), to hurl personal insults at each other.

Why bother?

 

[Bfgrn]

IPCC report: climate change felt 'on all continents and across the oceans' | Environment | theguardian.com

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

 

[Iceweasel]

IPCC report: climate change felt 'on all continents and across the oceans' | Environment | theguardian.com

I thought the issue was about man made climate change?

 

[Bfgrn]

just like I told Frank....

Crusader Frank? The-Moon-is-an-artificial-and-hollow-satellite Frank? Thank goodness someone is keeping him abreast. Or anass.



I haven't reviewed this thread but I have seen no one accusing deniers of Lysenkoism and given how few and how powerless you all are, it'd be a silly comparison. The only thing you have in common with Lysenko is the worthlessness of your science and the damage you would do WERE you to have power.



The error of perspective Ian. Research counter to CO2 theory is more than sufficiently funded - the difference of course being our views on sufficiency in this regard. Your second statement is simply a factual error. Skeptical papers do not fail to get published due to an unjustified bias. They fail to get published because they consistently display bad science. And such submissions are few and far between to boot. The number of scientists willing to waste their time and their careers working for the Disinformation Campaign is actually quite low. The human species seems to have a higher intrinsic moral standing than for which the Christians would give us credit.

and now the propaganda is out that skeptics are the ones with unlimited big oil funding, and that skeptics are the ones manipulating journals to avoid publishing papers.

Well, skeptics HAVE had several hundred million dollars worth of funding from fossil fuel and extreme conservative sources - far more than the science would justify and more than enough to buy a few "journals". I hear Heartland has a few for sale to the highest bidder.

Ian, when someone suggests to you that the fossil fuel industry has a great deal of money and that it quite reasonably views climate concerns and impending climate regulations as a threat to its profits, what goes through your mind? Do you or do you not believe they are working to minimize public opinions and public action in response to AGW?

Given the actual science, it's far more likely that the Moon is artificial than a 100ppm extra CO2 will cause floods and drought and ice to increase and melt.

I'll walk you through it when you're ready

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

 

[Bfgrn]

IPCC report: climate change felt 'on all continents and across the oceans' | Environment | theguardian.com

I thought the issue was about man made climate change?

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

 

[IanC]

IPCC report: climate change felt 'on all continents and across the oceans' | Environment | theguardian.com

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

hahahahaha, the caption to that picture is-

Smoke billowing from a plant in Tokyo Bay, Japan. Government officials and scientists are gathered in Yokohama this week ahead of the launch of the IPCC report. Photograph: Franck Robichon/EPA

weirdest smoke I have ever seen. it looks just like steam.



I'll see your Guardian article and raise you a WSJ

Matt Ridley?Climate Forecast: Muting the Alarm - WSJ.com

 

[IanC]

do any of you from the warmer side of the aisle actually want to specify what you think deniers deny? or better yet, do you want to bring up some other areas that both skeptics and warmers agree upon.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

 

[Iceweasel]

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

I read your entire post, Einstein. If you don't know which part of a link makes your point, you don't have a point.

 

[Iceweasel]

weirdest smoke I have ever seen. it looks just like steam.

Yes, steam is made of Dihydrogen Monoxide vapor. A well known greenhouse gas. Clouds are even worse, they are all over the godamn place. Then again, that pesky sun is highly suspect and may well bear the brunt of the responsibility.

 

[Abraham3]

do any of you from the warmer side of the aisle actually want to specify what you think deniers deny? or better yet, do you want to bring up some other areas that both skeptics and warmers agree upon.

What is behind this sudden widespread urge among you and your friends to get us to speak for you?

Without leaving this forum, we can find deniers that deny all manner of things. From those who believe the world is not getting warmer to those who believe everything the IPCC says save the magnitude of the threat. Thus the query you and FCT have been trying to make is completely pointless.

If you actually think YOU have been mischaracterized, fill us in on what your actual position on the issues under discussion might be. Perhaps we can devote a thread to maintaining a table of posters and their beliefs. Won't know the players without a program!

 

[Bfgrn]

IPCC report: climate change felt 'on all continents and across the oceans' | Environment | theguardian.com

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

hahahahaha, the caption to that picture is-

Smoke billowing from a plant in Tokyo Bay, Japan. Government officials and scientists are gathered in Yokohama this week ahead of the launch of the IPCC report. Photograph: Franck Robichon/EPA

weirdest smoke I have ever seen. it looks just like steam.



I'll see your Guardian article and raise you a WSJ

Matt Ridley?Climate Forecast: Muting the Alarm - WSJ.com

Matt Ridley? The guy who argues that climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century??

The difference between legitimate scientists and denier pseudo scientists has always been clear to any intelligent person.

Only a little bit of research reveals the denier pseudo science is paid propaganda funded by the biggest polluters on the planet. And the deniers like you who are not in line for the profits from delaying addressing the problem can only be considered useful idiots.

 

[Iceweasel]

do any of you from the warmer side of the aisle actually want to specify what you think deniers deny? or better yet, do you want to bring up some other areas that both skeptics and warmers agree upon.

What is behind this sudden widespread urge among you and your friends to get us to speak for you?

Without leaving this forum, we can find deniers that deny all manner of things. From those who believe the world is not getting warmer to those who believe everything the IPCC says save the magnitude of the threat. Thus the query you and FCT have been trying to make is completely pointless.

If you actually think YOU have been mischaracterized, fill us in on what your actual position on the issues under discussion might be. Perhaps we can devote a thread to maintaining a table of posters and their beliefs. Won't know the players without a program!

If you are that clueless why did you see fit to respond?

 

[Iceweasel]

The difference between legitimate scientists and denier pseudo scientists has always been clear to any intelligent person.

That's the kind of thing a snake oil salesman would say.

 

[Bfgrn]

The difference between legitimate scientists and denier pseudo scientists has always been clear to any intelligent person.

That's the kind of thing a snake oil salesman would say.

It IS what 'oil' salesman are trying to sell...

Here is a little background information. The peasants for plutocracy on the right like you SOMEHOW believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines hoping their billion dollar industries are not regulated. Even though the most blatant evidence of their plan to launch a well funded PR and disinformation campaign was leaked years ago when the American Petroleum Institute issued their 'action' plan in 1998. And that action had nothing to do with science. It had everything to do with preserving their profits.

Global Climate Science Communications
Action Plan

Victory Will Be Achieved When

Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"

Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science

Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"

Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy

Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.

Current Reality

Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.

Strategies and Tactics

I. National Media Relations Program: Develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers.

Tactics: These tactics will be undertaken between now and the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires/Argentina, in November 1998, and will be continued thereafter, as appropriate. Activities will be launched as soon as the plan is approved, funding obtained, and the necessary resources (e.g., public relations counsel) arranged and deployed. In all cases, tactical implementation will be fully integrated with other elements of this action plan, most especially Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).

Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.

Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the "conventional wisdom"on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.

Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.

Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.

Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.

Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.

Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.

Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate.



Industry’s Anti-Global Warming Misinformation Campaign Reminiscent of Big Tobacco’s Strategy

The idea stated in the title of this blog post is not novel–far from it, in fact. We have known for a long time that the auto industry, the oil industry, and others with a vested interest have engaged in a long-running campaign of misinformation to discredit the science behind global warming. Manufacturing doubt is a common strategy employed by those whose agenda falls on the wrong side of scientific fact. This includes creationists, pseudoscientists, global warming denialists, HIV denialists, and, very notably, the tobacco industry’s notorious decades-long campaign to deny the link between smoking and cancer, despite the deniers’ own undeniable knowledge that such a link existed.

The reason I bring all of this up now, though, is that The New York Times has an article by Andrew Revkin about some particularly interesting documents recently acquired by the Times. The documents, from the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group), shed light on how the group suppressed its own scientists and demonstrate that the group was actively aware it was spreading misinformation:

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups.

Check out the full article here and the original documents here.

 

[Iceweasel]

The difference between legitimate scientists and denier pseudo scientists has always been clear to any intelligent person.

That's the kind of thing a snake oil salesman would say.

It IS what 'oil' salesman are trying to sell...

I don't run snake oil in my car. Snake oil has no value unless you are a believer.

Here is a little background information. The peasants for plutocracy on the right like you SOMEHOW believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines hoping their billion dollar industries are not regulated.

They are highly regulated. Ideologues like you can't stick to facts. You rely on emotional appeal, guilt by association, misrepresentation, propaganda, etc. Every dirty trick known. The irony is that the only ones fooled are you.

Even though the most blatant evidence of their plan to launch a well funded PR and disinformation campaign was leaked years ago when the American Petroleum Institute issued their 'action' plan in 1998. And that action had nothing to do with science. It had everything to do with preserving their profits.

Global Climate Science Communications
Action Plan

Victory Will Be Achieved When

Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"

Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science

Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"

Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy

Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.

Current Reality

Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.

Strategies and Tactics

I. National Media Relations Program: Develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers.

Wow. What disinformation! Question uncertainties in science is wrong to you? We should just let ourselves get regulated into third world status? I want them to be profitable so they continue to provide the service. Unlike you, I am not a hypocrite.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

Which is true. Sounds like you are allergic to the truth.

 

[mamooth]

Warmers? Is that the newest buzz word?

"Warmers" is an older buzzword. "CAGW" is the trendy thing with them now. It comes from the WUWT/Climate Audit blogs, hence the term is actually kind of useful, in that it instantly identifies who's getting all their info from those blogs.

 

[SSDD]

Oh well.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Why has there been no warming these past 15 years

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

According to rock's scripture there, the warming should not only have not stopped, it should have accelerated. You would think that by now, he would be embarrassed to put that particular bit of dogma out here.

 

[SSDD]

after Y2K the massive amounts of 'corrections' to the temperature data make the total very uncertain.

That's really what defines you denialists, the way you claim that some rather mundane ordinary science is actually a vast conspiracy.

2. my side says that doubling atmospheric CO2 should theoretically warm the surface by 1.0-1.2C, with everything else being equal. your side?

A large portion of your side denies it will have any effect. Look at Westwall, with his constant "But it's a trace gas!" line of reasoning.

The AR5 number was 1.5C - 4.5C, but newer data indicates the lower end is very unlikely. So more like 3.0C-4.5C.

Great! That's a testable theory. Take 2 tanks of air with the only variance being an additional 400ppm of CO2 and compare the difference in temperature against your expected 3 degree increase

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

You are edging very close to science there...science is taboo for warmists.

 

[SSDD]

o The Earth is getting warmer at a rate unprecedented in millions of years
o That warming is being caused by the Greenhouse Effect operating on increasing levels of GHGs in Earth's atmosphere.

Is that possibly because for the past couple of million years the earth has been in a deep ice age? And can you prove that the earth didn't warm up faster during any of the warm periods for the past 14k years?

The primary source of those GHGs are human activities: the combustion of fossil fuel for power and transportation and deforestation for development, mining and agriculture.

No, the primary source is the ocean...second comes the land's CO2 making machinery, and far down the line comes man's paltry contribution to atmospheric CO2.

This warming represents a threat to our well being from a number of directions: rising sea level, alterations in rain patterns, alteration in seasonal timing, increased weather intensity and so forth.

Look back across the history of the earth...what exactly do you think the optimum temperature is for life on earth?

To minimize the harm this process will cause, humans need to minimize their GHG emissions.

Pure bilge.

, you agree with all of that, don't you. Any reasonable person would.['quote]

Why believe any of it...it is lies, assumption, and misinformation.