Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[!Kaggen]

You could start by learning to use the quote function so we can see what you are about.



It's just a compendium of nonsense from a dug in denier.

Are you sure you want to bother??

It's a rant with no focus. There are better things to spend your time on,



One obvious error...the IPCC does not do research



He's trying to put his denialism on a equal basis of the concensus without presenting any evidence.....sounds like a clip from Fox News.



Tell him the evidence proves him wrong and move on.

You could ask him why Exxon now acknowledges climate change as a serious risk.







and ask him to explain this ...since he is under the mistaken impression the globe as not continued to warm



[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-qVJmzQUsUmY/UslmNaaIIsI/AAAAAAAADiM/Gia5kYvJr-8/s566/heat_content2000m.png[/qimg]



and what is causing the increase in ocean heat.



[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ZCHz1c8hRTk/UsloSbBUNSI/AAAAAAAADi8/G-qm4-Vzjv8/s720/Total_Heat_Content_1024.jpg[/qimg]



make him explain the increase in terms of science.



If he dodges....move on. He's just a misguided troll.

The quote was his response to the article about Exxon!!!

Thanks for the graphs.

 

[Trakar]

How do I respond to this???

"Scientific consensus does not make it right, neither does it validate poor scientific models. The scientific method was poorly applied to the research done by IPCC. They neglected the hypotheses: anthropogenic CO2 is the driver of global warming. Nowhere did their research disprove the nulhypothesis. Just like big industry grants to research against create concerns about the validity and intent of the findings, so should big governments' funding of research be viewed with skepticism. There once was consensus that the world is flat, that did not make right, nor did it change the fact that people died for speaking out against ii.

Since the current über IPCC climate models are wrong, how could I take their findings seriously? Climate is supposed to change. That is what has happened since the planet's beginning. I believe that humans are not driving the change as much as some people are saying. We can hardly predict tomorrow's weather, why are we so self centered to believe that we will influence the climate by stopping development? I feel about the IPCC report the way you feel about the "denialists" reports. There is nothing wrong with that, it is just that we must first consider all the different sides of this polyhedron before switching off fossil power."

You resign yourself to the fact that this individual is an zealous ideologue and that nothing you can say is going to make him turn off the rhetoric and turn on the intelligence to actually consider anything you are going to say to him. His mind is made up, and he isn't interested in any research or further consideration upon the issue.

Eventually, experience may open his mind to revisiting the subject but there is little to nothing that you can do to force that change. The best move is to let it go and back off, you are unlikely to make any headway against the barriers he's already erected to any and all challenges to his beliefs.

 

[riptor]

How do I respond to this???

"Scientific consensus does not make it right, neither does it validate poor scientific models. The scientific method was poorly applied to the research done by IPCC. They neglected the hypotheses: anthropogenic CO2 is the driver of global warming. Nowhere did their research disprove the nulhypothesis. Just like big industry grants to research against create concerns about the validity and intent of the findings, so should big governments' funding of research be viewed with skepticism. There once was consensus that the world is flat, that did not make right, nor did it change the fact that people died for speaking out against ii.

Since the current über IPCC climate models are wrong, how could I take their findings seriously? Climate is supposed to change. That is what has happened since the planet's beginning. I believe that humans are not driving the change as much as some people are saying. We can hardly predict tomorrow's weather, why are we so self centered to believe that we will influence the climate by stopping development? I feel about the IPCC report the way you feel about the "denialists" reports. There is nothing wrong with that, it is just that we must first consider all the different sides of this polyhedron before switching off fossil power."

I asked a similar question last week in this thread. Check out page 95 post #3774. Maybe some of the responses I got can help you also. I've heard the claim too that since the government funds scientific research, the research must be tainted. This line usually comes from hard core libertarians or anarchists in my experience. Often, these people will have no problem with areas of research that don't conflict with their ideological beliefs, so maybe you could point out to him that a good deal of research receives some form of government funding.

Also, there was never a consensus the world was flat. The spherical shape of the earth has been known about since classical times, long before the modern scientific revolution began. And if anyone was put to death for saying the earth wasn't flat, I would be curious to learn about this.

Your friend seems to be confusing weather and climate. Climate is long term trends, just because the weatherman on the local news might wrongly predict if it will rain tomorrow or not doesn't disprove the long term trend that overall the globe is warming.

As the other posters said, it is unlikely this individual cares about learning something new about the subject. It's depressing, but unfortunately most "skeptics" on the issue have their mind made up already.

 

[Trakar]

...As the other posters said, it is unlikely this individual cares about learning something new about the subject. It's depressing, but unfortunately most "skeptics" on the issue have their mind made up already.

Actually, almost all the actual skeptics regarding global warming are climate scientists who support AGW.

Skeptic - "...The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion...The scientific method is central to skepticism. The scientific method requires evidence, preferably derived from validated testing. Anecdotal evidence and personal testimonies generally don't meet the qualifications for scientific evidence, and thus won't often be accepted by a responsible skeptic; which often explains why skeptics get such a bad rap for being negative or disbelieving people. They're simply following the scientific method..."
https://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php

 

[Perpetual Student]

Is anyone familiar with these people?
LINK

Climate Change Mythology Questioned By American Physical Society
...
At the risk of being accused of embracing what alarmists call the flat-earth view of climate change, the American Physical Society has appointed a balanced, six-person committee to review its stance on so-called climate change that includes three distinguished skeptics: Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen. Their credentials are impressive.

Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and was a lead author of the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Curry is a professor and chairwoman of the School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Lindzen, an Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT from 1983 to 2013, is currently a distinguished senior fellow in the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.
...

 

[uke2se]

Is anyone familiar with these people?
LINK

Yep. Three deniers who haven't published anything significant in a significant journal for a long time. Basically, kooks.

 

[a_unique_person]

Is anyone familiar with these people?
LINK

I was talking to a scientist who works on computer models recently. I asked him about the difference in the CSIRO models, as reported in the AR4. They all have a similar long term 'sensitivity', but one take longer to get there than the ones that predict more rapid warming. His response was that the slower one is turning out to be more accurate in the rate, but for the wrong reasons. The models difference was in the rate at which heat is absorbed into the oceans, reliable information about this has only started to become available recently. The more correct model worked on the idea that heart went down to the deep ocean more rapidly. IIRC, ARGO is showing it goes down into the middle depths more quickly than was anticipated.

The deniers are now concentrating on the models as being wrong, when the fact is that they are being continually developed as more understanding of the oceans is gained through research. The graph from MacDoc shows the problem quite clearly, the energy is arriving as expected, the hard part is predicting how much of that goes into that relatively tiny part of the climate system we are most interested in and have the most experience measuring.

The deniers have a lot of form 'rigging' procedures and committees. The terms of reference for this panel are clear evidence of some tricky behind the scenes politics, since they are asking questions that are loaded and designed to poison the well.

 

[macdoc]

Kooks paid by Koch et al to sow confusion.

Always check with desmog before giving their crap any exposure..as you have

Lindzen has published work with the conservative think-tank, the Cato Institute, a think tank that has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan notes that Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services.

read more

http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen

If you have not seen it ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5GVHqlnPAc

This will give you an insight into the scale of the disinformation campaign

••

Curry is a professor and chairwoman of the School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Curry unfortunately has some credentials and her colleagues are dismayed by her feeding the denier trolls.

SHe IS paid by the fossil fuel industry....draw your own conclusions...

Curry has been criticized by climate scientists for her climate outreach in the blogosphere based on assertions not necessarily supported by the evidence: particularly that the “climate always changes.” [6] Scientist Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, points out that “Climate doesn't change all by itself for no good reason. Something has to force it.” [6]
When she was questioned about potential conflicts of interest, this was her response to the Scientific American: [2]

“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007.

During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements

http://desmogblog.com/judith-curry

SHe does not deny the warming by C02 so you can throw that at any C02 impact denier.

“If all other things remain equal, it is clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet.

She claims we don't understand enough about natural variations - THAT is a total crock....it's just moving heat around in the box.

However the real difficulty is that nothing remains equal, and reliable prediction of the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate requires that we understand natural climate variability properly. Until we understand natural climate variability better, we cannot reliably infer sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing or understand its role in influencing extreme weather events. […] While 20th century climate change is most often explained in terms of external forcing, with natural internal variability providing high frequency ‘noise,’ the role of large multidecadal oscillations is receiving increasing attention.” [4]

this is just squirming ....trying to please her oil masters without entirely abandoning her science.

Sell out for certain. The other two are just cranks.

 

[CapelDodger]

I certainly did not suggest they were stupid.

When you imputed farmers with a stupid opinion you did just that.

Oh geddoutofit. What planet are you on?

The warming one, third from the Sun, where the Daily Mail et al will jump on any opportunity to lambast the Environment Agency, which they regard as a nest of leftie greens who hate farmers and love vermin (or "wildlife" as townies like to call it ).

The wettest Somerset winter on record is what flooded the Levels, and no amount of dredging would have prevented that. In your location on the South Coast much of the weather involved must have gone straight over your head.

 

[CapelDodger]

Is anyone familiar with these people?

There's some stuff on HotWHopper http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/anthony-watts-arrives-late-at-aps.html about this.

Also on Eli's http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/like-lambs-to-slaughter.html

Lindzen, Christy and Curry are amongst the half-dozen or so scientists favoured by US Republicans in Congress, which says much about them. Lindzen and Christy have been saying the same things for twenty-five years, Curry's been repeating herself only for six or seven.

Christy, and his long-term partner Spencer (who's kinda lost it recently), don't believe that their god would let AGW be bad; their analysis starts from there and works back. Lindzen likes to smoke so doesn't believe it can harm him (that's all junk science, naturally). Curry is besotted with the limelight and the oily charm of Steve McIntyre.

This is what they've got. And Monckton as the public face of denial. What a shambles.

 

[CapelDodger]

The deniers are now concentrating on the models as being wrong, when the fact is that they are being continually developed ...

They're still fixated on the first model, Hansen et al's, just as they are on the first temperature reconstruction, Mann et al's. They are oblivious to the passage of time and associated events, apart from the occasional squirrel.

Lindzen's still pretending that cloud feedback will kick in soon, just as it was going to kick in soon twenty-five years ago. Spencer and Christy still trust in the supernatural and yet another re-tuning of the UAH code to keep a lid on things. Curry waffles about stadium waves and projected FUD. It's just nonsense.

 

[CapelDodger]

this is just squirming ...

It is desperate. Curry ignores the fact that we can put very definite bounds on all sources of natural variability, and even at the most generous they preclude natural variability as an explanation of what's happened and is happening. And, as Curry well knows, will keep happening.

Curry insists on more detail. That's something she can do forever, of course, even as the world crisps up around her. She also leaves hanging the possibility of an unknown natural forcing which is pumping energy into the climate at an inopportune moment. That will never die either. And Curry is what passes for new blood in the denier movement.

It would be funny if it wasn't hilarious.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Thanks for the responses.

 

[Trakar]

Is anyone familiar with these people?
LINK

I have no problem with these individuals making up one half of the APS climate statement review panel. It is one thing for them to say whatever they feel like in blogs and the popular press, it will be very interesting to see what they say in the auspices of their official and professional opinion of the particulars of what climate science indicates about the current episode of global warming. Whichever way their personal considerations go, they will have to take and defend, among their peers, some very clear cut and specific positions.

This isn't the APS capitulating to denier pressure, this is the APS forcing these who claim scientific authority to make their case where it can be evaluated and judged by their peers.


http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-bios.pdf

 

[Venom]

Sorry if this is a bit off topic but does anyone know what happened to the Global Warming denier Diamond who used to debate in this forum?

And has he since changed his views?

 

[macdoc]

Never heard of him and have been here a good while tho I did take a year off in disgust.
No one named Diamond comes up in a thread search of this thread.

 

[Venom]

Granted, it was several years ago when I was just a kid and lurked in JREF occasionally.

But I'm not sure how much more progress has been made in the current research in a couple years.

 

[a_unique_person]

It is desperate. Curry ignores the fact that we can put very definite bounds on all sources of natural variability, and even at the most generous they preclude natural variability as an explanation of what's happened and is happening. And, as Curry well knows, will keep happening.

Curry insists on more detail. That's something she can do forever, of course, even as the world crisps up around her. She also leaves hanging the possibility of an unknown natural forcing which is pumping energy into the climate at an inopportune moment. That will never die either. And Curry is what passes for new blood in the denier movement.

It would be funny if it wasn't hilarious.

They also insisted on no appeals to authority, it must all be evidence based. Curry then talks and makes up ****. Their response is "Do tell us more".

 

[Trakar]

Sorry if this is a bit off topic but does anyone know what happened to the Global Warming denier Diamond who used to debate in this forum?

And has he since changed his views?

Are you sure it was "Diamond?" Any peculiarities that would identify him more clearly?

 

[a_unique_person]

Are you sure it was "Diamond?" Any peculiarities that would identify him more clearly?

Long gone. He had a particular hatred for wind farms.