Why do you keep repeating this lie? Sure... initial estimates of how bad warming could be were based mostly on models but over the last decade or more, the science has been observing and measuring data that confirms warming could get really bad. You have been shown this observational data many times.I contend, that alarmist claims of exaggerated warming, are dogma, as they are built, not on observations,
but model outputs, based on assumptions, that are increasingly being shown to be incorrect.
So... you are making a comparison between a hypothetical Earth with no CO2 using what is probably just an estimation of the warming from all the CO2 with an IPCC estimation of climate sensitivity from CO2 to justify another bogus comparison?longview said:As to energy being created, let us consider the what almost everyone accepts.
Earth is 33C warmer, because of a Top of the atmosphere energy imbalance of 150 W m-2.
This is a ratio of .22C per W m-2 of imbalance.
The IPCC, in the Third assessment report, stated that, 4 W m-2 of imbalance would force warming of 1.2C,
a ratio of .3C per W m-2, and that feedbacks would amplify that warming to produce warming of between 1.5 and 4.5C.
( If we use an ECS of 3 C, implies a ratio .75 C per W m-2).
The idea that the ratio of warming to imbalance would increase, is a creation of energy!
And you have evidence to support that claim?
No the left defeatest media promotes Alarmist no hope must kill ourselves propaganda.I have provide link for how right wing media have promoted climate denier propaganda. While you have provided no link that left wing media promotes denier propaganda.
Former Republican congressman says Murdoch's media outlets fuelling 'climate rejectionism'
Bob Inglis tells Australian thinktank that Fox News and Wall Street Journal are holding back progress on climatewww.theguardian.com
I made no claim about left wing media. You have not shown right wing media promoting Svensmark or Shaviv.I have provide link for how right wing media have promoted climate denier propaganda. While you have provided no link that left wing media promotes denier propaganda.
Former Republican congressman says Murdoch's media outlets fuelling 'climate rejectionism'
Bob Inglis tells Australian thinktank that Fox News and Wall Street Journal are holding back progress on climatewww.theguardian.com
We have warmed ~.75 C since 1978, and some of that is attributed to increases in CO2,I have been meaning to debunk this but haven't had the time till now.
Why do you keep repeating this lie? Sure... initial estimates of how bad warming could be were based mostly on models but over the last decade or more, the science has been observing and measuring data that confirms warming could get really bad. You have been shown this observational data many times.
So... you are making a comparison between a hypothetical Earth with no CO2 using what is probably just an estimation of the warming from all the CO2 with an IPCC estimation of climate sensitivity from CO2 to justify another bogus comparison?
Sorry, long... but you making one ridiculous comparison does not justify you making another ridiculous comparison.
Do you ever bother to look up the large numbers of scientists that disagree with the climate change extremist? There are plenty.I have been very puzzled at the rhetoric and arguments of climate deniers. It has seemed really odd how readily, for example, they deny the strong and unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet, but jump all over a Manhattan real estate guy’s Declaration that it’s all just a Chinese hoax. No amount of evidence seems to be enough. They either deny it, or twist it, or just grasp at any crazy website or charlatan they can find who may have an opposing opinion. It just seems so disconnected from reality and reason.
It did not make sense, until I saw this article about why otherwise rational people can become climate change deniers, young earth creationists, believe in ESP and UFO abduction stories, deny modern medicine and think they can treat their rececently diagnosed cancer with all-natural herbal teas and yoga, become an anti-vaxxer, etc...
It’s a psychological optical illusion: when scientific facts are so unfamiliar, so uncomfortable, so against one’s view of what the world is like or should be, that it becomes preposterous to accept it. So they start to see their skepticism as being smart. The science, so readily accepted in other areas, becomes a conspiracy to destroy capitalism or give their kids autism or something. It’s not A matter of presenting even more evidence, or being more logical or rational. This is not about facts or logic.
Great article on the psychology of such science-denial:
Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost Life
I think the way to try to convince these folks is not to keep presenting more evidence for climate change. It’s not about the evidence. Clearly no amount of evidence is going to change their mind. The thing that bothers them is probably that if true, it is going to involve government intervention and spending. Or that they might lose their jobs. If they are convinced that’s what it’s going to necessarily involve, they are going to keep denying it. Maybe if they are reassured that the free-market may be able to address these issues, or that new and more jobs will be created, they will not deny the issues themselves so much anymore. Of course, then there is the fear of change that we will have to contend with.
But at least this may be a blueprint for how to debate these folks. Because it is clear than trying to convince them just based on evidence and rationality is a losing proposition. You will just go against a brick wall and come back with a concussion. Because it’s not about that.
Do you ever bother to look up the large numbers of scientists that disagree with the climate change extremist? There are plenty.
Not reallyDo you ever bother to look up the large numbers of scientists that disagree with the climate change extremist? There are plenty.
Not really
No scientist thinks the earth is flat.There are plenty who think the Earth is flat too. What of it?
It is very simple. The degree off doubts is directly intertwined with what the expecytedpersonal severeness and costs is.
So: We are all denials of facts, which facts depends…
For example: Let’s say we have a coalmine in Sweden and an equal one in US and we say we are not going to use it anymore and it has to be wind up. Well in Sweden the local rule can ask the state for compensation: The state will try and move other work to the region, either by giving private companies special benefits or move state jobs. The workers will get special support to start smaller business a s o. In US: The workers will walk away to nothing and face maybe total disaster and homelessness for themselves and for their family and love ones. Who would accept reality of climate impact and who will not?
Let me give you a different example (Now from reality):
In Sweden there are now an average of 2.07 computers and 1.3 tablets per household. Eight out of ten have a smart mobile and almost everyone (98%) has a mobile.
The mining off cobalt, graphite and lithium, substances used in, among other things rechargeable batteries (and cars) are often mined in Africa for example Kongo, during disgusting conditions and environmentally unsafe processes. EU wants to secure a more sustainable production: Finland and Sweden bedrock are rich on those metals. Sweden has technic, and know how on how to make this industry as environmental secure as it can be....
For Swedes to start being force climate change deniers it would only take that the global environmental impact should be the one that counts…
Have you any idea of the enormous profits Exxon will get if they put a Carbon tax in place?ExxonMobil continue to fund climate deniers even with the overwhelming evidence for the urgent need for action.
ExxonMobil Claims It's Shifting On Climate, But Still Funding Climate Science Deniers - CleanTechnica
After decades of public denial, ExxonMobil now acknowledges that “the risk of climate change is real” and says it is “committed to being part of the solution,”cleantechnica.com
And yet they continue to fund deniersHave you any idea of the enormous profits Exxon will get if they put a Carbon tax in place?
They are licking their lips, hoping the Government regulates the competition out of business.
Have you any idea of the enormous profits Exxon will get if they put a Carbon tax in place?
They are licking their lips, hoping the Government regulates the competition out of business.
Those same European countries like the money from the carbon tax, more than they want a solution to AGW,European countries have had carbon tax for a long time.
There this for example have led to 60 percent of new cars sales are pure electric in Norway.
While fossil fuel companies have failed to come up with carbon neutral fossils and also have to acknowledge how renewables are outcompeting fossil fuels.
ExxonMobil continue to fund climate deniers even with the overwhelming evidence for the urgent need for action.
ExxonMobil Claims It's Shifting On Climate, But Still Funding Climate Science Deniers - CleanTechnica
After decades of public denial, ExxonMobil now acknowledges that “the risk of climate change is real” and says it is “committed to being part of the solution,”cleantechnica.com
Exxon-Mobil always published and shared all their research results. The company was also an active participant in the IPCC.And yet they continue to fund deniers
My post remains trueExxon-Mobil always published and shared all their research results. The company was also an active participant in the IPCC.
By the breadth of your definition, almost everyone is a "denier."My post remains true
Opinion noted and dismissedBy the breadth of your definition, almost everyone is a "denier."
Those same European countries like the money from the carbon tax, more than they want a solution to AGW,
otherwise, they could make carbon neutral fuels, that would sell for less than the fuel made from oil.
Renewable s are only competing with fossil fuels, when you add in imagined social costs.
In actual costs, the the poor energy density and duty cycle of the alternatives, are not factored in.
You cannot meet the worlds energy demands from a energy supply that is only there sometimes, unless you have a massive storage capacity.
I am not speaking of batteries, the storage would have to be able to move seasons.
It could be if the countries allowed lower taxes for carbon neutral fuels, but they are attached to their tax revenues.The carbon tax would be a great motivator for fossil fuel companies to develop carbon neutral fuel if that was a credible alternatives.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?