Deniers

Who are the climate change deniers and why?

I haven't seen any outright deniers on this site. There are a number who are skeptical of the size of the A in AGW though.

Glowpun said:

Who are the climate change deniers and why?

Click to expand...

The term denier is a derogatory term meant to demean those of us who are skeptical of the IPCC's
catastrophic predictions.
The reality is that the catastrophic predictions are predicated on the warming being at the mid to upper end
of the range, whereas the observable data shows the climates response to be at the low end of the range.
The range of the ECS prediction is 1.5 to 4.5 C, IF CO2 levels double to 560 ppm.
Research places the best estimate of ECS at 2 C or below.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
This is the findings of the lead authors of the last IPCC report, that somehow did not make it into the final report.

longview said:

The term denier is a derogatory term meant to demean those of us who are skeptical of the IPCC's
catastrophic predictions.
The reality is that the catastrophic predictions are predicated on the warming being at the mid to upper end
of the range, whereas the observable data shows the climates response to be at the low end of the range.
The range of the ECS prediction is 1.5 to 4.5 C, IF CO2 levels double to 560 ppm.
Research places the best estimate of ECS at 2 C or below.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
This is the findings of the lead authors of the last IPCC report, that somehow did not make it into the final report.

Click to expand...

Help us out here.

1. Who are you?
2 What is the IPCC and its function insofar as the topic of climate change is concerned?
3. What is ECS?
4. The info received is there is global warming and among other events the polar ice caps are melting which has not happened until recent times.
5. The coast lines are changing as the sea level increases.
6. A 2 degree C increase temperature is a game changer.
7. Explain the above events from the non-global warming/climate change perspective.

Glowpun said:

Help us out here.

1. Who are you?
2 What is the IPCC and its function insofar as the topic of climate change is concerned?
3. What is ECS?
4. The info received is there is global warming and among other events the polar ice caps are melting which has not happened until recent times.
5. The coast lines are changing as the sea level increases.
6. A 2 degree C increase temperature is a game changer.
7. Explain the above events from the non-global warming/climate change perspective.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I assumed most people are familiar with the concepts.
1. I am just a guy with a Science background who has been doing Research and Development for over 30 years,
and do not like what the proponents of AGW are doing to science.
2. The IPCC, is the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, A UN department whose job is to find
human caused climate change.
3. ECS equilibrium climate sensitivity, is the amount of warming they expect if the CO2 levels were to double from 280 to 560 ppm.
4. The polar ice caps have been in process of melting for over 12,000 years, The data is uncertain if recent melting is unusual,
or if other man caused factors are involved, Carbon soot, aerosol clearing ect. CO2 has and does cause warming, but the actual amount of warming
remains uncertain.
5. The sea level has been increasing at a fairly constant rate for as long as we have gauges.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/map.html
6. We do not really know if a 2 degree C increase would be bad, good or indifferent.
We do know 2 C colder would not be good. Generally warmer is better, longer growing seasons up north and not reduced in the tropics.
Bear in mind that if we did see a 2 C increase, it would be spread over 180 years, assuming we do not move to alternate energy.
7. Technology advances, People are very clever and find new ways to do things.
The ability to have a fuel to push a car or truck 400 miles between fill ups is useful.
So far alternate energy sources like wind and solar, do not provide the type of on demand power Humans need.
Recent developments by Audi/Sunfire, and the US Navy, have developed man made carbon neutral fuels.
These man mad fuels could prove to be the energy storage device that has been lacking from alternate energies.
Fuel - Sunfire
The ability to make fuel from,air water, and energy, gives the ability to accumulate the low density poor duty cycle
alternate energy sources into a fuel for use in existing vehicles or tractors.

Glowpun said:

Who are the climate change deniers and why?

Click to expand...

The AGW hypothesis is a jewel of 19th century physics. I believe it has been superseded by the 21st century physics of the solar/GCR hypothesis, as put forward by Svensmark, Shaviv and Veizer, among others. A recent research result suggests support for their hypothesis. I started a thread to discuss that, but it drew little interest among AGW advocates.

Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming by CO2

Glowpun said:

Who are the climate change deniers and why?

Click to expand...

It's a hoax.

Glowpun said:

Who are the climate change deniers and why?

Click to expand...

The people that think climate doesn't change, they deny this reality and further insist it is only changing because of the activities of man. To combat this change they want government solutions that are very costly with little reward.

Glowpun said:

Who are the climate change deniers and why?

Click to expand...

I've never seen a single poster here deny climate change

Jack Hays said:

The AGW hypothesis is a jewel of 19th century physics. I believe it has been superseded by the 21st century physics of the solar/GCR hypothesis, as put forward by Svensmark, Shaviv and Veizer, among others. A recent research result suggests support for their hypothesis. I started a thread to discuss that, but it drew little interest among AGW advocates.

Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming by CO2

Click to expand...

You're suggesting the physics of infrared interaction with certain elements is... wrong?

Deuce said:

You're suggesting the physics of infrared interaction with certain elements is... wrong?

Click to expand...

I'm suggesting it's trivial compared to other climate factors. I also suggest you explore the link.

[h=1]Extreme Poverty USA: The True Cost of Climate Madness[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall While various US governments continue to waste unimaginable sums of public money on pointless climate schemes, real problems ranging from third world poverty in Alabama to an explosion of the skid row population of Los Angeles are being allowed to fester. Human Intestinal Parasite Burden and Poor Sanitation in Rural…
Continue reading →

Renae said:

The people that think climate doesn't change, they deny this reality and further insist it is only changing because of the activities of man. To combat this change they want government solutions that are very costly with little reward.

Click to expand...

We could say that the deniers are the ones that believe it takes man's influence for the natural low frequency climate oscillation to occur.

Renae said:

The people that think climate doesn't change, they deny this reality and further insist it is only changing because of the activities of man. To combat this change they want government solutions that are very costly with little reward.

Click to expand...

Greetings, Renae. :2wave:

Well said! :thumbs: And let's not forget who provides the money to the government to spend - all of us who pay taxes, and it's still not enough, or we wouldn't have a $20 trillion dollar, and climbing, debt! :!:

Jack Hays said:

[h=1]Extreme Poverty USA: The True Cost of Climate Madness[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall While various US governments continue to waste unimaginable sums of public money on pointless climate schemes, real problems ranging from third world poverty in Alabama to an explosion of the skid row population of Los Angeles are being allowed to fester. Human Intestinal Parasite Burden and Poor Sanitation in Rural…
Continue reading →

Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

:agree: The money that has already been spent on climate "madness" - since it became politicized - is alarming.

Our infrastructure badly needs updating and/or replacing, which would benefit all of us that drink water, or use our bridges, or to provide decent sewage disposal systems in rural areas to prevent disease, or to provide decent living conditions for the poor, and so forth. These things are needed now, while AGW is still being debated by both sides, which indicates there is time to tackle that possible problem after other more urgent human needs are met, since climate has been changing long before humans were here.

Time will tell us what road to the future is chosen, which will indicate to the rest of the world where we stand and what we believe in as a nation.

polgara said:

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

:agree: The money that has already been spent on climate "madness" - since it became politicized - is alarming.

Our infrastructure badly needs updating and/or replacing, which would benefit all of us that drink water, or use our bridges, or to provide decent sewage disposal systems in rural areas to prevent disease, or to provide decent living conditions for the poor, and so forth. These things are needed now, while AGW is still being debated by both sides, which indicates there is time to tackle that possible problem after other more urgent human needs are met, since climate has been changing long before humans were here.

Time will tell us what road to the future is chosen, which will indicate to the rest of the world where we stand and what we believe in as a nation.

Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

The money wasted on climate fantasy is stolen from real needs.

Glowpun said:

Who are the climate change deniers and why?

Click to expand...

More importantly, who really cares, and why?

If someone has a particular notion in their head, and its not harming me in the slightest, why would I concern myself with what they think?

I know flat earthers, those that still believe in the earth centric universe, people that pray to gods/goddesses/spirits/faeries that I cant even pronounce.....but none of that impacts my life. Science, as it usually does, floats to the surface and makes itself known...in the end, it will carry the day/millennium, and those people that don't agree with proven science will end up as a quaint footnote in a book somewhere.

Glowpun said:

Help us out here.

1. Who are you?
2 What is the IPCC and its function insofar as the topic of climate change is concerned?
3. What is ECS?
4. The info received is there is global warming and among other events the polar ice caps are melting which has not happened until recent times.
5. The coast lines are changing as the sea level increases.
6. A 2 degree C increase temperature is a game changer.
7. Explain the above events from the non-global warming/climate change perspective.

Click to expand...

Glad to see a new person here. i hope your open mindedness is genuine.

1, Us skeptics tend to be those with any science, especially physics, understanding who have looked at any of this.

2, The IPCC is the huge intergovernemetal pannel on climate change that has the big meetings and creats loads of bad science and then over hypes the bad science to say that there is a going to be warming then fishes desperately around to try to find any problem with this.

3, The eventual level which the world's climate would warm to given a specific amount of extra heat input. This is a very complex thing as there are loads of things that will either make it be warmer because it is warmer (positive feedback) or will dampen the warming (negative feedback). The time to actually get there is also very long as the heat capacity of the oceans is vast.

4, The world has obviously warmed a bit since 1970. That said the period 1979 to 1998 saw warming. The period 1998 to now has seen highly unusually stable world temperature levels. The polar ice caps are said to be melting, well the Norther one is said to be. All accept the Southern ice cap is actually increasing and the Nrthern one is melting at sea. The ice mass on Greenland is said to be decreasing but I can show you that that is a flat out lie if you are willing to look at very simple evidence. 10 minutes looking and thinking.

5, The coast lines are not changing in any significantly different way to the way coastal errosion and deposition have always worked. Bangladesh, for example, which is often talked about because it is low lying and if the sea level were to increase by 2m tomorrow would be in serrious trouble gets 2cm of sediment dumped on it every monsoon, and that is for land 10km away from the rivers. There are very few places 10km away from a river in Bangladesh and the most even the IPCC says there can possibly be by 2100 is 1m.

6 +2c, game changer, which game? How would that cause you trouble? Serriously what bad thing would happen?

I hope you stick around and continue to ask questions.

Polar Bum said:

More importantly, who really cares, and why?

If someone has a particular notion in their head, and its not harming me in the slightest, why would I concern myself with what they think?

I know flat earthers, those that still believe in the earth centric universe, people that pray to gods/goddesses/spirits/faeries that I cant even pronounce.....but none of that impacts my life. Science, as it usually does, floats to the surface and makes itself known...in the end, it will carry the day/millennium, and those people that don't agree with proven science will end up as a quaint footnote in a book somewhere.

Click to expand...

The result of the bad science of AGW is used to give cover to the price inflating (and no other use) use of biofuel. This has at least raised basic food prices by 30% to 70%. The poor of the world are dying at a vast rate due to this. All to give rich western farmers more money.

You are paying about $700 a year extra in food prices.

Glowpun said:

Help us out here.

1. Who are you?
2 What is the IPCC and its function insofar as the topic of climate change is concerned?
3. What is ECS?
4. The info received is there is global warming and among other events the polar ice caps are melting which has not happened until recent times.
5. The coast lines are changing as the sea level increases.
6. A 2 degree C increase temperature is a game changer.
7. Explain the above events from the non-global warming/climate change perspective.

Click to expand...

I see Longview answered your question. I'll give you a quick rundown on mine.

I have been studying the various sciences since around 1968. I have worked engineering positions dealing with both chemistry any physics. I have subcriptions to various science journals, my most expensive one is "Nature" which costs me $199/yr.

The IPCC is a political group that uses science in misrepresented ways for their own political agenda. Other scientists dare not question their "authority" on the matter unless they are in secure tenured jobs. To do so without job security, will eventually lead to unemployment.

ECS is the long term equalization of a perpetration. It is generally a long term event, and generally stated as a percentage of equalization over a given number of years. It is rarely ever fully realized. In a paper about 30 years old now, James Hansen claimed that CO2 ECS is 70% at the 100 year mark (81 to 120 years).

We do have an effect on warming. I will content that CO2 warning is probably around 1/5th to 1/3rd of that which is claimed. My reasons get rather involved, but I will contend that most of the melting of ice is due to albedo changes, from an invisible (to the eye) dusting of aerosols, mostly from dirty coal burning practices. Not the CO2 itself. The Urban Heat Island effect is responsible for meteorological station to read higher than they would is they were farther away from developed areas. Normally you only see the Urban Heat Island effect described as the change in albedo due to the concrete, asphalt, and buildings covering vegetation. however, there is a rarely discussed bigger change, due to the loss of evapotranspiration in these areas, where rain water is channeled to storm sewers, instead of being absorbed by the ground, and later released as evaporation cooling.

Yes, the sea level as a global average is increase. There is sheet ice melt, thermal expansion of the water, subsidence, and erosion of soil that ends up in the ocean from the rivers. The oceans have never stopped rising since coming out of the last ice age. We really don't know how much is caused by AGW, but I suspect our largest contribution is dues to the decreasing albedo of sheet ice due to our aerosols we put in the air. Not CO2.

Why would 2 degrees be a game changer? Good or bad?

Cold real estate would become more habitable for farming and cities.

Why deny climate change? Isn't the question how much are we contributing withing the different variables, and what can we mitigate without causing ourselves economic harm?

Deuce said:

You're suggesting the physics of infrared interaction with certain elements is... wrong?

Click to expand...

He has never suggested any such thing. The problem is within a complex atmospheric mix, winds, conductance, assumed feedback, and other variables, how much does it really warm?

There is no doubt that CO2 is said to warm greater than can be illustrated with any hands-on science. Only the models show high warning from CO2.

[h=1]Everything you know about climate comedy you learnt from me, and it was bollocks—Part I[/h]Posted on 15 Sep 17 by BRAD KEYES • 3 Comments
What a fool I’ve been. What a handsome, persuasive fool. Don’t feel too bad if I fooled you too, which I did. Heck, I’m so charismatic I even fooled myself. But first, some basic definitions. The Science is the mythical evidence for the urgent net dangerousness of man-caused climate change. If males continue emitting … Continue reading →