Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

Agree "Lord of Planar". Of coarse the "left" exaggerates as usual. No one denies humans play a role in CO 2 increases but many established and respected Scientists believe even if we stop all fossil fuel use, it will have a very minimal effect on temperature. Many of them claim that while we have seen warming in the past decade, our average temperature has actually been cooling over the past 100 years.(I posted the Stats in another thread). They have agreed that in the next several decades we will see cooling, not warming. So, until we can come up with a cost effective alternative to fossil fuels, one that doesn't hurt homeowners, the economy; continued use of fossil fuels is the way to go and will have minimal effect on temperature. Plus, even if we go the financially crushing route and mandate use of alternative energy, if the rest of the World doesn't do the same, it will virtually make no difference what so ever.

I am not a denialist , I am a realist.

 

Erm, what?

 

Relevance?

The Milankovitch Cycles cannot explain the rate of increase we've seen in the last 150 years.

That is an opinion, and is irrelevant. Stay on topic.

Also irrelevant.

So what you are saying is that you are anti-science. I'm sure we already knew that, but thanks for making it clear.

Also an opinion not supported with any facts. So far you're batting average is zero.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have any evidence to support this claim, or are we supposed to simply take your word for it?

 

I object to the use of the word "denier". It's disrespectful to the millions who lost their lives
at the hands of the Nazi fascist. I particularly am offended that those who use it today share
the same fascist ideology. It's not used because people don't believe in science, it's used
because people don't follow the political cult or believe in it's global warming religion.

How do you know this? How do you know that it is not natural variation?

No, that is you denying science, as all the fascist cultists always do.

On the contrary. I was pointing out all the science that the fascists do no believe in.
I believe wholeheartedly in science, and appreciate the limits to our knowledge.

And so is the batting average for the global warming alarmists.

 

Citations, please.

In the long term, the cost of nuclear is comparable to coal or wind, and much cheaper than solar. Also, the price of renewables rises as grid penetration increases, which is not true of nuclear.

Solar will never be cheap. Even if cells could made as cheap as paper, the physical structure required to harvest solar will remain huge and expensive. The other issue is that solar (like wind) is time and weather dependent. Thus when the sun is shining on my solar panel, it's shining on my neighbor's too. That's not a problem if market penetration of solar remains low, but consider what happens as penetration increases: during times of favorable weather, more and more solar enters the grid, driving down wholesale electricity prices during those hours. Which means solar owners will be selling into a buyer's market pretty much all the time. And as more and more solar enters the grid, the wholesale prices generated by each additional installed Watt will continue to fall. But the cost associated with solar remains the same: panel owners still have to pay off their construction loans at a fixed rate, even as the price they get for their product declines. Thus solar (and wind) will be put into an economic squeeze as penetration increases.

The way out of the squeeze is market regulation, e.g. the Feed In Tariff (FIT) as seen in Germany and elsewhere. This guarantees the solar owner a fixed rate for the electricity generated. Which means the government pays the difference between the wholesale price and the FIT price. And how does the government get the revenue for that? By taxing electricity prices (generally not for businesses, which can move elsewhere and take their jobs with them, but for consumers, big time.) So the FIT becomes a massive subsidy for the renewables, paid for by consumers. And that's exactly what we have seen in Germany: on the wholesale side, prices of electricity are going down, while on the retail side, prices of electricity are going up.

If you look at the total cost, including the subsidies, solar is hugely expensive, and it will stay that way forever, regardless of technological improvements.

 

Any junk scientist in Denierstan can put crap on a blog. Do you have anything that's passed peer-review?

Here's some reality for you then:



More reality:



More reality:



Perhaps you can explain to all of us why the sea level is rising, if the climate has been cooling over the past 100 years. Or maybe just go ask your "realist" pal blogging from his mom's basement. I'm sure he'll set you right.

 

Minimal effect over what time frame? Because of thermal inertia, even eliminating all CO2 emissions wouldn't make much difference over the next decade or two, but would make a big difference by the end of the century.

Could you repost those stats or link to the thread where you posted them? Global mean surface temperature is about 0.8°C warmer than it was at the beginning of the 20th century. If it has been cooling all this time, I'd be curious to see how they explain it.

Who is this "they" that you're speaking of? No established and respected scientists that I'm aware of think that we're cooling now, much less of the next several decades.

 

First of all, no one is comparing climate change deniers with holocaust deniers, though they do seem to use similar arguments. Secondly, you cannot be a leftist and a fascist at the same time. Fascism was and is a right wing movement.

[quotepatriotdude]]How do you know this? How do you know that it is not natural variation?[/quote]

Because the Milankovitch Cycles are well understood, and the current rate of climate change doesn't fit with the timeline of the cycles. Secondly, there is no evidence that the current increasing rate of climate change has occurred at any time in the last 1 million years.

What science am I denying? And again, you obviously don't understand fascism. So labeling people as being something you don't understand is meaningless.

What science are climate science supporters denying? If you wholeheartedly believe in science, then you are obliged to elaborate on your claims using science, not unsupported opinions.

Not from where I sit.

 

Well I guess we'll have to disagree on both of those points.

Why doesn't it fit with the timeline of the cycles?

Are you not aware that we are in an interglacial period of warming and have been for the last 11,700 years? Are you not aware of the wild variations in temperatures over that time period? Why do you think that there is some exact precise temperature for which we have full knowledge of where exactly the temperature should be? Have we determined all the variables to such precision that we now know everything about the climate?

The current increases have not only been seen in the last 500,000 years, but have been repeated many times over in previous interglacial periods as well as within the current one.

There is much that the leftist fascists refuse to acknowledge such as the scientific fact that life begins at conception.
Of course fascism is a leftist ideology. There is no way it is in any way related to the ideological ideas of the right.

How about the science of statistics? They claim over and over that 97% of climatologists agree that
man made global warming is real. There has never been a scientific survey of climate scientists that
has come to that conclusion.

 

No. Interglacials begin with a fast warmup, then slowly cool down into the next ice age. That fast warmup ended 5000 years ago. For the the past 5000 years, the earth has been slowly cooling.

Your cult has no explanation for why the natural cycle of slow cooling suddenly turned to fast warming. The observed data contradicts your "natural cycles" theory, therefore your theory is obviously wrong. In contrast, AGW theory perfectly explains all of the observed data. That's why it's the accepted theory.

I'm aware that a red herring you're using to deflect from the fact that all the data says your cult's theory is flat out wrong.

No. Not at this rate, and not during the cooldown part of a cycle. It's never happened before. The current fast warming is unprecedented.

And, as has been mentioned before, there's the stratospheric cooling, outgoing longwave decreasing, and backradiation increasing. All of those are smoking guns for AGW, and all of those flatly contradict the "natural cycles" theory. The observed data says your theory is wrong, period.

Here on the rational side, we only talk about the science. Because we can, and because all of the science backs us up. You try to divert from the science with bizarre discussions of your cult's politically correct dogma. Why? Because you can't talk about the science, and because for you, this is entirely political. Your politics led you to your scientific beliefs, while here on the rational side, the science led us to our political beliefs.

 

You're not just disagreeing with orogenicman. You're disagreeing with Wikipedia, Webster's dictionary, and the English language.

Wrong the first time you said it and still wrong. Milankovitch cycle warming peaked 6000 years ago and have been cooling the planet since that time. Here's the science:
Imbrie, John, and John Z. Imbrie. "Modeling the climatic response to orbital variations." Science 207.4434 (1980): 943-953.
"Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."

So NO, the current warming is NOT explained by Milankovitch cycles, which are cooling the planet right now (and have been for thousands of years).

There has been only one "wild swing" over that period. It's the one that started when we starting burning fossil fuels.

There isn't, and nobody has ever said that. But there is one precise change in temperature, that we have full knowledge is optimum: zero change.

You don't need to know the 15th digit of the gravitational constant to understand that falling out of a fourth-floor window is dangerous. We know climate well enough to understand what is happening, and why it is happening. Including Milankovitch cycles, and including CO2.

Once again, to repeat the point you continue to miss: it's not the temperature that's dangerous. It's the speed of temperature change that's dangerous.

Since there is no such thing as a "leftist fascist", your statement is a priori false.

Except for this one.
"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

 

Why?

You denied them as valid before, won't you do the same again?

Two studies have been posted in the recent past regarding this. I'm not going to find them for you every time you ask, because they have been presented. It takes time. I will look to see if I saved them in my folder, if I find them, I will find a source link.

 

Oh wow. A grand total of two sensitivity studies to support your preconcieved notions, out of what? Five dozen or so that have been published in the past ten years? Yeah, that's the ticket: just read the stuff that's cited on WUWT, but for god's sake don't crack open a real journal. You might learn something.

It's just a different form of cherry-picking.

 

Here, they only did key word searches, and material was used that actually was claiming the opposite. A study titled THE CONSENSUS ON THE CONSENSUS: AN OPINION SURVEY OF EARTH SCIENTISTS ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE was done, where the polled 97% comes from. The field survey ended up with 79 scientists, and the survey asked in man has a "significant" effect. for that 97% number.

page 19:

Please look up the dictionary definition of significant, and how scientists use it.. like in... significant digits... When using two significant digits, a 1% value is significant! If climate change is only 1% caused by man, then it is significant!

page 44, n=36:

page 46, n=1749

page 47, n=144:

page 48, n=79:

Comments by the participants:

page 80:

page 91:

page 94:

page 95:

page 96:

I stopped here. There ar so many more examples of scientists questioning the word "significant" during this study.

https://www.heartland.org/sites/def...earth_scientists_on_global_climate_change.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

I said recent studies. How many recent studies, in the last year or two, continue to support the larger forcing numbers of CO2?

 

Here is one of them, titled Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres

http://owww.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf.

It's not as recent as I thought, 2007. Still, when is the last comprehensive study that shows the 3.71 W/m^2 or 2 degrees plus? All these recent ones are not analyzing the function, but using past studies as gospel. They are only changing feedback values.

I challenge you to prove me wrong. Find a recent study that starts from scratch, and doesn't use other studies as gospel.

page 22:

Here is another:

Advanced Two-Layer Climate Model for the Assessment of Global Warming by CO2

http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/download/3001-846.pdf

first page:

 

Where are you sourcing your data?

 

It appears from better places than you are.

Yes... 97% of the scientists that have done 20 or more papers on AGW agree it's real. At the same time, that number does not claim it's more than half of the effect we see.

 

No, it hasn't been slowly cooling for the past 5000 years. It has been warming since we came out of
the Little Ice Age.



There is no consensus on AGW. There are too many variables to predict what the temperature will be,
or what is would have been. There has never been a scientific survey of climate scientists which has
concluded that 97% of climatologists agree on AGW. That is a complete fabrication of the left.

Regardless, if we were warming the planet, that would be a good thing. Warm is better than cold.
CO2 is a naturally occurring gas in our atmosphere. It is a gas that we could not live without. Plants
could not live without it. It is not a pollutant. More CO2 is better for plant growth. The human race
will be in a bad fix if (when) the glaciers return, and they will. It is not within our power to stop it.

The scientific data that shows wild temperature variations over the past 500,000 years?

I'll disagree.



As you can see, there have been variations throughout the Holocene.

I'll disagree.

It is the leftist ideologues that are attempting to politicize science for their big government
socialist schemes. Taxing the poor will not cool the planet. It will only give the politicians
more power over the people.

 

>>>>>excerpt >>>

<<<<excerpt <<<

The sea level is rising because its a natural process. If it is indeed rising. The problem with the claims of AGW proponents is their claims are bought and paid for. Many scientists that support AGW are on a payroll of some sort. And or 'the sky is falling' scientists just might want to be on the 'yes man' bandwagon to enhance their career, who knows? To be sure going against the well entrenched priests of the modern scientific establishment is inviting possible career death! Losing ones job is bad enough but that's only the beginning for a scientist who is a anti-AGW whistle blower. A scientist that publicly denies AGW is real will face the wrath of AGW proponents and even his peers. Its not as bad as a decade ago so that is something to cheer about I suppose.

I also have an issue with the posted graphs.There isn't a way to find the web site that they were pulled from. Lastly, the truth is CO2 is a WEAK greenhouse gas. Methane and water vapor are much more effective at holding in thermal energy. As usual the 'sky is falling' members ignore true climate change data. Such true data as ice ages occurring when CO2 levels were 11 or 12 times higher than today, before man was on earth in force. So CO2 levels naturally fluctuate, sometimes wildly over time. The following is a pure lay observation but I have noticed when viewing CO2 vs temp vs time graphs that portray a period of about 0 to 1000 years + or -,the graph wave looks chaotic and rough with many peaks valleys etc. When the time line is millions of years the wave form is smoother and not as chaotic. So that tells me if I remember my prob and stats correctly that those graphs indicate AGW and global warming and cooling in general is a totally natural process.

a couple relevant sources;

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical (of AGW) - Forbes
www.forbes.com/.../peer-reviewed-su...ts-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/&#8206;

Partial List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warminghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

reva

 

Gladly. Please tell me, when was Hitler for lower taxes and less government?
Was Hitler against abortion? Was Hitler for religious freedom? What do republican
have in common with Hitler?

Hitler was a big government socialist. That is why he was the leader of the socialist party.

That hockey stick graph is fake.

That's a study, not a scientific survey of climatologists.

 

You're not doing your argument any good here, PatriotNews. Do you really think that an unsourced graph from a dog breeder's web site trumps a temperature reconstruction from the peer-reviewed journal Science? You might want to research the work of Hubert Lamb upon which your graph is based on before you make yourself look even more ignorant.

 

You can repeat it three times, it still won't be true.

A review of literature is a scientific survey.

 

excerpt >>>>

<<<excerpt

Do you have a link to the fabricated er' contested graph? And I don't mean photoshop or paint.

reva

 

I would just like anyone who doesn't Belive in Global Warming to find just one organization of scientists that supports the position that Global Warming isn't occuring. Just find one if you can and note I am talking about organizations not individuals.

 

Forbes link doesn't work? And the other link isn't relevant to whether or not global warming is occuring.