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

Status
Not open for further replies.

qed

Senior Member
I don't know enough about the dynamics of ice ages to have an informed opinion, but I suppose it might. If runaway methane release happens.
My Geology prof (who denies climate change) would reply "we can only hope so!", and then describe Europe covered by hundreds of meters of solid ice. The US too.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...

Backtracking, the climate social activists lose credibility, along with climate scientists.

Yes but that sort of is a predictable dynamic of human nature - it should be ignored but not at the cost of the real issues and science.

And why not go in the direction of renewable energy sources rather than a polluting and finite fuel source that has become an essential basis for our civilization?
That makes sense in any long-term vision, so the opposition to it is a little suspect.
 

Ron J

Active Member
Yes but that sort of is a predictable dynamic of human nature - it should be ignored but not at the cost of the real issues and science.

And why not go in the direction of renewable energy sources rather than a polluting and finite fuel source that has become an essential basis for our civilization?
That makes sense in any long-term vision, so the opposition to it is a little suspect.


But what is real science, or more properly, correct scientific conclusion? Every so often a new study comes out, which refutes previous studies. What has happened to the food pyramid? Cholesterol studies?

Germany is going in the direction of more coal fired power plants. They need the energy.

"CHEAP CARBON EXTENDS COAL'S DOMINANCE IN GERMAN POWER MIX
For 2013, coal-fired power's share in the German generation mix is on track to rise above 50%, an analysis of the data shows.
Meanwhile, renewables may struggle to improve on last year's record 22% contribution, mainly due to lower wind power generation in the first quarter, but this will depend on weather scenarios during the final quarter.
Gas-fired power's share in the generation mix will drop below 10%, with even the most modern CCGT plants now seriously under-utilized, but still needed for security of supply during the winter months."

Moving in a direction is fine, but windmills need wind and solar needs sun. They also need to be subsidized, which makes them more expensive and economic growth depends on cheap energy.

Electric cars need large batteries, which themselves are a pollution problem to be dealt with.
 

qed

Senior Member
That is correct. We are at the "end" of the 11000 year cycle, but "end" with a thousand year margin of error.

The standard "debunk" is
the first being massively speculative and the second being that we have stopped it (thank ###).
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
http://euanmearns.com/the-ice-man-cometh/#more-1558
This fairly long post, for what it's worth, predicts an ice age in about 1,000 years. That won't help much in the next 100 years. This prediction is a lot earlier than the more mainstream preductions, but he seems to have his science together.
Where he's weak is when it comes to the effect of CO2 (which also seems to be when he stops citing sources). For example:
He correctly states that "warmists" argue that in previous glacial/interglacial changes, CO2 was acting a feedback/amplification mechanism... which means that it would be expected to lag the initial signal of change in temperature trends. He presents that as the "skeptic" criticism of the "warmist" argument, but it's really consistent with and explained by the latter. Climate researchers do not think that CO2 was the initial, primary cause of most of the changes between glacial and interglacial conditions through the preceding cycles. Most climate researchers regard the Milankovitch cycles that he writes about as the primary cause, with CO2 acting as a positive feedback.

He also fails to consider what the effect of increased CO2 might be on how things may go in the future. We are already well above the highest range of CO2 concentrations seen in the ice cores, and likely to go much higher. The previous glacial/interglacial changes didn't feature a huge population of brainy apes digging up huge quantities of geologically-sequestered hydrocarbons and burning them; now we do have a situation where CO2 can act as a primary cause, not just a feedback.

A recent study looked at previous periods when the orbital insolation factors were similar to today, and gave a similar prediction to the author of the article you linked, regarding what the timing would be for the next glacial period (within 1,500 years, as you said much shorter than some other predictions), based on that forcing alone. But they also found, consistent with previous modeling work, that the effect of increased CO2 is likely to prevent the cooldown from occurring. The warming effect of CO2 overwhelms the cooling signal from variations in orbit and inclination.

Determining the Natural Length of the Current Interglacial
Popular Science: Human CO2 Emissions Could Avert the Next Ice Age, Study Says
 

qed

Senior Member
Which is better, stopping the next small ice age (we are in a big one) before we run out of non-nuclear fuel, or letting it happen (knowing that we are soon to run out of non-nuclear fuel)?

BTW: I am not a "warmist". I do think we have heated the planet (and so disagree with my Geology prof).

I just think that a hot planet is better than an ice age
.

The ice age would have covered Europe, Canada, USA, China, Russia, South Africa and southern South America in hundreds of meters of solid ice. If you think global warming is a disaster, it is way better than the next ice age.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Which is better, stopping the next small ice age (we are in a big one) before we run out of non-nuclear fuel, or letting it happen (knowing that we are soon to run out of non-nuclear fuel)?
I think that we're conducting an uncontrolled, unintentional global experiment regarding that question. A glacial period now would certainly be bad for us. I'd rather avoid major human-caused warming if we can, as well. In 1,000 years time, perhaps we would have figured out how to moderate the climate in a more controlled manner. The "before we run out of non-nuclear fuel" part seems like a red herring - if we weren't burning it up at a rate high enough to make AGW a risk, it would take us a whole lot longer to run out, wouldn't it? Perhaps even long enough to fully develop other energy sources?

qed said:
BTW: I am not a "warmist". I do think we have heated the planet (and so disagree with my Geology prof).
It's interesting, I've run into a few geologists who were "skeptics." Some of them seem to think that the existence of climate variation in the past (which climate scientists also study; it informs their models) means that we can't be causing it now. I can't quite figure out their reasoning.
 
J

Joe

Guest
This thread seems to have run its course, I suggest it be closed soon.
Sure has. Its just insulting calling someone with a different opinion a denier . but on second thought it seems there are many here the share my denialism , So keep it going unless of course it bothers you Mick ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

Joe

Guest
There's a lot of money to be made in denial as well, don't you think?
Sure except the little guy benefits . I know Big oil and Big coal would benefit but lower energy cost would stimulate the economy more than anything the Government has tried . Global warming regulations and the EPA has damaged our economy more than any housing bubble .(PS Off Topic but I just saw LONE SURVIVOR . Excellent movie
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Met Watch

Moderator
Ugh. The people who point at cold weather and say it is proof that global warming is a hoax drive me crazy, because they clearly demonstrate a failure to understand the difference between weather and climate.

The definitions, from the American Meteorological Society:

Weather:
Climate:
To summarize, weather focuses on the short term, while climate looks at the long term. It is perfectly reasonable to see an overall warming trend over the trend of several years with several periods of very cold weather lasting a few days to possibly a week. To point at an individual weather event and try to tie it to the overall climate trend is asinine.

Both sides are guilty of this, although the alarmists are particularly bad.
 

Larrydalooza

New Member
There is no scale in the dissemination of climate change data. No honest "pro", "con" discussion. The discussion is alarmist and quite religious in nature.

For those that wish to sell the idea of not burning fuel... Collectively assemble resources with like minded people to back an initiative to produce alternative energy and market it to the masses. You will never achieve your goal through fear.

For those that wish to exercise their guaranteed "pursuit of happiness", consider the awesome self sustainability of alternative energies, and how cool it would be to employ them... thus making you happy.

That way, both ends of the "debate" are more satisfied.

We should study the benefits of CO2 in our environment as it may be necessary to artificially employ CO2 to warm an icing planet and fertilize an ever increasingly needed yield of plant life.

Lar
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The discussion is alarmist and quite religious in nature.

Not really. Climate change is inevitable, and geologically evident in Earth's history. The question before us, in the modern world of science, is:

"At what pace is the change coming, and is it 'natural' or anthropogenic?"

I live in the greater Los Angeles area, down in the southwest portion which is a peninsula of sorts, jutting out. It is raised in elevation above the LA "basin", just about 1,000 feet above MSL. Some millions of years ago, this peninsula was an island. Biologists have determined this from a study of some unique life forms here, showing that they had once evolved in isolation.

So, that would have been a time when the planet was much warmer, overall...and thus the polar ice mostly melted. But, the vast time span is far outside normal Human grasp, compared to our limited experience in life. Still, it's important to continue to think about the future, and its generations of Humans, and other species.
 

Ron J

Active Member
Ugh. The people who point at cold weather and say it is proof that global warming is a hoax drive me crazy, because they clearly demonstrate a failure to understand the difference between weather and climate.

The definitions, from the American Meteorological Society:

Weather:
Climate:
To summarize, weather focuses on the short term, while climate looks at the long term. It is perfectly reasonable to see an overall warming trend over the trend of several years with several periods of very cold weather lasting a few days to possibly a week. To point at an individual weather event and try to tie it to the overall climate trend is asinine.

Both sides are guilty of this, although the alarmists are particularly bad.


I am guessing that the anti AGW people pointed out major cold weather events in response to GW alarmists pointing out every major heat wave as being evidence of global warming.

This week i saw another "This is What Climate Change Looks Like" headline, after the heavy rain and tornadoes last week. Now the meme is that any extreme weather is due to climate change. Tornado season got off to a slow start this year, yet there were no this is what climate change looks like, headlines during that time. We are having a RECORD long period of time without a CAT3 or higher hurricane hitting the U.S. There haven't been any this is what climate change looks like, headlines about that, either. But we get a hurricane season with a couple of CAT3's and the headline will be that this is what climate change looks like. It is a pure propaganda campaign.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The answers to which you don't supply?

The "answers", I don't have. Does anyone?

To continue: We in the modern world of science can study, discern, and infer a vast amount of data RE: the history of climate on this planet. But, this is all before Humans had industrialized (A) and even well before Humans had even evolved (B).

Since Human industrialization (just a few centuries ago), there is a very scant basis to be used to determine what are anthropogenic versus very long-term geologic "cycles" in Earth's climate evolution (which can last for thousands, millions of years. Epochs).
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
The "answers", I don't have. Does anyone?

To continue: We in the modern world of science can study, discern, and infer a vast amount of data RE: the history of climate on this planet. But, this is all before Humans had industrialized (A) and even well before Humans had even evolved (B).

Since Human industrialization (just a few centuries ago), there is a very scant basis to be used to determine what are anthropogenic versus very long-term geologic "cycles" in Earth's climate evolution (which can last for thousands, millions of years. Epochs).

There's a good segment about this on the Cosmos website.. Dr Tyson talks about that very issue.. worth taking a look at, and doesnt really come across as too tree huggy. Might be worth a look TJ et al.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
"At what pace is the change coming, and is it 'natural' or anthropogenic?"
MUCH Faster than any natural event. Natural doesn't work anywhere near so fast.

Anthropogenic. Positively, no ifs, ands, or buts. Fossil carbon has been identified in atmospheric CO2 by isotope analysis.

So those questions are answered. It's necessary to move on from that.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
There's a good segment about this on the Cosmos website.. Dr Tyson talks about that very issue.. worth taking a look at, and doesnt really come across as too tree huggy. Might be worth a look TJ et al.
Episode 9 (The Lost Worlds of Planet Earth) of The Cosmos is all about past mass extinctions. Some of the causes talked about are volcanoes, continental drift and how those effected climate change.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
The "answers", I don't have. Does anyone?

To continue: We in the modern world of science can study, discern, and infer a vast amount of data RE: the history of climate on this planet. But, this is all before Humans had industrialized (A) and even well before Humans had even evolved (B).

Since Human industrialization (just a few centuries ago), there is a very scant basis to be used to determine what are anthropogenic versus very long-term geologic "cycles" in Earth's climate evolution (which can last for thousands, millions of years. Epochs).
Climate researchers study paleoclimate as well. Those "cycles" have causes. To what natural cause do you attribute the warming trend seen in recent decades?
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
MUCH Faster than any natural event. Natural doesn't work anywhere near so fast.

Anthropogenic. Positively, no ifs, ands, or buts. Fossil carbon has been identified in atmospheric CO2 by isotope analysis.

So those questions are answered. It's necessary to move on from that.

I posted a link in another thread the other day, but also, ocean acidification from dissolved CO2 is happening ten times faster than it happened during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, the worst period of acidification and one of the fastest periods of natural warming we know of. That event wasn't technically a mass extinction, but if you only look at marine species it was.

Acidification doesn't get much press because it's all about plankton and snails, but it's always been my personal drum to pound. As a fishkeeper I've seen first hand just how quickly marine invertebrates die off when CO2 makes the pH drop below 7.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
To what natural cause do you attribute the warming trend seen in recent decades?

I don't know. Do you? "Paleo" implies old or ancient, related to the geological past. I wasn't around, back then. I leave that to those experts who study that field, to inform me.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
I don't know. Do you? "Paleo" implies old or ancient, related to the geological past. I wasn't around, back then. I leave that to those experts who study that field, to inform me.
Many of those experts who study that field are the same ones who study modern climate, and even those who don't "cross over" generally use information from the geological past to inform their models of current and future climate.

The point is, although scientists don't have information about the specific cause for every past climate variation, in general the natural factors that can influence climate trends (including those involved in the "cycles" you're talking about) are known. And unlike the geological past (for which they must rely on proxies), scientists can now directly measure those natural factors. Without including the effect of increased greenhouse gas emissions, none of them can account for the increase in temperature seen in recent decades.
 

George Hammer

New Member
I don't know. Do you? "Paleo" implies old or ancient, related to the geological past. I wasn't around, back then. I leave that to those experts who study that field, to inform me.

Got some graphs saved on my cell so I'll throw a reply. To what causes can we attribute recent warming. Since everyone here goes by peer reviewed research and not tabloids or blog posts to shape their opinion it's only right for me to post this picture.

It explores the different known forcings in climate and what effect each has had on global temperature since 1950. Source is
Huber and Knutti (2011) from Nature. Abstract available here...
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html

That is just one. There's more. Numbers vary, but conclusions are the same. AGM is the main forcing causing our temperature to trend up.
 

Attachments

  • KnuttiAttributionBreakdown.png
    KnuttiAttributionBreakdown.png
    41 KB · Views: 216

derwoodii

Senior Member.
54 denier positions & fair response here, not my own work and some years old now so may need updating

1. They profess that markets can solve all problems while simultaneously preaching that businesses will never be able to adapt to higher energy prices.

2. They argue that siting problems (e.g. urban heat island) render temperature data useless, while simultaneously arguing that adjusting for those problems constitutes scientific fraud/ fudging the data.


3. They say they support free markets, but oppose cap-and-trade (the free market solution to climate change).


4. They advocate skepticism and oppose proclamations that "the science is certain," while simultaneously claiming certainty that all climate science is one big hoax.


5. They argued that averting a 1% chance of catastrophic terrorist attacks justified spending $100 billion a year on the Iraq war, but oppose investing billions of dollars per year in averting a much higher risk of catastrophic climate change.


6. They said the US did not need a permission slip from other countries to go to war in Iraq, but don't want to act on climate change until poor countries have done so, despite being responsible for the majority of the emissions during the past century or so.

7. They claim that the US temperature record is unreliable when it reports warm temperatures, but have no problems using the US temperature to report cool temperatures.

8. They say it is arrogant and "elitist" for climatologists to defend their science, but have no problems with the arrogance of laypeople questioning a science they have never studied.

9. They support subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power but not for renewable energy.

10. They claim to believe in property rights, but won't stop polluters from sending their CO2 onto other people's property (or the common property of the atmosphere).


11. They call themselves "conservatives" but oppose efforts at conservation.


12. They claim humans are not wise enough to intervene in the economy without causing unintended consequences, but have no problems with humans massively intervening in Nature by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere .


13. They say it's unwise to make decisions off of uncertain climate models, while basing their own predictions of economic doom off of uncertain economic models.


14. Humanity adding ~15Gt/year (net) to ~3000Gt baseline atmospheric CO2 is "pissing in the ocean" but spending 0.1% of GDP per year on reducing emissions will precipitate world-wide economic collapse.


15. They removed regulation from banks in the name of free markets, then spent trillions of dollars to rescue banks because they were too big to fail. But they refuse to spend smaller amounts on the greater damage of climate change, even though it's more important that the planet not be allowed to fail.

16. They say 30 years is too short a time to conclude there's a global warming trend, but base their own claims of "global cooling" on a 10-year trend.

17. They say scientists don't respect skepticism or disagreement, then point to disagreements between scientists as evidence of conspiracy or that the science isn't "certain.”


18. They say CO2 can't affect climate, but also use the argument that CO2 must be saving us from an ice age.


19. They demand more science/research before we can make a decision, then oppose funding for that research .


20. They never criticize each other even when taking opposite sides. Just ignore the discrepancies and charge ahead. When one argument looses traction recycle an old one, e.g. they say it's the sun causing global warming, and when the sun cools down they say it's cosmic rays.


21. Denier Willis Eschenbach falsely accuses Australian scientists of fraud for "blatantly bogus" adjustments of temperature data - without ever contacting the scientists to ask why the adjustments were made, or even mentioning their previously-published explanations. Then, when The Economist calls him out, Willis whines, "the Economist did not contact me before publishing an article full of false accusations, incorrect assumptions and wrong statements."


22. They accuse university scientists, small renewable energy companies, and Al Gore of manufacturing "alarmism" for money, while ignoring the far greater financial incentives of the giant fossil fuel industry to manufacture doubt, denial, and delay.


23. They call their opponents "alarmists", but warn of impending economic doom should we try do anything to counteract AGW.


24. They promote nuclear power (and pooh-pooh small scale "roof-top" photovoltaics), while decrying government control over anything else.


25. They plead for balance and respect of dissenting opinions, and yet they continually insult people who disagree with them. [e.g. "Leftists, Communists, elitist snakes that prey on our children in their quest to take over the world etc. etc. ad nauseum."]


26. They say, "You can't trust proxy data so the hockey stick is wrong," but then they claim "Loehle's reconstruction shows the Medieval Warm Period is warmer than today!"


27. Denier S. Fred Singer: "From the very beginning, the IPCC was a political rather than scientific entity, with its leading scientists reflecting the positions of their governments or seeking to induce their governments to adopt the IPCC position." But then: "A reviewer of IPCC reports, Singer now shares the 2007 Nobel peace prize with Al Gore,” according to materials announcing his keynote speech at a one day conference 'Have Humans Changed the Climate?,' hosted by Roger Helmer, a British conservative member of the European Parliament."


28. They claim that temperature data that shows warming cannot be trusted because it has been fraudulently adjusted, but then use that same data when it shows temporary cooling to say that "observations prove the models' predictions wrong."


29. They say climate scientist have a "bad scientific attitude", never criticising each other. And when there is a scientific discussion they claim it proves that "the science is not settled".


30. They demand full disclosure of data and code from scientists who agree with the IPCC's conclusions; and yet, when asked for the code or data to replicate denier studies, they try every weasel way to avoid sharing code and data.


31. They challenge the scientific consensus and demand empirical "proof" that it is correct, yet at the same time insist that they don't have to prove anything themselves. "I'm just asking questions!"


32. They oppose government regulation to control CO2 emissions, improve fossil fuel efficiency, encourage energy conservation and encourage research into and development of renewable energy, because that would be "too much government intervention in people's lives." Yet by and large they are the same people who will pass laws to prevent/regulate abortion, gay marriage etc.


33. Climate change deniers demand unequivocal proof that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming, even though they are unable to present any evidence at all that it is safe to allow atmospheric CO2 levels to continue to rise indefinitely.


34. They do not trust the reliability of modern instrumental records, citing poor calibration and inadequate coverage, but are quick to point to anecdotes of Vikings or of other early Europeans as evidence that the entire planet was warmer in pre-industrial times.

35. They claim proxies are also unreliable during modern times when they show dramatic warming in agreement with the instrumental record, yet denialists use them to show with great certainty that it was much warmer at various points in Earth's history, back to several million years, or that CO2 was much higher at certain times in the past to high degrees of precision.

36.They say instrumental measurements are unreliable for measuring surface temperatures and as evidence of such, deniers point out that the measurements are being corrected constantly. Then they say that it is much more accurate to measure temperatures from 200 miles up by converting microwave measurements to temperature and then attempting to filter out signals from each layer you're not interested in. The constant corrections for computational errors and orbital drifts are not evidence against reliability in this case.

37. They say it's disingenuous to point to extreme weather events (Hurricane Katrina, wild fires, etc.) as evidence of warming, but crow joyously over every cold weather event ("it's snowing in Texas or Florida!).

38. They point to the "decline" in tree-ring proxy data as evidence that Michael Mann is covering up cooling temperatures, but criticize proxies as unreliable when they show past temperatures cooler than today's (and when temps look warmer in the past, they accept the proxy data as reliable again).


39. They say the US can't act on greenhouse gas reductions until other countries agree to, and then fly to Copenhagen to try to prevent other countries from acting.


40. When climate scientists don't speak publically about their work they are accused of hiding in their ivory towers'. When they do talk publically they are accused of politicising science.

41. When climate scientists don't respond to attacks and smears they are again accused of 'hiding in their ivory towers'. When they do defend themselves they are accused of circling the wagons and promoting the party line.


42. Deniers claim that projections of warming can't be trusted because (they think) scientists made doom and gloom predictions of global cooling in the 1970's. However they accept the claims that regulation will be ineffective and/or economic suicide despite the fact that the think tanks and lobbies that are pushing those predictions also made (incorrect) doom and gloom predictions that phasing out CFCs and leaded gasoline would be ineffective and/or economic suicide.


43. Deniers claim that anthropogenic global warming is a partisan, political line rather than legitimate science, and then argue against it by citing talking heads and press releases from industry front-groups, or "free market" think-tanks.


44. Taking as gospel truth sources which up until that moment they had previously castigated as never to be trusted (e.g. last year's Pravda article claiming the Sun was the cause of GW)

45. Criticizing AGWers [people who accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming] because of their political and/or religious leanings while complaining they are being criticizing solely because of their political and/or religious leanings.

46. They say that we know nothing about clouds and subsequently they say that clouds can explain the warming trend.

47. They say there hasn't been any warming, but later they explain the warming is from a mechanism different than CO2.

48. They explain the warming with mutually exclusive theories (eg. cloud albedo, sun, ocean currents...)

49. They criticize climate advocates for "wanting to send us into a technological dark age," even though they themselves advocate the use of 19th century energy production technologies over innovation and research.

50. They favor the UAH satellite data and say it is the most accurate - until that data also shows warming, and then they start looking for errors in it.


51. They claim the peer review process is broken and yet cite (the very rare) peer reviewed studies as proof when it suits them - trumpeting the fact that it's peer reviewed!


52. Uber-denialist and oil-funded Senator Inhofe uses arguments from paleo-climate to 'disprove' global warming yet is also a Young-Earth creationist who believes the earth was created around 6000BC - well after the data he cites.


53. They claim to support "good science" and technological process while citing people whose ideas retard technological progress - e.g. who don't believe in evolution and an expert in the made-up field of 'Orgone Energy' (this is energy from your libido! As seen in the Cato Institute Ad featuring 'Dr' James DeMeo.

54. They claim that they are sticking up for liberty and against big government while opposing the development of markets and technologies that would lead to micro-generation and so free us from centralized production energy that requires state regulation.
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
I remember one of the last conversations I had was, "How do you explain the fact that the area of the glaciers on Mt. Shasta is increasing." My first reaction was that this must be BS. When I checked it out later, I found that it is mostly true. Four of seven glaciers are increasing in size, two of them significantly. However, nearly every other glacier in North America is decreasing in size. So this argument is basically cherry picking.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Increasing in radius while decreasing in height?
Nevermind -
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I remember one of the last conversations I had was, "How do you explain the fact that the area of the glaciers on Mt. Shasta is increasing." My first reaction was that this must be BS. When I checked it out later, I found that it is mostly true. Four of seven glaciers are increasing in size, two of them significantly. However, nearly every other glacier in North America is decreasing in size. So this argument is basically cherry picking.
It is cherry picking because the problem is not more/less rain/snow and/or hot or colder in one region but a global increase. I think it is hard from a lot of people to grasp that the weather is not the same everywhere. Especially if they haven't traveled far from home. Some people never leave the state they are born in.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Apparently like Pat Sajak.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...al-warming-alarmists-are-unpatriotic-racists/
Can I buy an OMG?


I guess this should have gone into the how to talk to warmest trolls thread. Got confuzzled.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
The Ross Ice shelf melting due to Volcanic activity not global warming http://www.lermanet.com/antarcticmelt/ So how can we be deniars when all they do is lie ?
http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html
When all who do is lie? What lie?
How can you not be a denier when that is all you do?
Volcanoes existing there does not disprove global warming. Or could you at least quote the bit that does disprove it in your opinion?
 
J

Joe

Guest
When all who do is lie? What lie?
How can you not be a denier when that is all you do?
Volcanoes existing there does not disprove global warming. Or could you at least quote the bit that does disprove it in your opinion?
It does when they blame the melting ice on GW and ocean temps but leave out volcanic activity ? Remember Im a skeptic when it comes to man made climate change . I don't believe the conspiracy of Global warming .
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
They don't leave out volcanic activity, they study it.

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Im a skeptic when it comes to man made climate change

Being a skeptic isn't something you apply to one side of an argument.

Being a skeptic means you apply the scientific method - specifically that you demand that claims are backed by evidence. You don't just decide you are on one side, and then demand evidence only from the other site.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
THAT image is hardly a "blanket".

I mean, for Thor's sake! ( ;) ). A low layer of marine and coastal stratus (aka, "fog") IS a 'blanket'.

Oh it's kind of a blanket. Maybe a thin sheet.

However dewoodii's post was about how there was a record high during the day. If the contrail induced cirrus was significant enough to to affect the weather, then they would have reduced the daytime temperature - not created record highs.

And record highs in the daytime always give you hot nights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
econ41 AE911's Response to Mick West's Iron Microspheres Talk. 9/11 17
StratMatt777 How to effectively talk to chemtrail folk Practical Debunking 9
Husband of chemmy Help me! Wife is Chemtrailing... Contrails and Chemtrails 69
Oxymoron How To Talk To Warmist Trolls Practical Debunking 27
Twenty2AcaciaAve The Prof/Engineer list that truthers always talk about. 9/11 47
Leifer TED Talk: When a "memory expert" get it wrong.... General Discussion 12
Leifer World's shortest TED talk... General Discussion 2
Marin B Climate scientist on man-made clouds General Discussion 0
mrfintoil Climate change forum section? Site Feedback & News 27
Mick West Debunked: Irrefutable Film Footage Of Climate Engineering Aerosol Spraying [Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
skephu Paul Beckwith (climate scientist) on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 19
T Explained/Debunked: "Irrefutable Footage of Climate Engineering Aerosol Spraying" - Explanations? Contrails and Chemtrails 20
MikeG Climate Change War Games Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Trailblazer Debunked: "Top climate scientist Tim Lenton admits to ongoing geoengineering" Contrails and Chemtrails 23
deirdre Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
keefe Debunking guide Practical Debunking 3
TEEJ "Airline Pilot" at Climate Engineering Awareness Day - Carlow, Eire, 22nd August 2015 Contrails and Chemtrails 16
keefe Climate change and conspiracy theories - Lewandowsky General Discussion 3
Katie Seas GeoengineeringWatch.org: Are Climate Engineers Waging Warfare on Texas?, Again? Conspiracy Theories 15
keefe ARM Climate Research Facility Contrails and Chemtrails 17
CeruleanBlu Airliner Emissions EPA Hearing General Discussion 15
MikeC Warning over aerosol climate fix from Vienna Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Auldy Claim: Satellites show global warming pause continues by CFACT Science and Pseudoscience 13
Mick West Hoax: Climate Engineering Pilot Disclosure? Contrails and Chemtrails 76
K Please help me find sources on anthropogenic climate change scientific consensus General Discussion 5
Belfrey "Climategate" and "Censored" Data General Discussion 4
Thor Odinson Debunked:Solar System Warming (Climate Change Conspiracy Theory) Conspiracy Theories 113
Mick West Debunked: Renowned Physician Sounds The Alarm On Climate Engineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
BlueCollarCritic Debunked: US AIrforce Admits that HARRP is used for Climate Engineering HAARP 7
mrfintoil Debunked: SKYSCRATCH - The Geoengineering/Chemtrail Cover Up Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Steve Funk Internationally Recognized Theoretical Physicist Acknowledges Climate Engineering Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Lone Bison Contrail Question for Skeptics - What's the Effect of Contrails on Climate? Contrails and Chemtrails 233
Tim TheToolman Coles Debunked: Infowars: "Latest Climate Report Admits Chemtrails Exist" Contrails and Chemtrails 4
jvnk08 Monsanto acquires Climate Corporaton for $1.1 Billion Contrails and Chemtrails 13
Critical Thinker Flooding in Colorado caused by HAARP, nothing to do with Climate Change? Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Critical Thinker NASA: 'This September, Ask a NASA Climate Scientist' Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Debunked: CIA studying Geoengineering, Climate Engineering, Weather Warfare Contrails and Chemtrails 67
Jay Reynolds Dane Wigington & Co. get taken to the cleaners by climate scientists Contrails and Chemtrails 7
David Fraser They study Human Engineering for Climate Change. Conspiracy Theories 0
Kevin45345 Climate change deniers: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere General Discussion 2
Mick West Climate Scientist Alan Robock gets asked every chemtrail question in 11 minutes Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Spongebob Is trying to alter the climate a waste of money? General Discussion 188
Spongebob Climate Change Why it is NOT being caused by increased CO2 emissions from humans Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Steve Funk The Climate Fixers Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Contrails in Teacher's Climate and Weather Text Book Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Mick West TFTRH #30 - Tom: 9/11 - Why We Believe and Change Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 9
Mick West TFTRH #25 - Jason Bermas: Producer of Loose Change, Shade, Invisible Empire Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
cosmic Name change? Site Feedback & News 3
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top