Climate deniers - Who are they? What do they believe
- Thread starter fogpipe
- Start date
I'd say journalists are a little to blame for climate change skepticism. Journalists were responsible for the "we are entering a new ice age!" meme in the 1970's - and they are responsible for a lot of the hype on climate change today.
When you read the actual research being done, in the peer-reviewed journals, they are pretty boring. Forcing coefficients, total oceanic heat storage, net albedo changes. But that doesn't sell papers so a journalist gets their hands on it and says "AGW to destroy coastal cities within a lifetime." (Or "climate change DEBUNKED by new study!") THOSE headlines sell papers.
Well, right - those predictions go out to 2100.
No. They weren't predicting doom, just warming and sea level rise*. And they gave several scenarios each with an error range - what happens if we emit as much CO2 as we can? What happens if we cut back with a fairly aggressive reduction program?
(* - Journalists, of course, were predicting TEOTWAWKI.)
Nothing. They are both entirely political creatures.
I've heard better jokes.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
In my opinion you've been one of the stronger voices on behalf of agw. You've stuck more to the science and generally avoided political insults. Not entirely though.
If everyone stuck to arguing the science, I'd have a lot less reason to doubt what they're saying. As things stand, when scientific arguments that I'm in no position to fully evaluate and must therefore ultimately accept on faith are accompanied by crude and sophomoric political invective, I start to wonder whether the scientific arguments are really as good as they might initially seem. In my experience, thoughtfulness and objectivity don't turn on and off that easily. If they are lacking in one area of a person's thinking, they might be lacking in other areas as well.
Childishly divisive and emotionally provocative rhetoric is self-defeating in what basically seems to be an argument from authority.
And I'm not going to apologize for being irritated by all the ad-hominem argument, political partisanship, conspiracy theories, reduction of opponents to caricatures, and rank intolerance of dissenting opinion that's so visible in threads like this one.
Reading the more over-the-top stuff reminds me of the Spanish inquisition or what I imagine ISIS' websites look like. Infidel! Heretic! Denier!
Last edited:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
yeh, me too
Here is a balanced article, with three papers from the Hadley Met Office in the UK.
It is entitled "The recent pause in warming".
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
It is entitled "The recent pause in warming".
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
Well, all that is good and well, but refusal to acknowledge evidence and reason, and then claim it doesn't exist betrays the mantel of reason you are trying to bear. Skepticism is one thing, but refusal to acknowledge evidence and reason is quite another.
The evidence of global warming is overwhelming. Why do virtually ALL independent academics and virtually all governments, including the US, recognize climate change as real and a significant threat to mankind. Even the US military recognizes the legitimacy of global climate change and is planning accordingly.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-23/the-military-takes-on-climate-change-deniers
http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/pentagon-study-climate-change.html
If you look like a duck, squawk like a duck, walk like a duck and smell like a duck, you shouldn’t be surprised when people think you are a duck and call you a duck. Two, you should take a look at yourself before complaining about others. You have done more than your fair share. Calling people childish for that terrible crime of recognizing fact and reason really isn't that reasonable.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
There seems to be little difference between the more hyperbolic global-warming alarmists and their more intransigent ideological opponents. That's basically a political as opposed to a scientific battle and I don't have a great deal of respect for it.
But it's also possible to believe that agw is really happening and really is dangerous, or alternatively that perhaps it's being overinflated, for better and more intelligent reasons. That doesn't mean that both sides are right. It's entirely possible for one side to be wrong for entirely innocent reasons. In most scientific controversies that's simply assumed. It isn't automatically believed that if somebody disagrees, that he or she must therefore be evil.
I'll take that,
I wasn't claiming to be perfect, remember? And unlike some posters, I don't reach straight for political name calling, I try and educate first but eventually even I'm going to start calling a spade a spade. My tolerance of the political BS is not unlimited.
On the other hand, political talking points and jouralistic soundbytes will always be political talking points and journalistic soundbytes. I don't need to rely on left leaning blogs to make my points, I prefer instead to rely on science. Criticising others for, or suggesting political motivation on their behalf does not even remotely imply political motivation on my own.
Judge the evidence and the science on its on merits, not the failings of my temperment.
If people stopped thorwing political BS at me I wouldn't have to call it out for what it is. Were you aware that there are posters on this forum who genuinely think that the hypothesis of anthropogenic warming is literally hubris because god created the earth and therefore nothing we can possibly do will affect it - or alternatively that if it brings about the end times then so be it, clearly that's gods will.
See - my initial response to this is to be sarcastic, because to be frank I find it mildly insulting. You're judging my scientific objectivity on the basis of my ability to withstand a barrage of, what I consider to be politically motivated, fallacious arguments and to be frank, at times outright lies.
New flash. I'm not buddha - I might strive towards Buddha-like objectivity but I will fall short.
I actually agree with you here.
This is the second time you've made this comment and frankly it's not endearing to me. The only thing you're doing here is further politicising the word denier. You're sitting here being highly critical of others regarding the political mucky-muck but here you are diving into it with both feet.
I've lost count of how many times I've been called a religious acolyte by folks for presenting science based arguments as to why recent climate change is almost certainly real and caused by human activities superimposed ontop of natural cycles.
To most of the rest of the world a '[anthorpogenic] climate change denier' is simply someone who 'says [anthorpogenic] climate change is not true', because that is what the word denier means according to the dictionary. It is a perfectly accurate description of a position. The term has been politicised because of paralels drawn with holocaust denial in the american political rhetoric - or so an american once explained to me, which is a pity really. I point blank refuse to use the term climate change skeptic, except in a few limited cases, because I do not believe that someone who claims that anthropogenic climate change is hubris because of the contents of their holy book.
The scientific position is that excess heat is being stored in the oceans,
which has delayed the effects of climate change on the weather.
Obviously, the oceans can only store so much.
Are there any scientific papers predicting how long this apparent climate change pause,
which has resulted in largely unchanged weather over the past fifteen years, will continue?
which has delayed the effects of climate change on the weather.
Obviously, the oceans can only store so much.
Are there any scientific papers predicting how long this apparent climate change pause,
which has resulted in largely unchanged weather over the past fifteen years, will continue?
Last edited:
Unchanged weather in the last fifteen years Cap ?
I'm missing something here ...Cap
Fill me in
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Carefully stored there by the magical agw heat fairies.
Did you read the papers you were linked to, just a few posts above your one? No?
To be more exact, lack of surface warming rather than unchanged weather.
The weather changes all the time, I accept that, but on average the weather has not changed much.
From the source I quoted earlier:
Such an honest approach will help to restore lost confidence in the truth of AGW among non-scientists.
The weather changes all the time, I accept that, but on average the weather has not changed much.
From the source I quoted earlier:
Such an honest approach will help to restore lost confidence in the truth of AGW among non-scientists.
No, it's the Second law of Thermodynamics fairies.
Heat travels from heat to cold.
And also the First Law of Thermodynamics fairies.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
If more heat is coming in than goes out, it is being stored somewhere.
Last edited:
And those are the best kind of fairies.