• 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!

Climate change denalism has been a willful lie from day one

Phys251 said:
You said 400Gt, not 4 Gt, in Post 14. 400 Gt = 4e11 tonnes = 4e14 kg.



Ah, there's Lucy and the American football again... The phrasing of your question suggests a demand to produce a deterministic prediction. "In Year X, this point on the globe will be Y degrees warmer on average than it is today." Surely you know that different models about future climates make different predictions, right? And that experts are up-front about the variation in these predictions, right?

There's another issue that doesn't get raised enough. The costs of inaction. Is that something humanity really needs to take a chance on?
Click to expand...

1, Ah yes, 400 x 10^12 (Giga) x 10^3 (Tonnes to Kg) x 10^3 (Kg to g) x 4.2 x 4. So 67.2 x 10^20. Both took a second try at it.

2, No I don't want you tell me about the warming but the bad thing. Select a place and tell me what bad thing will happen.
 
Phys251 said:
...There's another issue that doesn't get raised enough. The costs of inaction. Is that something humanity really needs to take a chance on?
Click to expand...

You guys have been at it for over 30 years. The claims have been:
Devastating temperature rise, rapidly melting ice and permafrost,
dangerous sea level rise, destructive levels of warming, tipping points,
release of the powerful greenhouse gas methane creating runaway
warming, droughts, floods, extreme hurricanes and tornadoes,
extinct polar bears, crop failure, tropical diseases, crime waves,
climate refugees etc. you get the picture, when is all this going to
begin to happen?

In case you don't get the picture, here's the list* of all the things that
have been reported as caused by Global Warming/Climate change.

* Wayback machine takes a while to load
 
Jetboogieman said:
Pretty good video, Republicans and big oil companies created denialism to protect their industry and today it has a life of its own with right wing American believing it and spreading the propaganda all by themselves with the help of what have to be paid posters and we all know who they are.



Climate change denialism is a lie, it always has been.
Click to expand...


More lies in this video than in the rest of the climate debate altogether.
 
Meanwhile, the real dishonesty continues. . . .

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]NY Attorney General Defies Judge’s Order in Exxon Case[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest post by David Middleton IN DEFIANCE OF JUDGE’S RULING IN CLIMATE CASE, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY REQUESTS MARCH 12, 2019 | SPENCER WALRATH The New York Attorney General’s Office (OAG) is refusing to comply with ExxonMobil’s discovery requests even after the New York Supreme Court ruled the company could…
[/FONT]
 
“A burning question for most of the world is why, exactly, do climate change deniers deny the so-strongly supported science. For most of us, between the incredible consilience of climate science, the multiply supported consensus of climate scientists, and the visible evidence of warming impacts such as cyclone severity and frequency, wildfires and drought, it’s difficult to understand how someone could remain skeptical. But it comes down to six overlapping elements: confirmation bias, tribal partisanship, ideology, the Dunning-Kruger Effect and conspiracy ideation, all supported by the long-running disinformation campaigns of the fossil fuel industry.”

Climate Change 'Skepticism': 6 Overlapping Drivers | CleanTechnica

Deniers can't even come up with a unified alternative theory. That you on this forum have denier that claim there will be global cooling, deniers that acknowledge global warming but claim it not from human causes. While also deniers that acknowledge manmade global but claim that it’s not from C02.
 
Last edited:
Steve Case said:
You guys have been at it for over 30 years. The claims have been:
Devastating temperature rise, rapidly melting ice and permafrost,
dangerous sea level rise, destructive levels of warming, tipping points,
release of the powerful greenhouse gas methane creating runaway
warming, droughts, floods, extreme hurricanes and tornadoes,
extinct polar bears, crop failure, tropical diseases, crime waves,
climate refugees etc. you get the picture, when is all this going to
begin to happen?

In case you don't get the picture, here's the list* of all the things that
have been reported as caused by Global Warming/Climate change.

* Wayback machine takes a while to load
Click to expand...

I'll let you address your denialism via Google search. But I'm guessing you won't, because you've probably already made up your mind that all the climate science is a hoax.
 
Tim the plumber said:
1, Ah yes, 400 x 10^12 (Giga) x 10^3 (Tonnes to Kg) x 10^3 (Kg to g) x 4.2 x 4. So 67.2 x 10^20. Both took a second try at it.

2, No I don't want you tell me about the warming but the bad thing. Select a place and tell me what bad thing will happen.
Click to expand...

That is the kind of "debating" I've come to expect from the denier side and why I rarely trust them.* Your request is intentionally absurd for several reasons. It would be like asking for a weather forecast for the date exactly thirty years from now. Forecasts for long-term warming cannot possibly predict exactly what will happen in what precise place. But they don't need to. That's not even the point. The point is that the risk of adverse and catastrophic events around the globe will almost surely rise, and many places will get hit. That's what matters, and that's what climate science has been ever clearer about.

* EDIT: See a comment in my next post.
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
1, About 95%.

2, Yes. Let's look at them. Where in the world would you like to start?
Click to expand...

Alright. If you owned property, and you happened to have 95% percent confidence that it would someday catch on fire while you owned said property, wouldn't you want to make sure that your insurance would cover it? In fact, what would be the lowest percentage you would need to say that insurance just wasn't worth covering catastrophic property loss? 90%? 50%? 10%? 2%? See that's what the deniers don't understand. (which, if you're telling the truth here, you actually aren't one of, despite what I said earlier). This is not just about probability. This is about statistically expected outcome. I don't know about you but if there were only a 50/50 chance of human-caused global warming, I'd want our governments to go all-in to stop that warming as if it were a 100% chance. There's too much on the line, both in terms of money and human lives, to do otherwise.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
“

Deniers can't even come up with a unified alternative theory. That you on this forum have denier that claim there will be global cooling, deniers that acknowledge global warming but claim it not from human causes. While also deniers that acknowledge manmade global but claim that it’s not from C02.
Click to expand...


If you understood how science worked, you would understand why there are many hypotheses.
What is known is that the current operating hypothesis, does not accurately predict observations.
AN example is the seasonal and diurnal asymmetry, of the temperature record.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Deniers can't even come up with a unified alternative theory. That you on this forum have denier that claim there will be global cooling, deniers that acknowledge global warming but claim it not from human causes. While also deniers that acknowledge manmade global but claim that it’s not from C02.
Click to expand...

You forgot to include yourself, deniers who deny the empirical record to the point that they find it
necessary to change it every month, and do it in such a manner to fit it to the narrative that they've
been cultivating for the last 30+ years:

image.png



Besides that omission, you didn't include my point of view that whereas CO2 has probably caused
some of the 0.8°C increase in average world temperature anomalies it doesn't represent a problem.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Deniers can't even come up with a unified alternative theory. That you on this forum have denier that claim there will be global cooling, deniers that acknowledge global warming but claim it not from human causes. While also deniers that acknowledge manmade global but claim that it’s not from C02.
Click to expand...

Maybe because we are not deniers.

We see the reality of science. We see that there are several variables improperly accounted for, that would weaken the leftover warming caused by CO2.

There are several variables simply not properly accounted for, and very difficult to quantify. But they are real.

The rate at which aerosols on ice melt it.

The optical depth changes of aerosols.

The indirect forcing of solar changes.

The near 100% absorption of solar energy that penetrates past a few centimeters in the uncapped oceans, which cover 65% of the earth.

Sea level increases by the annual dust levels.

The lag of solar responses in the ocean-atmosphere coupling, which continues for several decades.

The changes in cloud cover from before industrialization to now.

I'm sure I missed a few. GCR's may or may nor be significant.

You guys are fools to accept the dogma laid out, when it is lacking comprehensive research in these areas.
 
Phys251 said:
That is the kind of "debating" I've come to expect from the denier side and why I rarely trust them.* Your request is intentionally absurd for several reasons. It would be like asking for a weather forecast for the date exactly thirty years from now. Forecasts for long-term warming cannot possibly predict exactly what will happen in what precise place. But they don't need to. That's not even the point. The point is that the risk of adverse and catastrophic events around the globe will almost surely rise, and many places will get hit. That's what matters, and that's what climate science has been ever clearer about.

* EDIT: See a comment in my next post.
Click to expand...

I am obviously not wanting such a precise prediction.

If you choose, say, sea level rise, then select a place in the world where this is going to be a problem so we can look at how much of a problem it will be.

You fully understand this.
 
Phys251 said:
Alright. If you owned property, and you happened to have 95% percent confidence that it would someday catch on fire while you owned said property, wouldn't you want to make sure that your insurance would cover it? In fact, what would be the lowest percentage you would need to say that insurance just wasn't worth covering catastrophic property loss? 90%? 50%? 10%? 2%? See that's what the deniers don't understand. (which, if you're telling the truth here, you actually aren't one of, despite what I said earlier). This is not just about probability. This is about statistically expected outcome. I don't know about you but if there were only a 50/50 chance of human-caused global warming, I'd want our governments to go all-in to stop that warming as if it were a 100% chance. There's too much on the line, both in terms of money and human lives, to do otherwise.
Click to expand...

I own a property. There is less than a 1% chance of it catching fire. I still take sensible precautions about fire safety. I do preventative stuff. I don't, for example stack fire wood against the side of the house.

If the precautions against such a fire would cost 20% of the cost of the house per year I would not do them. How much of a problem do you think there is going to be? Select a place and a single problem so we can go through it in a reasonable level of detail.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Ah, I was wondering when the paid climate denialist in chief was going to enter the thread.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Really you know how much money he got last year?

PROVE IT!

What I find hilarious is that people like you making these unsupported irrational statements, make clear they are not here to make a cogent argument on the topic, which means you would have to expend a lot of effort to read up on the subject and enunciate it clearly in writing, with maturity and civility make decent counter points in return.

Nahhh, it is a lot easier to just smear people with childish defamatory crap instead.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Maybe because we are not deniers.

We see the reality of science. We see that there are several variables improperly accounted for, that would weaken the leftover warming caused by CO2.

There are several variables simply not properly accounted for, and very difficult to quantify. But they are real.

The rate at which aerosols on ice melt it.

The optical depth changes of aerosols.

The indirect forcing of solar changes.

The near 100% absorption of solar energy that penetrates past a few centimeters in the uncapped oceans, which cover 65% of the earth.

Sea level increases by the annual dust levels.

The lag of solar responses in the ocean-atmosphere coupling, which continues for several decades.

The changes in cloud cover from before industrialization to now.

I'm sure I missed a few. GCR's may or may nor be significant.

You guys are fools to accept the dogma laid out, when it is lacking comprehensive research in these areas.
Click to expand...

You proved my point. That after decades of trying to come up alternative theories deniers are all over the place. That you just on this forum have deniers that are certain that there will be global cooling. Deniers that are certain that global warming is not from C02. While also deniers like you that are not certain what theories you want to believe it except that you don't want to believe in the urgent need to recude C02 emissions.
 
Even news media owned by the right wing Murdoch media empire publish editorials against climate change denialism

“The public debate on the existence of climate change is over and we are owed an apology from those who prolonged it for self-serving political purposes.

They might acknowledge their disrespect for science, or for driving rejection as a vehicle for “brutal retail politics”.

Voices as varied as the schoolchildren who marched on Friday, the top ranks of Australia’s central bank, and federal department chiefs are warning of the consequences of those changes.”

Climate change: Public debate is over and we are owed an apology[/QUOTE]
 
Bergslagstroll said:
You proved my point. That after decades of trying to come up alternative theories deniers are all over the place. That you just on this forum have deniers that are certain that there will be global cooling. Deniers that are certain that global warming is not from C02. While also deniers like you that are not certain what theories you want to believe it except that you don't want to believe in the urgent need to recude C02 emissions.
Click to expand...

No alternate hypothesis is needed. All the stuff that is real and not accounted for blows apart your beloved hypothesis.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Even news media owned by the right wing Murdoch media empire publish editorials against climate change denialism

“The public debate on the existence of climate change is over and we are owed an apology from those who prolonged it for self-serving political purposes.

They might acknowledge their disrespect for science, or for driving rejection as a vehicle for “brutal retail politics”.

Voices as varied as the schoolchildren who marched on Friday, the top ranks of Australia’s central bank, and federal department chiefs are warning of the consequences of those changes.”

Climate change: Public debate is over and we are owed an apology
Click to expand...


What does that tell you about the intent of indoctrination, when they indoctrinate the children.

Anyone who is OK with that, is no friend of mine.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
You proved my point. That after decades of trying to come up alternative theories deniers are all over the place. That you just on this forum have deniers that are certain that there will be global cooling. Deniers that are certain that global warming is not from C02. While also deniers like you that are not certain what theories you want to believe it except that you don't want to believe in the urgent need to recude C02 emissions.
Click to expand...

No. His post demonstrates a deeper understanding of the subject than you have. That is all.
 
[FONT=&quot]Climate ugliness[/FONT]
[h=1]About the corruption of climate science[/h][FONT=&quot]By Larry Kummer. Summary: Today’s post tells about the corruption of yet another vital American institution – climate science. See how RCP8.5, a valuable worst-case scenario, has been misrepresented to incite fear in the American public. This is a large change for me, but this outrage has gone on too long to excuse or ignore.…
[/FONT]
 
Lord of Planar said:
Maybe because we are not deniers.
Click to expand...

We call you deniers because it's exactly what you are.

Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/17/about-the-corruption-of-climate-science/"]
Climate-fears-dreamstime_9523824-220x126.jpg
[/URL]Climate ugliness[/FONT]
[h=1]About the corruption of climate science[/h][FONT="]By Larry Kummer. Summary: Today’s post tells about the corruption of yet another vital American institution – climate science. See how RCP8.5, a valuable worst-case scenario, has been misrepresented to incite fear in the American public. This is a large change for me, but this outrage has gone on too long to excuse or ignore.…
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Another link.

Another 50 cents in Jack Hays pocket.
 
Jetboogieman said:
We call you deniers because it's exactly what you are.



Another link.

Another 50 cents in Jack Hays pocket.
Click to expand...

Tell about the math that allows the level of CO2 to increase from the current 410 ppm to 1370 ppm in 81 years.
The current rate of growth of CO2 emissions is less than 3 ppm per year, which would place CO2 levels at 81*3 +410= 653 ppm about 2100.
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
Even doubling the rate of emission to 6 ppm per year would only produce a level of 896 ppm by 2100.
To get to 1370 ppm by year 2100, would require a massive new infrastructure to find, extract and burn hydrocarbon fuels.
I suspect that long before that happens, the limited supplies would force the price of fuels from hydrocarbons higher than
the cost to make our own fuels from scratch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom