• 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!

Deniers, explained.

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
63,352
Reaction score
28,653
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
86e5a3fff77dc71f1f6d60e51139a093.jpg



Nuff said.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]NY Times Fakes a Climate Change Debate[/h][FONT=&quot]In an exhibition of astounding audacity, the New York Times’ Editor of the Climate Desk, Hannah Fairfield, stages what is billed as a “debate” about moving forward with solutions to climate change.
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Better (publishing) background checks: A way toward greater integrity in science

[FONT=&quot]Science represents perhaps the single greatest accomplishment of humankind. Of all human institutions, organisations and establishments, science has proven an effective tool for driving progress. It is inherently self-correcting, and tolerates — and even demands — skepticism, challenge and self-critique. Few human institutions can make a similar claim.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However, there is increasing recognition and concern that current research incentives are perverse, and promote behaviors that undermine the very foundations of science. Under the guise of altruism and independence, the self-serving, self-promoting nature of academic science today is typically neither declared nor acknowledged. The dispassionate, objective analysis and presentation of data is frequently lost, as results are seen as personal (“my data”) and subservient to a personal or political agenda. As a consequence, scientists are losing their authority to speak, genuine experts are often disparaged and ignored, and our society is diminished.[/FONT]
Continue reading Better (publishing) background checks: A way toward greater integrity in science
 
However, there is increasing recognition and concern that current research incentives are perverse, and promote behaviors that undermine the very foundations of science. Under the guise of altruism and independence, the self-serving, self-promoting nature of academic science today is typically neither declared nor acknowledged. The dispassionate, objective analysis and presentation of data is frequently lost, as results are seen as personal (“my data”) and subservient to a personal or political agenda. As a consequence, scientists are losing their authority to speak, genuine experts are often disparaged and ignored, and our society is diminished.[/FONT][/COLOR]
Continue reading Better (publishing) background checks: A way toward greater integrity in science

First of all, what is your proof that climate scientists are covering up the truth? Secondly, have you taken into account that fossil fuel companies have the incentive to deny climate change? Thirdly, do you not realize that oil companies can pay these scientists more than what they're already making?
 
First of all, what is your proof that climate scientists are covering up the truth? Secondly, have you taken into account that fossil fuel companies have the incentive to deny climate change? Thirdly, do you not realize that oil companies can pay these scientists more than what they're already making?

1. The article in question is about science in general, not merely climate science, and was posted at Retraction Watch, a wholly laudable organization to promote research (and retraction) transparency.
2. Fossil fuel companies are irrelevant to this discussion.
3. It's not about personal wealth.


Retraction Watch - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Retraction_Watch
wzhDIC9UYsU1MAAAAASUVORK5CYII=





Retraction Watch is a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers and on related topics. The blog was launched in August 2010 and is produced by ...
 
Willie Soon takes the BBC to the woodshed.

[FONT=&quot]Climate ugliness[/FONT]
[h=1]BBC Asks Dr. Willie Soon to Respond to Climate Conspiracy Claims[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Eric Worrall The BBC has belatedly decided they need at least a little input from one of the targets of their latest big oil climate conspiracy propaganda piece. Dr. Willie Soon does not hold back in his response. Note some of the links take you to a “You are leaving the mail.com…
[/FONT]
 
First of all, what is your proof that climate scientists are covering up the truth? Secondly, have you taken into account that fossil fuel companies have the incentive to deny climate change? Thirdly, do you not realize that oil companies can pay these scientists more than what they're already making?
You say the Oil companies have an incentive to deny climate change, (I am sure you mean Human caused climate change, but they are not the same thing.),
yet what is their incentive? Do you think people will use less finished fuel products if AGW is real?
AGW is very real, but also of no concern! But how can both ideas in my statement be correct?
The stated range of predicted warming from doubling the CO2 level, has been 1.5 to 4.5 C for the last 40 years.
If the ECS for 2XCO2 is between 1.5 and 2 C, as many studies have found, then CO2 emissions are not of much concern.
Back to the oil companies for a second, they do not sell oil, they sell dense energy containers known as finished fuels products.
We know the products as gallons of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.
They have vast infrastructure for the refining and distribution of these products.
But there is no requirement, that these finished fuel products be made from oil, that simply happens to be the most
profitable feedstock at the moment. There are other choices that can make and distribute carbon neutral fuel, with the same
infrastructure.
Nrl receives patent for carbon capture device—a key step in synthetic fuel production from seawater
New catalyst paves way for carbon neutral fuel
If Humanity is to move forward in a sustainable fashion, we will need some form of energy storage
as dense as what we get from oil.
 
You say the Oil companies have an incentive to deny climate change, (I am sure you mean Human caused climate change, but they are not the same thing.),
yet what is their incentive? Do you think people will use less finished fuel products if AGW is real?
AGW is very real, but also of no concern! But how can both ideas in my statement be correct?
The stated range of predicted warming from doubling the CO2 level, has been 1.5 to 4.5 C for the last 40 years.
If the ECS for 2XCO2 is between 1.5 and 2 C, as many studies have found, then CO2 emissions are not of much concern.
Back to the oil companies for a second, they do not sell oil, they sell dense energy containers known as finished fuels products.
We know the products as gallons of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.
They have vast infrastructure for the refining and distribution of these products.
But there is no requirement, that these finished fuel products be made from oil, that simply happens to be the most
profitable feedstock at the moment. There are other choices that can make and distribute carbon neutral fuel, with the same
infrastructure.
Nrl receives patent for carbon capture device—a key step in synthetic fuel production from seawater
New catalyst paves way for carbon neutral fuel

Right, I did mean human caused climate change. Their incentive is to deny it so that people don't turn towards alternative energy.
If Humanity is to move forward in a sustainable fashion, we will need some form of energy storage
as dense as what we get from oil.

Wind and solar are growing on exponential growth curves, so they seem to be fine sources of energy. If energy density is what you're concerned about, nuclear power is even better than fossil fuels.
 
not a good representation
 
if i remember there was a similar spike in the 18th century
 
There is nothing whatsoever that is wrong with current global temperatures which are well within the normal natural variations of recent millennia in both their level and rate of change as the ice core data from both ice poles attests

Ice Cores

All the rest is just anarchist propaganda for the gullible and feeble minded
 
Right, I did mean human caused climate change. Their incentive is to deny it so that people don't turn towards alternative energy.


Wind and solar are growing on exponential growth curves, so they seem to be fine sources of energy. If energy density is what you're concerned about, nuclear power is even better than fossil fuels.
Solar is fine, wind has some technical issues, but neither match the duty cycle of our actual electricity demand.
(I like the AC and TV and lights at night).
With proper energy storage Solar could provide 100% of Human needs, but existing batteries are not up to the task.
Nuclear is great, but we need the high density energy in a portable package, like jet fuel.
The only energy storage device that is up to the task is hydrocarbons. and the only people with most of the infrastructure
to store electricity as hydrocarbons, are the oil companies.
They already have the refineries with the cracking units, as well as massive grid connections for co generation.
The oil companies also have a massive distribution network for finished fuel products.
The man made fuel could be carbon neutral, because it could be made with CO2 extracted from the atmosphere, or other emission sources.
The bottom line is that a push towards stopping oil as a energy source, would likely enrich the oil companies.
 
Nuff said.

A truly great book.

Jack Hays is the prime example of the OP ... Here is a small sampling of his push and predictions for cooling ...

2013

Their Figure [...] predicted cooling of Northern Hemisphere temperatures through 2027.

2016

New NOAA forecast suggests current El Niño will fade fast, and be replaced by a strong cooling La Niña this year ... If it holds, it suggests a big cooling event ahead.

A year ago a different paper predicted colder times were coming to the North Atlantic due to natural cycles.

The cooling is consistent with diminished solar activity.

Both Pacific and Atlantic ocean cycles have now entered into the multi-decadal cooling mode. Furthermore, also solar activity is expected to enter a major minimum phase. For the upcoming two decades it is therefore expected that natural climate drivers will contribute cooling to the climate system which may not be fully compensated by anthropogenic warming related to greenhouse gases

2017

Big Chill: ‘Substantial Cooling’ Predicted Within The Next Few Years ... Solar physicist sees global cooling ahead

There goes that scare: Antarctic Peninsula cooling by almost 1 degree

In the second half of the 20th century, the Antarctic Peninsula experienced rapid temperature increases, warming by about half a degree per decade. Nobody mention that in the last 20 years the Antarctic Peninsula cooled by almost 1 degree.

2018

2017 was cooler than 2016, and 2018 will be cooler still. It is already cooler than 1998. Thus, no warming 1998-2018. No end to the cooling yet in sight.

The Pause lasted from 1998 to 2015. That's simply a fact. After an El Niño induced peak in 2016, temperatures have been falling since then. With the sun approaching minimum, cooling is likely to continue.

The reason to ignore the trend is because, with the sun approaching minimum, I believe the historic shift from warming to cooling is happening right now.
 
2016>2017>2018<El Nino 2019>2020.

So, just to be clear, according to you, we should ignore the inconvenient 2019... but 2020 should be less than 2018 to continue the cooling, right?
 
Climate deniers share psychological traits with other conspiracy theorists.

"Likewise, conspiracy theories can give their believers a sense of control and security. This is especially true when the alternative account feels threatening. For example, if global temperatures are rising catastrophically due to human activity, then I’ll have to make painful changes to my comfortable lifestyle. But if pundits and politicians assure me that global warming is a hoax, then I can maintain my current way of living. This kind of motivated reasoning is an important component in conspiracy theory beliefs...

Furthermore, his research into conspiracy theories has given him a sense that he is the holder of privileged knowledge. Most people who believe global warming is real or that vaccines are safe don’t do so because they understand the science. Rather, they trust the experts. And so, when Uncle Joe starts trotting out all the “evidence” against global warming, it can be difficult to make a reasonable counterargument. All you’ve got is the feeling that the conspiracy theory seems too complicated to be true, but from Uncle Joe’s perspective, it’s clear he knows more about the subject than you do."


Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories? | Psychology Today
 
So, just to be clear, according to you, we should ignore the inconvenient 2019... but 2020 should be less than 2018 to continue the cooling, right?

I have said from the beginning that the occasional El Nino could pause the cooling. That is what happened in 2019. 2020 will end by being cooler than 2019, thus reinitiating the cooling trend.
 
I have said from the beginning that the occasional El Nino could pause the cooling. That is what happened in 2019. 2020 will end by being cooler than 2019, thus reinitiating the cooling trend.

No no no, if you excuse 2019, to "reinstate" cooling trend you have to have 2020 cooler than 2018. Is 2020 going to be cooler than 2018? If not, then, your trend is broken.
 
Back
Top Bottom