For Climate Deniers: Climate Change Possible?

[Morality Games]

Starting a thread is easy, so why not. Can you answer one or both of these questions?

(1) is it theoretically possible for human action to spur climate change on a global scale over any period of time? (or even on a local scale)

(2) under what conditions would it be possible?

My theory is that the denier argument is powered by the perception that human-contributed to Climate Change is metaphysically possible, as in, there is no possible way in our universe that human beings can cause climate change on this planet, under any circumstances. It is with that perception deniers feel comfortable dismissing any evidence that suggests human caused climate change at a glance, regardless of scientific, institutional, or logical merit.

I want to test the limits of this theory and see how far it goes.

 

[flogger]

Rather than engaging in another alarmist flamebait thread and just out of personal curiosity what is a 'climate denier' pray tell ?

 

[Morality Games]

Rather than engaging in another alarmist flamebait thread and just out of personal curiosity what is a 'climate denier' pray tell ?

I'll bite your bait, if you bite mine.

 

[iguanaman]

Starting a thread is easy, so why not. Can you answer one or both of these questions?

(1) is it theoretically possible for human action to spur climate change on a global scale over any period of time? (or even on a local scale)

(2) under what conditions would it be possible?

My theory is that the denier argument is powered by the perception that human-contributed to Climate Change is metaphysically possible, as in, there is no possible way in our universe that human beings can cause climate change on this planet. It is with that perception deniers feel comfortable dismissing any evidence that suggests human caused climate change at a glance, regardless of circumstances.

I want to test the limits of this theory and see how far it goes.

Well the Chairman of the House Science Commitee, Ralph Hall (R-Texas) put it like this...... “I don’t think we can control what God controls.”
I think that sums it up for most deniers.

 

[Morality Games]

Well the Chairman of the House Science Commitee, Ralph Hall (R-Texas) put it like this...... “I don’t think we can control what God controls.”
I think that sums it up for most deniers.

I'm not convinced that religion spurs denial, although it might make some people feel more comfortable with it.

 

[iguanaman]

I'm not convinced that religion spurs denial, although it might make some people feel more comfortable with it.

The more evidence that piles up on the side of human induced warming the more I hear this foolishness. It's apparently the "last resort".
If they are correct then why do we bother putting out fires, treating disease or feeding the hungry?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

As a "denier" I don't deny man may have some effect on the weather, we put alot of crap into the air and the possibility that it effects the weather in some way is real. My opinion on this though is that we are just one small gear in a huge cog of things that effect the weather and whatever small impact we may have is going to be overwhelmed by other factors. We may indeed tweak the weather a bit but in the scheme of things we are insignificant. The real deniers IMO are people so obsessed with AGW that they can't see the big picture and deny that there are many other weather effecting events some of which we are aware of and some we probably have no idea even exist.

 

[DaveFagan]

We put a lot of "heat" into the air. That will cause a temperature increase.

We put a lot of C02 into the air and the Greenhouse scenarios will follow as proven in the 1800s.

Huge areas of ice sheets disappear and increase heat from solar absorption.

I dunno, but numbers people can translate these three activities to specific temp increases.

The world is 8000 miles in diameter with a life supporting envelope of atmosphere only about 4 miles thick. That'd be about 20,000 feet thick in breatheable air. Just try to wrap your head around the fact that it perhaps a tenuous existence. The Lord will look after those that look after themselves. Screw a bunch of polluters.

 

[Paul Austin]

As a "denier" I don't deny man may have some effect on the weather, we put alot of crap into the air and the possibility that it effects the weather in some way is real. My opinion on this though is that we are just one small gear in a huge cog of things that effect the weather and whatever small impact we may have is going to be overwhelmed by other factors. We may indeed tweak the weather a bit but in the scheme of things we are insignificant. The real deniers IMO are people so obsessed with AGW that they can't see the big picture and deny that there are many other weather effecting events some of which we are aware of and some we probably have no idea even exist.

I tend to find its about degrees. I have friends branded "deniers" & others who are "experts" & they tend to agree on most things apart from what exact percentage man should take responsability for.

The "denier" argument appears a bit of a red herring to me. It seems that a lot of strawmen have been built using the "denier" label. I mean why argue over a percentage when an opponent can be ridiculed and branded "denier" instead, especially when the attack is published next to a quote from the village idiot, but presented as a universal belief of "deniers"?

I think the right answer is more research & less silly name calling, that way we'll find the real figures & be able to make the right response.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I tend to find its about degrees. I have friends branded "deniers" & others who are "experts" & they tend to agree on most things apart from what exact percentage man should take responsability for.

The "denier" argument appears a bit of a red herring to me. It seems that a lot of strawmen have been built using the "denier" label. I mean why argue over a percentage when an opponent can be ridiculed and branded "denier" instead, especially when the attack is published next to a quote from the village idiot, but presented as a universal belief of "deniers"?

I think the right answer is more research & less silly name calling, that way we'll find the real figures & be able to make the right response.

I could not agree more, far easier to ridicule those that don't agree with you than it is to have a rational conversation.

 

[wolfman24]

As a "denier" I don't deny man may have some effect on the weather, we put alot of crap into the air and the possibility that it effects the weather in some way is real. My opinion on this though is that we are just one small gear in a huge cog of things that effect the weather and whatever small impact we may have is going to be overwhelmed by other factors. We may indeed tweak the weather a bit but in the scheme of things we are insignificant. The real deniers IMO are people so obsessed with AGW that they can't see the big picture and deny that there are many other weather effecting events some of which we are aware of and some we probably have no idea even exist.

The only flaw in your assertion as to minimal effect is that the earth is a closed system. So the effect of world wide pollution over the course of over 100 years (only using the industrial revolution) and the types of chemicals that are being put up there in the volunes they are being put up there is not minimal.

This is probably a stupid example but its the only one I can think of thats easily done. Again I said stupid but hopefully it will give you an idea of the system.

Take a large glass bottle, securely cap it so nothing that goes in can come out. Put a tube with a durable stopcock on it through the middle of the cap to insure the integrity of the seal. (heres where i may loose you). Then every hour inject a small amount of dense smoke or vapor into the bottle. Do this for about 8 hours. If the experiment worked properly after the time is up the bottles inside should be clouded. If you worked in a large university you could do a more "elegant" form of this experiment that better represented what is going on, but few of us have that luxury.

Now you can point out that the earth is not a bottle and that there are more forces at work than whats in the bottle. And you would be right. But the point is that after a time the amount of "stuff" we put into the atmosphere will begin to over come the normal cleansing action of the atmosphere. This is similar to the law of diminishing returns and is a scientific fact long before GW came on the scene. You just have to be able to see the parallels.

Remember we are talking about millions of TONS of junk every hour GLOBALLY for over 100 years in a CLOSED SYSTEM. It is just no logical to see how this is not affecting the atmosphere.

As a wildlife biologist and environmental regulator I have seen it over the course of the last 30 years.

 

[Deuce]

I could not agree more, far easier to ridicule those that don't agree with you than it is to have a rational conversation.

Yes, you would know, wouldn't you?

 

[sookster]

I honestly think that people "deny" climate change just so our way of life is not deemed responsible of climate change.

But may I add one more thing about the pollution we are adding in the atmosphere....

One central characteristic of The Earth is that its atmosphere is not in chemical equilibrium. It is trying to establish it.

The point of this is that these chemicals are going to influence reactions of the atmosphere by either increasing or decreasing the reactants of various chemical reaction. So there is no doubt in my mind, that the various tons of pollution is going to make a vital impact on our climate.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Yes, you would know, wouldn't you?

I don't ridicule people I disagree with, I do however ridicule hypocrites .

 

[Deuce]

I don't ridicule people I disagree with, I do however ridicule hypocrites .

In turn, making you a hypocrite for ridiculing people instead of debating them.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

In turn, making you a hypocrite for ridiculing people instead of debating them.

You can't debate a hypocrit so I don't even bother trying.

 

[DaveFagan]

I tend to find its about degrees. I have friends branded "deniers" & others who are "experts" & they tend to agree on most things apart from what exact percentage man should take responsability for.

The "denier" argument appears a bit of a red herring to me. It seems that a lot of strawmen have been built using the "denier" label. I mean why argue over a percentage when an opponent can be ridiculed and branded "denier" instead, especially when the attack is published next to a quote from the village idiot, but presented as a universal belief of "deniers"?

I think the right answer is more research & less silly name calling, that way we'll find the real figures & be able to make the right response.

Papers and research verifying Global Warming were published in 1969, 1970 and an organized, Corporate supported, generally Republican faction has been trying to deny the factsw since that time. That is what generated the term "deniers" because it is not something that has been discovered and acknowledged recently. Money and power have managed to cast doubt over the facts of Global Warming with an expensive media campaign. My guess is that is why many Greens just use the term "deniers," not a red herring, except to try to defend the deniers, that would be the red herring.

 

[Paul Austin]

Papers and research verifying Global Warming were published in 1969, 1970 and an organized, Corporate supported, generally Republican faction has been trying to deny the factsw since that time. That is what generated the term "deniers" because it is not something that has been discovered and acknowledged recently. Money and power have managed to cast doubt over the facts of Global Warming with an expensive media campaign. My guess is that is why many Greens just use the term "deniers," not a red herring, except to try to defend the deniers, that would be the red herring.

Youre missing those degrees again. Let me try to be clearer. At one end of the spectrum is a man who thinks man is 100%, on his own, with no help from anyone else, responsible for all changes in climate, & at the other end is a man who believes that man has had no impact on the environment, ever.

Both arguments are demonstratebly false, & everyone else lives between those two falsehoods, however there are those, from beyond a certain point between those two positions, who take a short cut & decide, in lieu of rational research & discussion to label everyone on the otherside of that line as "deniers", which is usually neither factually correct, nor particularly helpfull.

During the time of this issue (which actually dates back further than you seem to think) the position of mainstream scientific consensus has changed numerous times & therefore the position of the line has moved frequently too, meaning that if the same ridiculous label had been used through out that period many of those foolishly shouting "denier" instead of engaging, would have found themselves thus labled themselves had they held their current position through out that period.

It really is a red herring, often used to try and ridicule opponents rather than engage in constructive discourse.

Its like when a lazy democrat brands all republicans racist, instead of discussing genuine issues, or when a lazy republican calls anyone whose ever voted dem a commie, or a bigot calls all blacks criminals, instead of discussing racial issues, its just another lazy insult used to try & stigmatise in lieu of discussion & the pursuit of knowledge.

 

[DaveFagan]

I don't think I am missing the degrees. Denial has been a big money media generated agenda since the 1970s. For example, everyone will acknowledge that exhausts of all type add heat to the atmosphere. Everyone admits that increasing CO2 will cause a "Greenhouse effect" as documented in the 1800s. Everyone admits that the melting of Arctic ice will chage the albido (absorption/reflectance) of hundreds of thousands of square miles and increase the absorption of heat from the sun and ergo increase temps. Big money media campaigns suggested these were natural cycles and would naturally mitigate themselves as a matter of planetary balance. Hogwash! "If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." That is what the expensive big media campaign financed by Exxon/Mobil, among others, was all about. The only degrees was the gullibility of the population and as any competent politician will tell you, "The ignorance of the electorate cannot be underestimated." That would imply that an honest media is required to achieve an ecucated electorate. The "deniers" are a big money group with an agenda and their "groupies" are the manipulated electorate. I'm not very forgiving of the Corporate nature of this agenda. I think it is unpatriotic, inhuman, and should be illegal and prosecutable. Maybe I'm a hardcase or perhaps a realist. It has been common knowledge that Exxon?Mobil and others would pay $10,000 per paper for papers that denied Global Warming. I think the money paid off a lot of school loans.

 

[Paul Austin]

I don't think I am missing the degrees. Denial has been a big money media generated agenda since the 1970s. For example, everyone will acknowledge that exhausts of all type add heat to the atmosphere. Everyone admits that increasing CO2 will cause a "Greenhouse effect" as documented in the 1800s. Everyone admits that the melting of Arctic ice will chage the albido (absorption/reflectance) of hundreds of thousands of square miles and increase the absorption of heat from the sun and ergo increase temps. Big money media campaigns suggested these were natural cycles and would naturally mitigate themselves as a matter of planetary balance. Hogwash! "If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." That is what the expensive big media campaign financed by Exxon/Mobil, among others, was all about. The only degrees was the gullibility of the population and as any competent politician will tell you, "The ignorance of the electorate cannot be underestimated." That would imply that an honest media is required to achieve an ecucated electorate. The "deniers" are a big money group with an agenda and their "groupies" are the manipulated electorate. I'm not very forgiving of the Corporate nature of this agenda. I think it is unpatriotic, inhuman, and should be illegal and prosecutable. Maybe I'm a hardcase or perhaps a realist. It has been common knowledge that Exxon?Mobil and others would pay $10,000 per paper for papers that denied Global Warming. I think the money paid off a lot of school loans.

I refer you to my previous answer. Your post continues to discuss "deniers" as though they are a codified collective, as oppossed to the reality that those labelled "denier" are actually a disperate group of individuals with diverse views along a spectrum. Its those degrees again. It really is just another lazy insult.

 

[DaveFagan]

I refer you to my previous answer. Your post continues to discuss "deniers" as though they are a codified collective, as oppossed to the reality that those labelled "denier" are actually a disperate group of individuals with diverse views along a spectrum. Its those degrees again. It really is just another lazy insult.

I am stating that the "deniers" are those manipulated by a specific Big Money Media agenda. The "codified collective" is the organized efforts to publicize "denier" propaganda and untruths. The disparate group represents those ignorant enough to be influenced by the bought and paid for "big lie." I think that is pretty clear. I'm not suggesting that ignorance is all that unusual.

 

[Paul Austin]

I am stating that the "deniers" are those manipulated by a specific Big Money Media agenda.

& I'm pointing out thats a fictional creation.

Let me try it another way, lets leave climate change aside for a minute. Hitting "new posts" a few minutes ago I found a thread on "holocaust denial", now Ive actually been called a holocaust denier before.

I was on another forum and there was a thread & someone was talking about WWII & Hitler & someone popped up in the thread asking "What about the hundreds of millions of Jews he killed in the concentration camps?"

I then joined the thread to inform this individual that only about 3 million people, total, were said to have been killed in such camps, at which point I had a flood of people screaming it was 6 million & that I was a filthy lying nazi holocaust denier & other such insults.

Now Id hope most people here can see where the mistake was made. The 6 million figure refers to an estimate of the total number of Jewish people said to have perished in the war, where as my figure, & the post I was responding to, refered to the estimated number of people killed in the camps during the war, two different things.

The point is that the most ridiculous and innacurate figure wasnt questioned, but my failure to adhere to a forum misunderstanding, despite being correct was attacked with lazy insults, rather than discussed for the benefit of all.

Now move this back to the environment & you see the same thing, a lazy insult in lieu of grown up discussion.

"Deniers" are NOT all some mad collective manipulated by a big money media agenda, thats just a lazy, bigoted insult, thrown at a wide range of people, with a wide range of opinions, formed in a wide range of ways.

Its a very flawed stereotype & nothing more.

 

[DaveFagan]

& I'm pointing out thats a fictional creation.

Let me try it another way, lets leave climate change aside for a minute. Hitting "new posts" a few minutes ago I found a thread on "holocaust denial", now Ive actually been called a holocaust denier before.

I was on another forum and there was a thread & someone was talking about WWII & Hitler & someone popped up in the thread asking "What about the hundreds of millions of Jews he killed in the concentration camps?"

I then joined the thread to inform this individual that only about 3 million people, total, were said to have been killed in such camps, at which point I had a flood of people screaming it was 6 million & that I was a filthy lying nazi holocaust denier & other such insults.

Now Id hope most people here can see where the mistake was made. The 6 million figure refers to an estimate of the total number of Jewish people said to have perished in the war, where as my figure, & the post I was responding to, refered to the estimated number of people killed in the camps during the war, two different things.

The point is that the most ridiculous and innacurate figure wasnt questioned, but my failure to adhere to a forum misunderstanding, despite being correct was attacked with lazy insults, rather than discussed for the benefit of all.

Now move this back to the environment & you see the same thing, a lazy insult in lieu of grown up discussion.

"Deniers" are NOT all some mad collective manipulated by a big money media agenda, thats just a lazy, bigoted insult, thrown at a wide range of people, with a wide range of opinions, formed in a wide range of ways.

Its a very flawed stereotype & nothing more.

Are you stating that Big Money wasted its money purchasing "denier" papers and getting maximum publication exposure for same? Are you suggesting that it is a groundswell of popular belief that encourages deniability? Are you suggesting that it is OK for "big money" to buy media to promote and popularize a false agenda? Again, I accuse the "Big Money" behind the media and think they should be prosecuted. As surely as there was a force behind the denial of the Holocaust. I do understand your analogy of the Holocaust because I was accused of being a denier for exactly the same reason on another forum.

 

[wolfman24]

Papers and research verifying Global Warming were published in 1969, 1970 and an organized, Corporate supported, generally Republican faction has been trying to deny the factsw since that time. That is what generated the term "deniers" because it is not something that has been discovered and acknowledged recently. Money and power have managed to cast doubt over the facts of Global Warming with an expensive media campaign. My guess is that is why many Greens just use the term "deniers," not a red herring, except to try to defend the deniers, that would be the red herring.

Very good. When my brother was in colleg in the late 60's GW was a mainstay in all ecology and natural science classes at that time. This would IMPLY that the scientific community had accepted GW as a fact at least 10 years prior due to the need for verifiability and reproducability.
I am also sure that my cousins in Germany had accepted GW long before that after the massive coverage in the media over the Black forest.

 

[Paul Austin]

Are you stating that Big Money wasted its money purchasing "denier" papers and getting maximum publication exposure for same?

I'm saying its irrelevant as it doesnt relate to all "deniers"

Are you suggesting that it is a groundswell of popular belief that encourages deniability?

I stated quite clearly there are a myriad of reasons.

Again youre searching for a universal that isnt there, youre ignoring the degrees and trying to make a fictional collective instead.

Are you suggesting that it is OK for "big money" to buy media to promote and popularize a false agenda?

Damn right I am! Lets not forget it was once a false agenda to claim the earth was round, or that the earth circulated the sun.

I would hate it if opposing views were silenced.

Truth is found through knowledge, not insults & silence.

Again, I accuse the "Big Money" behind the media and think they should be prosecuted. As surely as there was a force behind the denial of the Holocaust. I do understand your analogy of the Holocaust because I was accused of being a denier for exactly the same reason on another forum.

Remember this, once upon a time todays scientists were the kooks, with the crazy theories, and tomorrows ground breakers will be amongst todays crazies.

Do you really want to brand them all "deniers" or would you rather hear all the voices & let the truth prove itself?

We learn, we grow & as we do so we re-evaluate where the truth lies. Now whilst there may well be a lot of crazy people around there may also be people out there, people whose learning has taken their knowledge beyond mine & yours, & they may not agree with what you, or I, believe today.

Do we insult them, or give them a fair hearing?

"Denier" is a false description, it refers to a fictional collective, & is used to ridicule in lieu of serious debate and should really be retired by anyone genuinely interested in the subject, & the pursuit of truth.