How to talk to a climate change denier, and then what?

[Pete Tar]

....
The first question to be answered is whether the Earth is warming at all. As the discussion of fallacy 1 showed, there is no certainty that this is the case.

But even were warming to be demonstrated, and assuming a reasonable correlation between an increase in carbon dioxide and an increase in temperature, that does not mean that the former has driven the latter. Good evidence exists from thousands of years ago that carbon dioxide levels rose only after the temperature increased, so why should we assume that the order is somehow reversed today?........[/ex]

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.





Figure 1: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapour is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

...Must Go Up
How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.
...
We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Content from External Source

 

[mynym]

The solution is to immediately reduce the output of CO2 by immediately reducing the burning of fossil fuels. Period. There is no other viable solution.

So it would seem that you actually do or could agree with some of my proposed solutions and scenarios. That's what I was talking about with respect to shutting down the military industrial complex, stop investing petrodollars in the policing of the Strait of Hormuz, using more natural gas and driving up its price instead of burning it off while trying to get oil, getting local, driving up the street to fuel up a natural gas car, avoiding the big tankers headed across half dead oceans and so forth.

This isn't what has been done based on the awareness that you're raising. Yet you don't seem interested in the fact that much of the awareness that you're raising has been directed to Al Gore's schemes, Justin Bieber's new car, Obama's apparent cronies at Solyndra and so forth. There's probably a better chance that there's a crackpot working in a garage somewhere than that something like Solyndra would work out. Maybe they should have just dropped petrodollars from helicopters onto the crackpots to stimulate the economy while hoping for the best, huh?

Nothing is perfect and no human enterprise will be without corruption... I'm just pointing out some of the reasons that you're generally not getting anywhere with Solyndra and all the rest of it. You could have all the science/knowledge in the world to "raise awareness" with and it wouldn't matter unless you're going to get involved in possible solutions or at least scenarios in which there might possibly be a solution. That's where the "political rants" and so forth come in. Where is your political rant? Seems to me like you should be writing one if you're half as aware as you say you are. It doesn't even really make sense in some ways, are you sure that you're a true believer in yourself and your knowledge? You should be ranting about politics and petrodollars and so forth, if anyone... not me.

Raising awareness: "We're all going to die!!!"

Tell me something I didn't know. Now what?

 

[mynym]

As I pointed out you do not actually need air tankers to fight fires at all - they are expensive and often useless.

Different perspective on that:

11,000-gallon tanker plane pours 'too much water,' officials say

The gargantuan Biscuit wildfire in Southern Oregon has now engulfed just under half-a-million acres since lightning ignited it and other western wildfires in mid-July. The magnificent 180,000-acre Kalmiopsis Wilderness within the Siskiyou National Forest resembles a moonscape. The rare plants, the wildlife, the trees that made the Kalmiopsis a special place v are gone. And the U. S. Forest Service says it cannot predict when the fires will be completely out v maybe in a month or two when the rains come.

"This should never have been allowed to happen, and it need not have happened," says Tom Robinson, 55, a fire administrator and instructor of fire prevention with the Virginia Offices of Fire Programs and Emergency Services in Richmond, Va.

Since 1996, Robinson has been waging a campaign to build public support for the deployment in this country of a Russian-made air tanker, the Ilyushin-76TD v nicknamed the "Waterbomber" v a rugged, airborne behemoth that can haul 11,000 gallons of liquid to a fire, nearly four times the carrying capacity of the C-130 Hercules, the largest tanker used by the Forest Service. Giant Russian Water Air
Tanker Still Ignored By US

Content from External Source

Seems logical to me that you'd want to dump as much water on the fire as possible and so forth. But I'm sure that perspectives and perhaps simulations of perspectives vary.
Apparently it's better to let homes burn down and so forth than to use Russian planes or to get contracts for planes sorted out. Like Joe, I would note that when it comes to the military industrial complex it often seems like things get done, bombs get dropped, multimillion petrodollar missiles get launched, etc. So it does seem to be a matter of the paper ponzi, and the abject moral degenerates, psychopaths and Satanists* that ultimately own it... even if it's your local bank that's creating their type of symbolism/order out of nothing/chaos for them all the time.

*Yeah, I'm going there. Not that they would have to be symbolic "$atanists" at a base level of reality, as the reptilian/psychopath association that some conspiracy theorists get a bit carried away with would be enough to say "Luciferian." But it would seem that the banking families actually are, often, Luciferians and occultists. That's their symbolism, those are their rituals and that's their illuminated/light bearing mentality. I'm not going deep into all that. After all, it simply doesn't exist in the bunker. But I would just point out that there's a higher level of reality there in the background (Doesn't exist from the perspective that you've been educated in... so you can't see any evidence of it, see? There is no evidence. Duh. Of course there's no evidence when there can't be, given your perspective. But where did the random brain events that cause your perspective come from, again?).

It's the manipulation at a symbolic level of reality that's ultimately the reason that huge planes can show up or manifest like magick when it comes to making sacrifices for the petrodollars of the private banking families even as there's simultaneously not enough paper ponzi or power "trickling down" their pyramid schemes to magick up some planes to protect the homes of the peasants that they own from forest fires and so forth. In the end some things get done and others don't at a base level... but it's not just happenstance or chaos that's the explanation for everything like some have been taught to think. That's "just" bunker and base thinking, there.

 

[Boston]

The solution is to immediately reduce the output of CO2 by immediately reducing the burning of fossil fuels. Period. There is no other viable solution.

So it would seem that you actually do or could agree with some of my proposed solutions and scenarios.

Can you point out where you suggested that we immediately reduce the output of CO2 by immediately reducing the burning of fossil fuels ?

That's what I was talking about with respect to shutting down the military industrial complex, stop investing petrodollars in the policing of the Strait of Hormuz, using more natural gas ( and here's a good example of your lack of understanding the problem, natural gas is a fossil fuel, its sequestered CO2 we can't afford to release, its one of the main fossil fuels and its entirely incorrect to be suggesting the burning of a fossil fuel as a solution to having burned so much fossil fuel that we're in the mess we are in now ;-) and driving up its price instead of burning it off while trying to get oil, getting local, driving up the street to fuel up a natural gas car, avoiding the big tankers headed across half dead oceans and so forth.

No thats a political rant based off your own personal paranoia, which distracts from the real issue of reducing the use of fossil fuels across the board, while at the same time you seem to be suggesting we burn more fossil fuels IE natural gas. These types of conspiracy type interjections into the conversation do nothing to further the reality and critical nature of the climate shift crisis.

This isn't what has been done based on the awareness that you're raising. Yet you don't seem interested in the fact that much of the awareness that you're raising has been directed to Al Gore's schemes, Justin Bieber's new car, Obama's apparent cronies at Solyndra and so forth. There's probably a better chance that there's a crackpot working in a garage somewhere than that something like Solyndra would work out. Maybe they should have just dropped petrodollars from helicopters onto the crackpots to stimulate the economy while hoping for the best, huh?

I'm uninterested in any of your political rants, let alone the ones where you try and falsely tie my efforts to bring the climate issue to the forefront with some series or random political complaints. Maybe you should stick to the subject and quit trying so desperately to inject your political views into a conversation about science ;-)

Nothing is perfect and no human enterprise will be without corruption... I'm just pointing out some of the reasons that you're generally not getting anywhere with Solyndra and all the rest of it. Couldn't care less about your politics is what your not getting. You could have all the science/knowledge in the world to "raise awareness" with and it wouldn't matter unless you're going to get involved in possible solutions or at least scenarios in which there might possibly be a solution. I'm unimpressed, you don't have any idea what projects I've worked on to further "the cause" and even less as to what business ( or one of them ) I'm involved in that presents viable solutions at a highly advantageous cost as an alternative to fossil fuels. That's where the "political rants" and so forth come in. No the political rants come in when your trying to distract from the core issue of reducing the use of fossil fuels. Where is your political rant? OH I'll rant away on the appropriate thread but this one isn't it. This one is about how to speak to a climate shift denier, in which case the paranoid political rants most assuredly do not belong Seems to me like you should be writing one if you're half as aware as you say you are. It doesn't even really make sense in some ways, are you sure that you're a true believer in yourself and your knowledge? You should be ranting about politics and petrodollars and so forth, if anyone... not me. Nice try but I've exactly zero interest, how about instead if we discuss climate denial

Raising awareness: "We're all going to die!!!"
Thats not raising awareness now is it. Its more a feeble attempt to belittle the intensely dire nature of the problem, one that you claim to "understand" sorry but its statements like that which convince me its you who are in denial and not that imaginary friend you keep mentioning

Tell me something I didn't know.
Um,,,, your not fooling anyone

absolutely nothing of substance other than that second paragraph in which your rather confused diatribe seems to be suggesting we burn more fossil fuels in an effort to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Brilliant suggestion

How about if we just reduce the burning of fossil fuels, after all, it has always been the problem and it will always be the only viable solution.

 

[Boston]

what are the chances of moving the forest fire airplane conversation to its own thread.

 

[Oxymoron]

absolutely nothing of substance other than that second paragraph in which your rather confused diatribe seems to be suggesting we burn more fossil fuels in an effort to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Brilliant suggestion

How about if we just reduce the burning of fossil fuels, after all, it has always been the problem and it will always be the only viable solution.

But how do you reduce the burning of fossil fuels in practical terms? If you don't have a plan, it's like saying, the solution to hunger and poverty is to give people food and money. The devil is in the detail.

 

[Boston]

I believe the thread tittle is "How to talk to a climate change denier, and then what?"

The answer is simple, stick to the subject, discuss the science, don't let them squirm out of it. Once we've established the rock solid nature of the science behind the theory, as well as the irrefutable observational data. Then "maybe" if you have a group of people actually interested in the possible solutions it might be appropriate to discuss our options, but generally that in itself is such a contentious point that its far more prudent to merely prove beyond any rational doubt the realities of climate shift, and let that sink in for a while. Its only when people actually understand the incredibly dire consequences of climate shift, they might be willing to change. Even if the changes required might be actually quite small.

I'll start another thread on that.

 

[Oxymoron]

Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about, 'how to talk to a climate change denier', not really about whether climate change is happening or who is responsible for it if it is.

As far as how to talk to people, I suggest you have more chance of 'conversion' i) if you set out the case clearly with logic and evidence that has meaning to the skeptic. ii) set out how you would like to resolve the issue and what that would entail.

None of the above has been done. The so called debunkers on this say, 'Here is a website go and research it if you are interested'... lol I can just see the local political party campaigning on the doorstep... 'Will you vote for us at the election'... "Why should I?"... 'Go and have a look at our website and research if you are interested'. 'I am not here to present evidence to you... look it up yourself'.

 

[Oxymoron]

I believe the thread tittle is "How to talk to a climate change denier, and then what?"

The answer is simple, stick to the subject, discuss the science, don't let them squirm out of it. Once we've established the rock solid nature of the science behind the theory, as well as the irrefutable observational data. Then "maybe" if you have a group of people actually interested in the possible solutions it might be appropriate to discuss our options, but generally that in itself is such a contentious point that its far more prudent to merely prove beyond any rational doubt the realities of climate shift, and let that sink in for a while. Its only when people actually understand the incredibly dire consequences of climate shift, they might be willing to change. Even if the changes required might be actually quite small.

I'll start another thread on that.

I liked your post as we both posted the same opening gambit in near unison.

However, I unliked it because afterwards, you made no sense in your post to me. It is ridiculous to suggest that the core issue is to get people to agree there is a problem which is going to destroy the world in a few years and then say...

"Then "maybe" if you have a group of people actually interested in the possible solutions it might be appropriate to discuss our options, but generally that in itself is such a contentious point that its far more prudent to merely prove beyond any rational doubt the realities of climate shift, and let that sink in for a while."

If it is so important and urgent then why wait, otherwise you are just telling people to accept the world will end shortly so enjoy it whilst you can.

 

[Boston]

Because the deniers will just attack the solutions saying they are unnecessary and cost to much. Even though necessity as well as cost in most cases, isn't a reasonable argument. First people have to be convinced there is a problem, then you can present some solutions.

OK new thread to discuss possible solutions to the climate shift crisis
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/what-to-do-about-climate-shift.2109/

PS
all the required scientific data has been provided to you, if you don't have the inclination of willingness to look at it then thats not the fault of the presenter, its the fault of the observer. I've just myself cut and pasted enough to convince any rational person. Others have also contributed. If your not seeing anything convincing, its only because you don't want to be convinced


Great man once said,
you aint going to learn
what you don't want to know

 

[mynym]

absolutely nothing of substance other than that second paragraph in which your rather confused diatribe seems to be suggesting we burn more fossil fuels in an effort to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Brilliant suggestion

How about if we just reduce the burning of fossil fuels, after all, it has always been the problem and it will always be the only viable solution.

What I was suggesting would reduce the burning of fossil fuels, drastically.

Or do you think that those oil tankers are running on the same rainbows of peace and love as the ships and planes of Team America, World Police?

There's a huge difference or "reduction" between driving a natural gas car up the street to your neighbor to fill it up locally and paying the military industrial complex being financed by the bankster's petrodollar to bring it all through the Strait of Hormuz. And so on and so forth. I repeat myself, yet apparently you're beginning to have some sort of a dim awareness of what I'm actually saying given your perceptions of me as a "denier." (Partly my fault for generating that perception, I suppose.) In any case, at least you're actually almost looking at my perspective enough to think that it's wrong now. Burning fossil fuels to drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels? What madness is that?

Let me know if you begin to understand it.

 

[Drew]

What I was suggesting would reduce the burning of fossil fuels, drastically.

Or do you think that those oil tankers are running on the same rainbows of peace and love as the ships and planes of Team America, World Police?

There's a huge difference or "reduction" between driving a natural gas car up the street to your neighbor to fill it up locally and paying the military industrial complex being financed by the bankster's petrodollar to bring it all through the Strait of Hormuz. And so on and so forth. I repeat myself, yet apparently you're beginning to have some sort of a dim awareness of what I'm actually saying given your perceptions of me as a "denier." (Partly my fault for generating that perception, I suppose.) In any case, at least you're actually almost looking at my perspective enough to think that it's wrong now. Burning fossil fuels to drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels? What madness is that?

Let me know if you begin to understand it.

Why did you edit out that thing just now about where you suggested that the "Rockefeller and Rothschild banking familes" be "assassinated" as a potential solution to global warming? Woukd it be because Your "Just kidding" really doesn't make you look any less extreme.

 

[Drew]

And yes, for the record, even if he doesn't own up to it, before he edited #331, mynym ended the post with a proposal [in a pretty close paraphrase]: "How about assassinating the Rockefeller and Rothschild banking familes? Just kidding. Due process, don't you know."

This is where this thread is at. No doubt he will claim this is some kind of "a satire", but the implication is that he believes the actions of a few wealthy individuals are more relavent to the climate debate than the aggregate behaviors of populations and economies.

 

[Oxymoron]

And yes, for the record, even if he doesn't own up to it, before he edited #331, mynym ended the post with a proposal [in a pretty close paraphrase]: "How about assassinating the Rockefeller and Rothschild banking familes? Just kidding. Due process, don't you know."

Lol... so people can't have a joke now. Guess you best inform the NSA.... Oh no, don't bother its already been filed and collated no doubt. Shit, they probably have a copy of every typo, fleeting thought or draft of everything before you even post it. But who gives a shit... they are only doing their jobs protecting the National Security from aberrant thinking.

This is where this thread is at. No doubt he will claim this is some kind of "a satire", but the implication is that he believes the actions of a few wealthy individuals are more relavent to the climate debate than the aggregate behaviors of populations and economies.

Content from External Source

Do you not accept that the actions of a few wealthy individuals are more relavent to the climate debate than the aggregate behaviors of populations and economies?

It seems pretty obvious to me that they are, at least up to the point where public outrage is so prevalent as to be unstoppable.... like that will ever happen. Anyone would think we lived in a democracy or something.

What I love about the net is you can always find someone who has set out your thoughts for you, thereby making it unnecessary to do it yourself.

http://www.globalwarminghoaxblog.com/feeds/posts/default?orderby=updated

Not “warming,” but “weirding.” Not “heating,” but “havoc.” Which is how global warming can cause more snow, less snow, no snow, avalanches, heat waves, cold snaps, wetter wets, drier dries, gingivitis, delirium tremens and irritable bowel syndrome  . . . all at the same time!

Global warming — is there anything it can’t do?

Well, the one thing it apparently doesn’t do is help predict the weather. The UK’s Met Office stopped giving seasonal forecasts last year after mis-predicting warmer winters three years in a row. Meteorologists without a warmist agenda like Piers Corbyn and AccuWeather’s Joe Bastardi, on the other hand, continue to pay the bills by making predictions directly contrary to the “weirdos.” Oddly, they don’t have degrees in politics.
For a theory to be scientific, it must be fallible — capable of being proven false. If every weather condition can be used to “prove” global warming simply by being declared “weird,” then it’s not science. It’s a joke.

Content from External Source

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/climate-of-change-what-does-an-inside-outside-strategy-mean

From the early 2000s through 2007, the year after Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was released, public concern about global warming grew. The percentage of people who indicated in Gallup polls that they believed climate change would pose a “serious threat” to them within their lifetimes rose from 25 percent in 1998 to a high of 40 percent by the start of 2008. Then came a bad turn. By 2010, the “serious threat” number had fallen back to 32 percent, erasing almost a decade of progress. A summary of polling data by two University of Connecticut professors notes that the percentage of Americans who agreed that “most scientists believe that the planet is warming” also took a nosedive, falling “by 13 points between March 2008 and March 2010—reaching the lowest level of support since the question was first asked in 1997.”

Early in the first Obama administration, the White House responded to the political dilemma of global warming with a curious two-step. First, it indicated that it would use the Environmental Protection Agency to promote green regulation and that it would support cap-and-trade legislation to address climate change as it worked its way through Congress. Second, it told people not to talk about the issue.
Or rather, the president’s team preferred that people not call the problem by its name. In November 2012, the British Guardian broke the story of an off-the-record meeting that the Obama administration held with green leaders in the spring of 2009. The paper reported that the meeting “marked a strategic decision by the White House to downplay climate change—avoiding the very word.” After examining focus groups and polling, the White House decided that “climate change was not a winning message” and that “[r]aising the topic would also leave Obama open to attack from industry and conservative groups opposed to intervention in the economy.”

Content from External Source

 

[Pete Tar]

What I was suggesting would reduce the burning of fossil fuels, drastically.

Or do you think that those oil tankers are running on the same rainbows of peace and love as the ships and planes of Team America, World Police?

There's a huge difference or "reduction" between driving a natural gas car up the street to your neighbor to fill it up locally and paying the military industrial complex being financed by the bankster's petrodollar to bring it all through the Strait of Hormuz. And so on and so forth. ....

So the trend in world trade and shifting large loads of goods around is a large proportion of the co2 output, therefore learning to localise would cut that overhead?
That would seem logical.

I wonder if shipping would ever consider going back to wind power.

 

[Pete Tar]

Lol... so people can't have a joke now. Guess you best inform the NSA.... Oh no, don't bother its already been filed and collated no doubt. Shit, they probably have a copy of every typo, fleeting thought or draft of everything before you even post it. But who gives a shit... they are only doing their jobs protecting the National Security from aberrant thinking.

This is where this thread is at. No doubt he will claim this is some kind of "a satire", but the implication is that he believes the actions of a few wealthy individuals are more relavent to the climate debate than the aggregate behaviors of populations and economies.

Content from External Source

Do you not accept that the actions of a few wealthy individuals are more relavent to the climate debate than the aggregate behaviors of populations and economies?

It seems pretty obvious to me that they are, at least up to the point where public outrage is so prevalent as to be unstoppable.... like that will ever happen. Anyone would think we lived in a democracy or something.

What I love about the net is you can always find someone who has set out your thoughts for you, thereby making it unnecessary to do it yourself.

http://www.globalwarminghoaxblog.com/feeds/posts/default?orderby=updated

Not “warming,” but “weirding.” Not “heating,” but “havoc.” Which is how global warming can cause more snow, less snow, no snow, avalanches, heat waves, cold snaps, wetter wets, drier dries, gingivitis, delirium tremens and irritable bowel syndrome  . . . all at the same time!

Global warming — is there anything it can’t do?

Well, the one thing it apparently doesn’t do is help predict the weather. The UK’s Met Office stopped giving seasonal forecasts last year after mis-predicting warmer winters three years in a row. Meteorologists without a warmist agenda like Piers Corbyn and AccuWeather’s Joe Bastardi, on the other hand, continue to pay the bills by making predictions directly contrary to the “weirdos.” Oddly, they don’t have degrees in politics.
For a theory to be scientific, it must be fallible — capable of being proven false. If every weather condition can be used to “prove” global warming simply by being declared “weird,” then it’s not science. It’s a joke.

Content from External Source

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/climate-of-change-what-does-an-inside-outside-strategy-mean

From the early 2000s through 2007, the year after Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was released, public concern about global warming grew. The percentage of people who indicated in Gallup polls that they believed climate change would pose a “serious threat” to them within their lifetimes rose from 25 percent in 1998 to a high of 40 percent by the start of 2008. Then came a bad turn. By 2010, the “serious threat” number had fallen back to 32 percent, erasing almost a decade of progress. A summary of polling data by two University of Connecticut professors notes that the percentage of Americans who agreed that “most scientists believe that the planet is warming” also took a nosedive, falling “by 13 points between March 2008 and March 2010—reaching the lowest level of support since the question was first asked in 1997.”

Early in the first Obama administration, the White House responded to the political dilemma of global warming with a curious two-step. First, it indicated that it would use the Environmental Protection Agency to promote green regulation and that it would support cap-and-trade legislation to address climate change as it worked its way through Congress. Second, it told people not to talk about the issue.
Or rather, the president’s team preferred that people not call the problem by its name. In November 2012, the British Guardian broke the story of an off-the-record meeting that the Obama administration held with green leaders in the spring of 2009. The paper reported that the meeting “marked a strategic decision by the White House to downplay climate change—avoiding the very word.” After examining focus groups and polling, the White House decided that “climate change was not a winning message” and that “[r]aising the topic would also leave Obama open to attack from industry and conservative groups opposed to intervention in the economy.”

Content from External Source

What does public perception and spin management have to do with the science of co2 acting as a warming accelerant?

 

[Oxymoron]

So the trend in world trade and shifting large loads of goods around is a large proportion of the co2 output, therefore learning to localise would cut that overhead?
That would seem logical.

I wonder if shipping would ever consider going back to wind power.

How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...reate-pollution-cars-world.html#ixzz2aqaP7R1w

 

[Oxymoron]

What does public perception and spin management have to do with the science of co2 acting as a warming accelerant?

First it has never been proven that is the case. Which came first, the chicken or the egg... warming (or weirding), or CO2?

Second, as I said previously, politics is all. If Obama won't go with it, there will be no legislation.

 

[Pete Tar]

First it has never been proven that is the case. Which came first, the chicken or the egg... warming (or weirding), or CO2?

Second, as I said previously, politics is all. If Obama won't go with it, there will be no legislation.

First of all, it has, so burn that idea.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

Content from External Source

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

 

[Oxymoron]

What does public perception and spin management have to do with the science of co2 acting as a warming accelerant?

This sort of thing apparently

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/climate-of-change-what-does-an-inside-outside-strategy-mean

In 2009 and 2010, conservative funders such as David and Charles Koch and activists in the Tea Party outmaneuvered the business-friendly insiders, not merely by changing general public attitudes but by polarizing right-wing opinion. Making opposition to cap-and-trade an important litmus test for Republican officials, they eliminated any possible support for the deal from moderate crossovers.

In light of this emerging opposition, Skocpol slams USCAP and its allies for embracing “nonpartisan messaging strategies that, in general and gauzy terms, mentioned unspecified ‘green jobs’ and ‘American energy independence’ as the reasons for ordinary citizens to acquiesce to sweeping climate change legislation, whose specifics those citizens were supposedly not to worry about too much.” Skocpol takes a firm stand against the stealth approach of pushing climate change legislation without discussing the crisis of global warming.

Content from External Source

Bolded seems to mirror Boston's stance on this.

 

[Boston]

What I was suggesting would reduce the burning of fossil fuels, drastically.

Or do you think that those oil tankers are running on the same rainbows of peace and love as the ships and planes of Team America, World Police? Well we can bet they're not running on natural gas and again with the political rants on a climate thread, you just don't grok the separation of the two now can you.

There's a huge difference or "reduction" between driving a natural gas car up the street to your neighbor to fill it up locally and paying the military industrial complex being financed by the bankster's petrodollar to bring it all through the Strait of Hormuz.

Yikes, uh,,,,,, our subject is how to talk to climate deniers, not the straights of Hormuz or banksters or Justin Biebers car or any of this nonsense you keep insisting on confusing the issue with. The issue is fossil fuels based climate shift and trying to get those on the fence to see reason while not wasting to much time with those few hopeless cases among us.

Your error lies in not comprehending that natural gas is still a fossil fuel, still emits fossil fuel based CO2 still requires fracking or some other such method that taps into the sequestered fossil CO2 reservoir and still maintains our dependence on the system that created the problem in the first place. Go to the solutions thread we started to specifically address this particular aspect of the issue and read it Then get back to us on why simply switching off fossil fuels is a hopeless endeavor benefiting only those who're responsible for this mess we are in.

And so on and so forth. I repeat myself, Same nonsense over and over, yes you do, or, you could actually read the material presented and "learn something" rather than just constantly repeating the same old tired rants yet apparently you're beginning to have some sort of a dim awareness of what I'm actually saying given your perceptions of me as a "denier." (Partly my fault for generating that perception, I suppose.) lets go with; entirely your fault given the opinion that we should just switch off one fossil fuel for another, and for the feeble attempts to ridicule the severity of the issue. In any case, at least you're actually almost looking at my perspective enough to think that it's wrong now. Huh ????? I knew you were wrong from the word go Can't imagine how you might have missed that but oh well. I guess allusions to the contrary would be exactly that. Burning fossil fuels to drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels? What madness is that? Your madness since your the one keeps suggesting it

Let me know if you begin to understand it. Oh yah, my dumb ass will keep you posted, for instance this last little hum dinger you've started off with ( see highlighted above )

Again with the brilliant suggestion that we replace liquid petroleum with gaseous petroleum, as if thats going to help any. You might want to reread yuor suggestion cause unless your more confused than I think you are ( hard to do but still possible ) Your claiming that natural gas cars are the solution, and your dead wrong. Natural gas may burn cleaner but it takes more of it to move the same weight the same distance rough concept I know but thems the facts.

The solution is to not burn fossil fuels. <----- thats a period, only viable solution, end of problem, anything less only preserves that status quo you are so fond of mentioning and does nothing to reduce out dependence on fossil fuels

Are we beginning to learn yet ?

 

[Oxymoron]

First of all, it has, so burn that idea.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

Content from External Source

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

I raise you this

http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/07/...ratures-rapid-global-warming-is-debunked.html

satellites document that rapid global warming change does not exist and CO2, at best, has a minuscule impact on global temperatures - the empirical evidence simply debunks the "IPCC consensus" myth

Content from External Source

 

[Boston]

http://www.globalwarminghoaxblog.com/feeds/posts/default?orderby=updated

Not “warming,” but “weirding.” Not “heating,” but “havoc.” Which is how global warming can cause more snow, less snow, no snow, avalanches, heat waves, cold snaps, wetter wets, drier dries, gingivitis, delirium tremens and irritable bowel syndrome  . . . all at the same time!

Global warming — is there anything it can’t do?

Well, the one thing it apparently doesn’t do is help predict the weather. The UK’s Met Office stopped giving seasonal forecasts last year after mis-predicting warmer winters three years in a row. Meteorologists without a warmist agenda like Piers Corbyn and AccuWeather’s Joe Bastardi, on the other hand, continue to pay the bills by making predictions directly contrary to the “weirdos.” Oddly, they don’t have degrees in politics.
For a theory to be scientific, it must be fallible — capable of being proven false. If every weather condition can be used to “prove” global warming simply by being declared “weird,” then it’s not science. It’s a joke.
”

still having trouble with the difference between climate and weather I see

 

[Boston]

I raise you this

http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/07/...ratures-rapid-global-warming-is-debunked.html

satellites document that rapid global warming change does not exist and CO2, at best, has a minuscule impact on global temperatures - the empirical evidence simply debunks the "IPCC consensus" myth

Content from External Source

Debunked

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt

and this one
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...view-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder

 

[Oxymoron]

http://bartgordon.net/global-warming-hoax-myths-debunked

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.

MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

The “hockey stick”, a poster boy of both the UN’s IPCC and Canada’s Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

Content from External Source

A lot like the NIST computer models

 

[Pete Tar]

...

satellites document that rapid global warming change does not exist and CO2, at best, has a minuscule impact on global temperatures - the empirical evidence simply debunks the "IPCC consensus" myth

Content from External Source

God what a load of evil tripe.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

 

[Boston]

Oxymoron said: ↑

satellites document that rapid global warming change does not exist and CO2, at best, has a minuscule impact on global temperatures - the empirical evidence simply debunks the "IPCC consensus" myth

Debunked


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt

and this one
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...view-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder

 

[Oxymoron]

Debunked

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt

and this one
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...view-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder

Don't quote anythig then... just leave it up to the reader to ferret it out themselves... 'It's on the net if your interested' attitude.

I see nothing that debunks it in there

 

[Oxymoron]

God what a load of evil tripe.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

Well the GW brigade have their scientists and the skeptics have theirs. Hardly a consensus is it?

Fact is the lord and master of the world is not buying it because the 'real lords and masters of the world', tell him not to... so I hope you are wrong or we are all in big trouble but i suppose if you have enough money you can move anywhere and the Antactic will probably have very agreeable weather and resources once all that ice is gone so Rockefella' et al will be ok.

 

[mynym]

So the trend in world trade and shifting large loads of goods around is a large proportion of the co2 output, therefore learning to localise would cut that overhead?
That would seem logical.

Indeed.

Amazing how perceptions get in the way...

 

[Boston]

http://bartgordon.net/global-warming-hoax-myths-debunked

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.

Absolute nonsense, classic denial, no supporting data

MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

pure nonsense, quoting nearly 20 year old tripe from a politician denier is hardly science.

The “hockey stick”, a poster boy of both the UN’s IPCC and Canada’s Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

wrong, and thoroughly debunked in many previous posts. Read the thread people, this last is just as complete nonsense as those first two

Content from External Source

A lot like the NIST computer models

Wow, just wow

Love
B

 

[Boston]

I love all the hog wash being interjected these last few posts. So the blatant denial comes forth and the disinformation sites its derived from quoted.

I love it

are you guys sure you want to play this game, cause find the flaw is one of my favorites

 

[Oxymoron]

I love all the hog wash being interjected these last few posts. So the blatant denial comes forth and the disinformation sites its derived from quoted.

I love it

are you guys sure you want to play this game, cause find the flaw is one of my favorites

If you do, I will be happy that you did, (well you know what I mean)... I keep asking you to do that.

 

[Boston]

Oh really, so how would you respond to the article in Realclimate I linked to debunking your recent assertions, oh yah, you refused to read it

Brilliant argument

Or are you suggesting that climate scientists don't have a handle on climate issues ?

RealClimate is a commentary site (blog) on climatology. The site's contributors are a group of climate scientists whose goal is to provide a quick response to developing stories and providing the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The forum is moderated, and is restricted to scientific topics to avoid discussion of political or economic implications of the science.[3] RealClimate was launched on 1 December 2004 by nine climate scientists.[1][4]

 

[Oxymoron]

Oh really, so how would you respond to the article in Realclimate I linked to debunking your recent assertions, oh yah, you refused to read it

Brilliant argument

I read it and there was nothing of substance in it. What bit were you referring to apart from the slavering?

 

[Pete Tar]

Well the GW brigade have their scientists and the skeptics have theirs. Hardly a consensus is it?
...ok.

Yes it IS a consensus when the people who actually know what they're talking about and who have based their careers on science and study, stop arguing.

Because you can find blogs that don't understand the science and misrepresent any data they can twist to downplay the basics of global warming does not mean there isn't a consensus.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

Content from External Source

 

[Pete Tar]

I read it and there was nothing of substance in it. What bit were you referring to apart from the slavering?

Where's the slavering?

It is worth encapsulating exactly what the problems have been and why they have taken so long to resolve. The MSU records are derived from a series of satellites that have been in orbit since late 1978. Each satellite has had different calibration problems (due to orbital decay, sensor issues etc.) and stringing them together has been fraught with difficulty. Different groups have made different decisions about how to do this and this has lead to quite some differences in MSU products particularly between the UAH group (Spencer and Christy) and the RSS group (Wentz, Mears and colleagues) . The differences have been mostly seen in the trends, rather than the monthly or interannual variability, and so have been more difficult to validate. Incidentally, it is a clear sign of ‘cherry-picking’ when people only report their favorite one of the groups’ trends instead of the range.

Content from External Source

 

[Boston]

I read it and there was nothing of substance in it. What bit were you referring to apart from the slavering?

Oh really, nothing at all eh, lets just take a look at that article a little closer

In previous posts we have stressed that discrepancies between models and observations force scientists to re-examine the foundations of both the modelling and the interpretation of the data. So it has been for the apparent discrepancies between the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) lower tropospheric temperature records (MSU 2LT), radiosonde records and the climate models that try to simulate the climate of the last few decades. Three papers this week in Science Express, Mears et al, Santer et al (on which I’m a co-author) and Sherwood et al show that the discrepancy has been mostly resolved – in favour of the models.

It is worth encapsulating exactly what the problems have been and why they have taken so long to resolve. The MSU records are derived from a series of satellites that have been in orbit since late 1978. Each satellite has had different calibration problems (due to orbital decay, sensor issues etc.) and stringing them together has been fraught with difficulty. Different groups have made different decisions about how to do this and this has lead to quite some differences in MSU products particularly between the UAH group (Spencer and Christy) and the RSS group (Wentz, Mears and colleagues) . The differences have been mostly seen in the trends, rather than the monthly or interannual variability, and so have been more difficult to validate. Incidentally, it is a clear sign of ‘cherry-picking’ when people only report their favorite one of the groups’ trends instead of the range.

There have been three principle MSU products: Channel 4, Channel 2 and the 2LT records. MSU-4 is a record of lower stratospheric temperatures, MSU-2 is mainly mid-troposphere combined with a significant chunk of the lower stratosphere, and MSU-2LT is an attempt to use more viewing angles to try remove the stratospheric influence from MSU-2 and leave a lower-tropospheric record. (Recent upgrades to newer satellite instruments with more channels have lead to the 2LT record being renamed the TLT record).

The disagreement with the models related mainly to the MSU 2LT record. Models do quite well at matching the history of MSU-4 (whose variability is a function mainly of ozone depletion and volcanic aerosol effects), and models also match the lack of significant trend in MSU-2 (which is affected by stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming which cancel out to some degree) (i.e Hansen et al 2002). So the problem has been principally with MSU 2LT, which despite a strong surface temperature trend did not seem to have been warming very much – while models and basic physics predict that it should be warming at a slightly larger rate than the surface.

In the first Science Express paper, Mears et al produce a new assessment of the MSU 2LT record and show that one of the corrections applied to the UAH MSU 2LT record had been applied incorrectly, significantly underplaying the trend in the data. ( do you really need your hand held as we walk though this article ;-) This mistake has been acknowledged by the UAH team who have already updated their data (version 5.2) so that it includes the fix. This correction (related to the drift in crossing times at the equator) mainly affects the tropics, and was most important for one particular satellite (NOAA-11). Interestingly, Fu and Johansen (2005) singled out this same satellite and this same correction as being the source of divergence between the different records, though without being able to say exactly what the problem was. The fix leads to an increase of about 50% in the UAH global mean trend (0.086 to 0.12 deg/decade). The new RSS version of the 2LT record still shows a higher trend (0.19 deg/decade), with the difference being due to the methodology used to splice the different satellites.

In a related paper, Santer et al compare the surface/lower-troposphere coupled tropical variability at different timescales in the data and in model simulations performed for the new IPCC assessment. At monthly timescales (which should not be affected by trends in the model or possible drifts or calibration problems in the satellites or radiosondes) there is a very good match. In both models and data there is the expected enhancement of the variability in the lower-troposhere (based simply on the expected changes in the moist adiabatic lapse rate as the surface temperature changes). The models have large differences in their tropical variability (which depends on their represenation of El Nino-like processes in the Pacific) but the results all fall on a line, indicating that the lower tropospheric amplification is robust across a multitude of cloud and moist convective parameterisations.

At longer (decadal) time scales, the models still show very similar results (which makes sense since we anticipate that the tropical atmospheric physics involved in the trend should be similar to the physics involved at the monthly and interannual timescales). However, the original UAH 2LT data show very anomalous behaviour, while the new RSS 2LT product (including the latest correction) fits neatly within the range of model results, indicating that this is probably physically more consistent than the original UAH data.

One additional piece of evidence that has been discussed frequently was the claim that the trends in UAH MSU 2LT closely matched those of the radiosonde (balloon) network (Christy et al, 2003). Since the UAH team have acknowledged the error in their analysis, the apparent match to the radiosondes now seems to have been fortuitous. This may partly be due to the coverage of sondes used in that analysis being biased to the high latitudes (since the effect of the error was principally in the tropics), or it may be because of undetected biases in the radiosonde network itself. In the third paper this week, Sherwood et al report on an apparent bias in the daytime readings of these radiosondes which, again, appears to have suppressed the trends in the data sets (Steve discusses this more fully in an accompanying piece).

It will not have escaped the notice of keen observers that the satellite/model discrepancy has been used extensively in certain circles to cast doubt on the models, surface temperature record and our understanding of basic physics. Some recent examples for instance, used the UAH 2LT record absolutely uncritically (despite the fact that there have been many previous revisions, and that other analyses give very different results). Recently, one of these authors was quoted as saying:

… as long as weather satellites show that the atmosphere is not warming, I cannot put much faith into theoretical computer models that claim to represent the atmosphere but contradict what the atmosphere tells us.

Since the satellites now clearly show that the atmosphere is warming at around the rate predicted by the models, we will report on his no-doubt imminent proclamation of a new found faith in models as soon as we hear of it…

Thus ends our lesson for today

 

[Oxymoron]

Where's the slavering?

It is worth encapsulating exactly what the problems have been and why they have taken so long to resolve. The MSU records are derived from a series of satellites that have been in orbit since late 1978. Each satellite has had different calibration problems (due to orbital decay, sensor issues etc.) and stringing them together has been fraught with difficulty. Different groups have made different decisions about how to do this and this has lead to quite some differences in MSU products particularly between the UAH group (Spencer and Christy) and the RSS group (Wentz, Mears and colleagues) . The differences have been mostly seen in the trends, rather than the monthly or interannual variability, and so have been more difficult to validate. Incidentally, it is a clear sign of ‘cherry-picking’ when people only report their favorite one of the groups’ trends instead of the range.

Content from External Source

See, why couldn't Boston do that?

Was that the most compelling part because they seem to be admitting it there and just discounting it as 'cherry picking' but it seems quite a good cherry to me.

 

[Boston]

you mean you really do need someone to hold your hand as you read through that crap

PS
see my previous and note the highlighted sections.