Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

^^^^ My nomination for Unconscious Self-Reference of the Month.

If those were actually the hypotheses any climate realist has advanced -- they aren't, you simply made them up, as usual -- they would self-evidently be relevant to understanding current climate.

 

So what is the relevance to recent increasing temperatures and climate change of the number of sunspots counted or the atmospheric CO2 concentration when Australia and India were attached to Antarctica?

I'm only interested in the increase of atmospheric CO2 from human activity and the correlated increase in global temperatures and the consequent climate change during my lifetime, and how those changes can be slowed/stopped by human activity.

 

But how much of the increased atmospheric CO2 is from human activity? Francey et al (2013) and Salby (2016) demonstrated a mismatch between atmospheric CO2 increases and anthropogenic CO2-emissions. Francey showed that between 1990 to 2003 anthropogenic CO2-emissions were stable, as atmospheric CO2 accelerated away from human emissions, meaning some source other than human emissions must be driving the acceleration. Furthermore from 2003 to 2010 anthropogenic CO2-emissions accelerated while the atmospheric CO2 growth-rate remained relatively static. The disconnect between the growth-rate of atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic CO2-emissions was highlighted by Salby (2016) who found that our CO2-emissions increased by 300% from 2003 on and despite this there was no such corresponding increase in the growth-rate of atmospheric CO2 which was completely unaffected by the 300% increase in our emissions. I’m not being confrontational or argumentative with you, I just find this fascinating and wanted to share. It might give you some insight as to why some people are skeptical that 100% of the CO2 increase is from humans (other scientists that are skeptical incude Ed Berry, Herman Harde, Tom Segalstad, and Jaworowski).

 

It rings so true with the current DENIER narrative. Cite a study. Don’t wait for a true peer review. Release it widely on Social Media.

 

And that increase in atmospheric CO2 from human activities has increased global temperatures from the green house effect, and why responsible countries are replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources.

 

Why would anyone deny climate change? The earth’s climate has changed constantly since it was first formed. Heck, in its past, the earth was once totally covered in ice, temperatures were once at around 120 degrees if the scientist have it right. We’ve gone from ice ages to warm periods back to ice ages then warmer period and so on for billions of years.

 

You’ll find that harder to prove than you might think.

Skeptics don’t doubt that humans have contributed to the greenhouse effect, but apparently the amount of global warming that humanity is producing from its greenhouse gas emissions is so trivial as to be almost undetectable with modern, state-of-art instrumentation.

 

Don't you notice the irony that it's the skeptics in this thread who have been posting peer-reviewed research, while the alarmists rely on polemics and personal attacks?

 

I disagree wholeheartedly. The person, or groups of persons who throw up their hands and say, “Nothing can be done.”; are the most dangerous of all to the future security of mankind. That could have been said about CFCs, and the ozone layer years ago. That same attitude is present when it comes to plastics, a subject that also requires worldwide action. Even with an increasing population, these problems can and must be addressed. We have to be smart! We have to build smart. We have to grow smartly. One rooftop at a time, including large commercial and industrial ones. Smarter transportation. Who says we cannot build high speed rail throughout America? Our denial and lack of initiative is our worst enemy.

 

Scientists worldwide have proven this Beyond any iota of a Reasonable Doubt. But social media typists, armed with industry propaganda claim to know better. They call the scientists names like ALARMISTS. And they encourage others to ignore the warnings of the experts. Meanwhile those of us who are experts in other areas of science shout from the rooftops- THIS ISN’T HOW SCIENCE WORKS. IT’S NOT A CONSPIRACY!

 

Indeed.
"Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share."
—Gunnar Myrdal

 

Howevermuch the advocates of AGW may wish to pretend otherwise, it has not been proven. There is a substantial number of scientists who dissent from this position for reasons which they have explained in depth and detail in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

 

Which is entirely the problem. You say so, so it must be true. And damn anybody that says differently. If they won't cooperate, make them!

It's the basis of progressive politics. It doesn't tolerate dumb things like democracy. If it did there wouldn't be an ounce of controversy over climate change. They'd simply run their ideas through the normal Congressional channels and get an actual law passed to deal with the problem.

But that's too tough so they use the courts to jigger definitions enough to let them cram their BS down everybody's throats.

This is the rise of fascism and dictatorship. Exactly the antithesis of America.

And it's also why it must be stopped. Cold.

Go Loper!

 

Like I said - SOCIAL MEDIA TYPISTS…

 

In other words, that is entirely your personal opinion and not an actual fact. And that also tends to come directly out of Marxist ideology.

We must change society to be in a way we want it to be! Anybody that opposes us will be destroyed, the dialectic demands it be so!

What if I make a statement that come December, much of North America and Europe will see snowfall? And that nothing can be done to stop it?

According to what you say, I am now dangerous, because I state a simple fact that is 100% true. Myself, I say that anybody that does not agree with that is potentially mentally unstable and lacks common sense and therefore should be disregarded in anything more serious than picking a color of wrapping paper for a gift (and maybe not even mature enough to help with that).

In other words, you find them dangerous because they dare to follow facts and hard proven science, and refuse to buy into your fantasy that everything can be changed simply because they say it can be changed.

Guess what cupcake? There absolutely is no "future security of mankind", that is your own paranoia and disbelief that thinks that such a thing is even possible. Simple fact, someday humans will become extinct. Everything we have built will fall into ruin. Our species, our civilization, even everything we have built. This is a fact, and absolutely nothing anybody does can stop that. But guess what, we will have nothing to do with it at all.

One of the most likely causes will be a supervolcano eruption. We are seeing some signs that at least one major one is showing increased signs of life. Now the vast time scales tend to blow the mind of most people, but at some time in the next 10 ky, the Yellowstone Caldera will be roaring to life again. Now it may be sooner, in a hundred years or so, but it will happen. And when it does, almost all air traffic globally will likely be grounded for a year or more. In North America, it will instantly go from the most productive and stable continent on the planet to a third world hellhole, with as much as 2/3 of people and institutions ceasing to exist within a year. And with that, probably somewhere between 1 and 2 billion people will die from causes indirectly related to the event.

And there is not a damned thing that can be done about it.

There are also asteroids. Oh, the mental masturbation of many tends to fantasize that we can divert any that are a threat, but they are only kidding themselves. I bet within a million years or so, we will have a major impact that will likely be as damaging as a supervolcano. And once again, not a damned thing that humans can do to stop it.

Simple fact, there have been at least five "mass extinctions" on our planet that wiped out 99% of life on the planet. And dozens of lesser ones, that wiped out 85% of life on the planet or more. Those are simply facts, and no amount of disbelief on your part will ever make them less true. And no matter what, eventually we will be replaced. Just as every other species of Hominid that came before us, someday it will be our turn to fade into nothing as another takes our place. And it may not even be a hominid but another species that evolves to dominate the planet.

These are simple facts. And you and many others are screaming at the clouds if you think you can do anything to stop it.

And no matter what, in roughly 3 gy, what life there is on our planet will start to die off. All life, other than that living as extremophiles deep underground because the sun will start expanding. Preparing to enter it's Red Giant phase, and all life forms on the surface will be destroyed. And in about 5 gy, our planet itself will be destroyed. Destined to become another chunk of matter inside of our sun to be blasted off when it finally goes nova, and possibly be the genesis of future planets and solar systems.

Those are simple and absolute facts. And no matter how much you dislike them, they will happen. And none of your denials will make them any less so. However, I find your denial of such simple facts to be very dangerous.

 

AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES- All those scientists cramming their alarmism down your throat. I rest my case.

 

And Nobel Prize winners.

 

There's no conspiracy, but there's an ongoing process.
“Because scientists are reasonable men, one or another argument will ultimately persuade many of them. But there is no single argument that can or should persuade them all. Rather than a single group conversion, what occurs is an increasing shift in the distribution of professional allegiances.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

Excuse me Mr Cupcake name-caller —- and now to the issue- ignore all the signs if you will. Build a storm shelter against all your hypotheticals. One personal statement that snowfall will happen is quite different feom the entire scientific community. It’s sad that you can’t see that. Go ahead and submit your grandchildren to EXTINCTION. With my remaining time on Earth, I will try to pave a better future.

 

Science does not provide proof of anything. This isn’t how science works.

 

Precisely. And yet not a single empirical fact.

Just name calling.

 

The OP stated that scientists are CRAMMING **** DOWN HIS THROAT. Call it what you will. I call it Conspiracy Theory

 

Self-important preening.

 

But all these Typists on Social Media know better than Science…

 

I call it straying from science to advocacy. The events are well documented.
Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC
Posted on January 3, 2018 by curryja
by Judith Curry Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.