• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do laypersons have such arrogance when denying human-caused climate change?

- Lord of Planar claiming that only a fraction of the temperature increases can be attributed to greenhouse gases, asserting at different times that both solar variation and albedo have had larger effects

I assert more than just that, but I claim the aggregate of many factors making greenhouse gasses less significant.

You forgot the combination of things.

Soot on ice.
Atmospheric transparency changes due to aerosols.
Inaccurate temperature records and corrections due to the urban heat island effect.
Increased temperature measurements close to urban areas due to losses in evapotranspiration over the years of urban buildup.
The different dynamics of the oceans thermal inertia of shortwave vs. longwave.
Only the direct forcing of solar used rather than its ECS.

I may have forgotten a few items.

Among the changes that probably have a larger effect than greenhouse gasses are the atmospheric transparency, solar, and albedo.
 
You say that questions are not allowed, the truth must be accepted without doubt and then say that what you present and religion are in no way similar.

Do you think about what you think? A little critical review might help you.

A little?

Most these warmers appear to lack critical thinking skills completely. They believe what ever the dogma of what they like tells them, with no questions. Absolute faith!

Faith is a religious trait!
 

Neither his blog post nor the published article show anything at all about 20th century cosmic radiation trends, let alone contradicting the fact that there has not been a decreasing GCR trend over the past 70 years - if anything it would have been increasing as solar activity decreases. Your argument from shaky authority fails.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Cosmic-ray_flux
1920px-SpaceEnvironmentOverview_From_19830101.jpg



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Period
1920px-Sunspot_butterfly_graph.gif
 
Neither his blog post nor the published article show anything at all about 20th century cosmic radiation trends, let alone contradicting the fact that there has not been a decreasing GCR trend over the past 70 years - if anything it would have been increasing as solar activity decreases. Your argument from shaky authority fails.

Really?

[FONT=&quot]". . . The implications of this link are far reaching. Not only does it imply that on various time scales were solar activity variations or changes in the galactic environment prominent, if not the dominent climate drivers, it offers an explanation to at least some of the climate variability witnessed over the past century and millennium. In particular, not all of the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century global warming should be attributed to anthropogenic sources, since increased solar activity explains through this link more than half of the warming." [/FONT]


Cosmic Rays and Climate | ScienceBits

www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate


By: Nir J. Shaviv Article originally appeared in PhysicaPlus. Sir William Herschel was the first to seriously consider the sun as a source of climate variations, ...

 
No most of the other positions could be loosely grouped is a poor understanding of CO2's climate sensitivity.

Ironic that you say this immediately before Code once again trots out the claim that the scientists are falsifying the temperature data (and immediately after stating his apparent belief that CO2 must be the only influence on climate) :lol:
 
Really?

[FONT=&quot]". . . The implications of this link are far reaching. Not only does it imply that on various time scales were solar activity variations or changes in the galactic environment prominent, if not the dominent climate drivers, it offers an explanation to at least some of the climate variability witnessed over the past century and millennium. In particular, not all of the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century global warming should be attributed to anthropogenic sources, since increased solar activity explains through this link more than half of the warming." [/FONT]


Cosmic Rays and Climate | ScienceBits

www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate


By: Nir J. Shaviv Article originally appeared in PhysicaPlus. Sir William Herschel was the first to seriously consider the sun as a source of climate variations, ...


Re-posting the same claims is not the same thing as evidence :roll: Show me the graph of 20th century GCR flux which Shaviv posts?

Honestly, I don't much like the blog post quoted in the OP, but when you're relying purely on an argument from authority - and apparently haven't even read that properly! - what do you expect people to think of you?
 
Last edited:
I think asking questions is good. Why do you disagree?

Why is asking questions a bad thing for science?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with asking questions; indeed, such scepticism is an essential part of science. It's the insistence on asking the same questions over and over again while refusing to listen to the answers that characterises the denier.
 
Re-posting the same claims is not the same thing as evidence :roll: Show me the graph of 20th century GCR flux which Shaviv posts?

Honestly, I don't much like the blog post quoted in the OP, but when you're relying purely on an argument from authority - and apparently haven't even read that properly! - what do you expect people to think of you?

It appears that you, not I, are the one who has failed to read properly (or read at all?) the post.

[FONT=&quot]". . . Thus, it now appears that empirical evidence for a cosmic-ray/cloud-cover link is abundant. However, is there a physical mechanism to explain it? The answer is that although there are indications for how the link may arise, no firm scenario, at least one which is based on solid experimental results, is yet present. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Although above 100% saturation, the preferred phase of water is liquid, it will not be able to condense unless it has a surface to do so on. Thus, to form cloud droplets the air must have cloud condensation nuclei—small dust particles or aerosols upon which the water can condense. By changing the number density of these particles, the properties of the clouds can be varied, with more cloud condensation nuclei, the cloud droplets are more numerous but smaller, this tends to make whiter and longer living clouds. This effect was seen down stream of smoke stacks, down stream of cities, and in the oceans in the form of ship tracks in the marine cloud layer.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The suggested hypothesis, is that in regions devoid of dust (e.g., over the large ocean basins), the formation of cloud condensation nuclei takes place from the growth of small aerosol clusters, and that the formation of the latter is governed by the availability of charge, such that charged aerosol clusters are more stable and can grow while neutral clusters can more easily break apart. Several experimental results tend to support this hypothesis, but not yet prove it. For example, the group of Frank Arnold at the university of Heidelberg collected air in airborne missions and found that, as expected, charge clusters play an important role in the formation of small condensation nuclei. It is yet to be seen that the small condensation nuclei grow through accretion and not through scavenging by larger objects. If the former process is dominant, charge and therefore cosmic ray ionization would play an important role in the formation of cloud condensation nuclei. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]One of the promising prospects for proving the "missing link", is the SKY experiment being conducted in the Danish National Space Center, where a real "cloud chamber" mimics the conditions in the atmosphere. This includes, for example, varying levels of background ionization and aerosols levels (sulpheric acid in particular). Within a few months, the experiment will hopefully shed light on the physical mechanics responsible for the apparent link between cloud cover and therefore climate in general, to cosmic rays, and through the solar wind, also to solar activity. [Added Note (4 Oct. 2006): The experimental results indeed confirm a link] . . . ."[/FONT]
 
There's absolutely nothing wrong with asking questions; indeed, such scepticism is an essential part of science. It's the insistence on asking the same questions over and over again while refusing to listen to the answers that characterises the denier.

What are the answers to the questions on why the experts seem to be wrong in their projections and predictions?

Why is CO2 not producing the warming results as presented in the dogmatic predictions of dire consequence?
 
It appears that you, not I, are the one who has failed to read properly (or read at all?) the post.

I saw that the link was to sciencebits.com and erroneously thought it was the same article as linked from your original notrickszone.com quote. Certainly there was no new content in your quote to suggest otherwise. But I decided to leave my post without further editing, because the point still stands, and I notice that you conspicuously declined to provide the requested graph: Even this article doesn't suggest a declining GCR trend over the past 70 years. On the contrary, it clearly shows that the levels of cosmic radiation reaching earth have fluctuated with the solar cycle, but shown no strong trend since at least 1980:

crcFig3.jpg


1980 to 2005 has obviously been the period with the strongest warming trend in recent history. So whether or not GCR actually does influence cloud formation rates, the absence of a clear trend over that period obviously precludes it as a cause of the observed warming trend.

This is really basic stuff, is it not? Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but non-correlation is usually pretty strong evidence of non-causation!
 
I saw that the link was to sciencebits.com and erroneously thought it was the same article as linked from your original notrickszone.com quote. Certainly there was no new content in your quote to suggest otherwise. But I decided to leave my post without further editing, because the point still stands, and I notice that you conspicuously declined to provide the requested graph: Even this article doesn't suggest a declining GCR trend over the past 70 years. On the contrary, it clearly shows that the levels of cosmic radiation reaching earth have fluctuated with the solar cycle, but shown no strong trend since at least 1980:

crcFig3.jpg


1980 to 2005 has obviously been the period with the strongest warming trend in recent history. So whether or not GCR actually does influence cloud formation rates, the absence of a clear trend over that period obviously precludes it as a cause of the observed warming trend.

This is really basic stuff, is it not? Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but non-correlation is usually pretty strong evidence of non-causation!

You could save yourself trouble and embarrassment by reading the entire post.

[FONT=&quot]". . . To begin with, climate variations appear to arise also from intrinsic cosmic ray flux variations, namely, from variations that have nothing to do with solar activity modulations. This removes any doubt that the observed solar activity cloud cover correlations are coincidental or without an actual causal connection. That is to say, it removes the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently the climate, such that we [/FONT][FONT=&quot]think[/FONT][FONT=&quot] that the cosmic rays and climate are related, where in fact they are not. Specifically, cosmic ray flux variations also arise from the varying environment around the solar system, as it journeys around the Milky Way. These variations appear to have left a paleoclimatic imprint in the geological records. . . ."[/FONT]
 
A very good reply to this question by Lee Thé, on Quora:

"One facet of low intelligence is lack of self-assessment ability. Thus it’s not what they don’t know. It’s what they don’t know that they don’t know. Dumb people literally can’t imagine a higher intelligence than their own. Intelligent people can. It’s one of the biggest cleavage lines between being dumb and smart."

"This is evolutionarily adaptive. Not for the individual, god knows. But evolution doesn’t work at the individual level—it works at the gene pool level. And the gene pool has historically needed cannon fodder—strapping young braves willing and eager to go into battle in defense of their tribe. And they need a lot of confidence to do that as needed. Especially when the odds are dire."

"Climate science exacerbates this problem, because dumb people think in concrete, definite terms and categories, while climate is probabalistic, fuzzy, hard to grasp even for many with some technical training."

"An interesting corroboration of this foible of dump people is corporate self-assessment programs. I’ve heard that the worst, about-to-be-terminated employees usually give themselves glowing self-assessments, while the star employees are nearly always sober, downbeat in their self-assessment, with a keen sense of and concern for what they regard as their own shortcomings."

"A decade ago it was conceivable that an intelligent person could at least be a climate change skeptic. But in the early 2000s virtually all developed nations’ national science associations came out with climate change statements/warnings in line with what the climate science community says."

"Now, the only denialists left (including the many denialists masquerading as “skeptics”) are either dumb people who have been brainwashed by right wing propaganda; militant right wing ideologues whose emotions control their intellects; or those whose livelihood depends on being denialists."

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-laypersons-have-such-arrogance-when-denying-human-caused-climate-change

What would be the point of reading past the first paragraph? Is this writer seriously asserting that there are no intelligent skeptics of AGW?
 
You could save yourself trouble and embarrassment by reading the entire post.

[FONT="]". . . To begin with, climate variations appear to arise also from intrinsic cosmic ray flux variations, namely, from variations that have nothing to do with solar activity modulations. This removes any doubt that the observed solar activity cloud cover correlations are coincidental or without an actual causal connection. That is to say, it removes the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently the climate, such that we [/FONT][FONT="]think[/FONT][FONT="] that the cosmic rays and climate are related, where in fact they are not. Specifically, cosmic ray flux variations also arise from the varying environment around the solar system, as it journeys around the Milky Way. These variations appear to have left a paleoclimatic imprint in the geological records. . . ."[/FONT]

Sigh. That does not contradict my (really rather simple and obvious) point, and in fact you are only demonstrating your own ignorance and lack of understanding. It's a lead-in to their hypothesized GCR influence on climate over past geological timeframes which (yet again for the hard-of-thinking) may or may not prove to be a fruitful line of enquiry. It does not prove anything about modern climatic variation.

If you find yourself incapable of finding where Shaviv has shown a recent multidecadal GCR trend - contrary to the graph I just posted, where he very clearly shows that there has not been one - you'd do better just to let the issue drop. The argument from authority was bad enough, but trying to support it by parading your failure to understand the author's points is really just laughable.



And - again - the approach of "Here's someone with a degree who contradicts the consensus, and I can randomly quote stuff he's written" really isn't doing anything to contradict the derogatory claims of the OP article either! :lol:
 
Last edited:
Sigh. That does not contradict my (really rather simple and obvious) point, and in fact you are only demonstrating your own ignorance and lack of understanding. It's a lead-in to their hypothesized GCR influence on climate over past geological timeframes which (yet again for the hard-of-thinking) may or may not prove to be a fruitful line of enquiry. It does not prove anything about modern climatic variation.

If you find yourself incapable of finding where Shaviv has shown a recent multidecadal GCR trend - contrary to the graph I just posted, where he very clearly shows that there has not been one - you'd do better just to let the issue drop. The argument from authority was bad enough, but trying to support it by parading your failure to understand the author's points is really just laughable.



And - again - the approach of "Here's someone with a degree who contradicts the consensus, and I can randomly quote stuff he's written" really isn't doing anything to contradict the derogatory claims of the OP article either! :lol:

[FONT=&quot]
crcFig2.jpg
Figure 2: The cosmic ray link between solar activity and the terrestrial climate. The changing solar activity is responsible for a varying solar wind strength. A stronger wind will reduce the flux of cosmic ray reaching Earth, since a larger amount of energy is lost as they propagate up the solar wind. The cosmic rays themselves come from outside the solar system (cosmic rays with energies below the "knee" at 1015eV, are most likely accelerated by supernova remnants). Since cosmic rays dominate the tropospheric ionization, an increased solar activity will translate into a reduced ionization, and empirically (as shown below), also to a reduced low altitude cloud cover. Since low altitude clouds have a net cooling effect (their "whiteness" is more important than their "blanket" effect), increased solar activity implies a warmer climate. Intrinsic cosmic ray flux variations will have a similar effect, one however, which is unrelated to solar activity variations.


[/FONT]
 
What are the answers to the questions on why the experts seem to be wrong in their projections and predictions?

Why is CO2 not producing the warming results as presented in the dogmatic predictions of dire consequence?

Which predictions are you talking about? Actual predictions published in the scientific literature or IPCC reports?

Hansen's prediction in 1981 of about 0.5 C of warming over the following 40 years has been just about spot on.
 
Which predictions are you talking about? Actual predictions published in the scientific literature or IPCC reports?

Hansen's prediction in 1981 of about 0.5 C of warming over the following 40 years has been just about spot on.

So?

He was fully aware of the approximate ECS time of solar, and its 1958 peak. That could be what he based his predictions on. We really don't know.
 
[FONT="]
crcFig2.jpg
Figure 2: The cosmic ray link between solar activity and the terrestrial climate. The changing solar activity is responsible for a varying solar wind strength. A stronger wind will reduce the flux of cosmic ray reaching Earth, since a larger amount of energy is lost as they propagate up the solar wind. The cosmic rays themselves come from outside the solar system (cosmic rays with energies below the "knee" at 1015eV, are most likely accelerated by supernova remnants). Since cosmic rays dominate the tropospheric ionization, an increased solar activity will translate into a reduced ionization, and empirically (as shown below), also to a reduced low altitude cloud cover. Since low altitude clouds have a net cooling effect (their "whiteness" is more important than their "blanket" effect), increased solar activity implies a warmer climate. Intrinsic cosmic ray flux variations will have a similar effect, one however, which is unrelated to solar activity variations.


[/FONT]

Look Jack, maybe this will help explain what I'm trying my darndest to communicate to you. I already had a Shaviv-related image on my hard drive and another for Svensmark, so this is literally Figure 3 - I suppose the caption would be "Cosmoclimatology's role in the late 20th century warming":

Shaviv2.jpg


I realize that these are very difficult sciency concepts, but that really is the best that a humble amateur such as I can manage. If you still don't understand, I'll just have to acknowledge that I have been defeated by an ignorance greater than my own.
 
Last edited:
"This is evolutionarily adaptive. Not for the individual, god knows. But evolution doesn’t work at the individual level—it works at the gene pool level. And the gene pool has historically needed cannon fodder—strapping young braves willing and eager to go into battle in defense of their tribe. And they need a lot of confidence to do that as needed. Especially when the odds are dire."

This children is the discredited group selection idea in evolution. It is wrong.
 
Ironic that you say this immediately before Code once again trots out the claim that the scientists are falsifying the temperature data (and immediately after stating his apparent belief that CO2 must be the only influence on climate) :lol:
The question of CO2 climate sensitivity, and the accuracy of the temperature records are indirectly related.
If the stations which are included or excluded, are selected to show greater warming, then the climates sensitivity to added CO2
may be even lower.
 
The question of CO2 climate sensitivity, and the accuracy of the temperature records are indirectly related.
If the stations which are included or excluded, are selected to show greater warming, then the climates sensitivity to added CO2
may be even lower.

But since there is no plausible motive for anyone (let alone scientists) to falsify global temperature data by hundredths of a degree, and not a single jot of evidence to suggest that they have done so (on the contrary, the records have been repeatedly corroborated by independent analyses and data sources), all the posts full of unsubstantiated speculation or accusations on this point are obviously conspiracy-theorist thinking.

That's to be expected of course: Any 'sceptic' of climate science must at some point ask themselves the question "Why do the overwhelming majority of experts hold these views, if they are so obviously wrong that even internet amateurs can debunk them?" Short of the colossal hubris of the rare individuals who're happy to declare their own made-up numbers and back-of-the-envelope calculations superior to actual facts and peer-reviewed research, pretty much the only answer to that question is invoking some form of conspiracy or other; and once down that path it's such a simple and easy answer for everything you don't understand or don't like.
 
That seems a particularly daft thing to say, given that Hansen's predictions were made in a published paper explaining exactly what they were based on: Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
I suspect the climate, lacking intelligence, cannot discriminate in how it responds to changes in energy input.
so it does not matter if the change in energy input came directly from the sun, or indirectly from added CO2.
The response and the latency would be the same.
Hansen in 1981 was expecting a delay between the input to output by up to several decades, the number increased in later studies to six or seven decades.
 
But since there is no plausible motive for anyone (let alone scientists) to falsify global temperature data by hundredths of a degree, and not a single jot of evidence to suggest that they have done so (on the contrary, the records have been repeatedly corroborated by independent analyses and data sources), all the posts full of unsubstantiated speculation or accusations on this point are obviously conspiracy-theorist thinking.

That's to be expected of course: Any 'sceptic' of climate science must at some point ask themselves the question "Why do the overwhelming majority of experts hold these views, if they are so obviously wrong that even internet amateurs can debunk them?" Short of the colossal hubris of the rare individuals who're happy to declare their own made-up numbers and back-of-the-envelope calculations superior to actual facts and peer-reviewed research, pretty much the only answer to that question is invoking some form of conspiracy or other; and once down that path it's such a simple and easy answer for everything you don't understand or don't like.
There is plenty of motive, the people who show warming continue to get their grants awarded, those who raise questions about the accuracy of the records,
stopped getting funding.
Again no one is falsifying data, it is simply careful selection.
The overwhelming majority of the experts hold the view that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, without much stipulation as to the ECS of effects of doubling the CO2 level.
 
But since there is no plausible motive for anyone (let alone scientists) to falsify global temperature data by hundredths of a degree, and not a single jot of evidence to suggest that they have done so (on the contrary, the records have been repeatedly corroborated by independent analyses and data sources), all the posts full of unsubstantiated speculation or accusations on this point are obviously conspiracy-theorist thinking.

That's to be expected of course: Any 'sceptic' of climate science must at some point ask themselves the question "Why do the overwhelming majority of experts hold these views, if they are so obviously wrong that even internet amateurs can debunk them?" Short of the colossal hubris of the rare individuals who're happy to declare their own made-up numbers and back-of-the-envelope calculations superior to actual facts and peer-reviewed research, pretty much the only answer to that question is invoking some form of conspiracy or other; and once down that path it's such a simple and easy answer for everything you don't understand or don't like.

If the science involved here is as sound as you claim to believe it is then there would be no increasing skepticism today now would there ?

The plain truth is that more and more people are becoming aware of the following facts ......

100 reasons why climate change is natural | UK | News | Express.co.uk
 
Back
Top Bottom