Winning arguments with AGW deniers/ 2011

[Asterisk]

Agreed DB. What's happening is so much like science fiction that I occasionally find myself in denial about the whole thing. I find it especially strange that discussion of such staggeringly planet changing events is essentially confined to an obscure discussion forum.

I can see how a person of limited intellectual capacity may simply not be able to put together the pieces of the puzzle as we [unfortunately] have. It just seems too unbelievable.

[scas]

I find it interesting that 6s protects his skeptics argument, yet berated the video dissection i posted. In that video, they use a temperature graph with data to 1990, but label 1990 'now' to give the impression of no heating. They also try to say the heating is a result of solar variation, yet they don't show the divergence of temperature and radiation in the last few years.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/03/s ... 000-years/

There is no problem with the hockey stick, and there is no controversy. In the Great Swindle video which i attached earlier, they hand draw a line on the graph as if it somehow represents a smooth medieval warm period. They straight up lie. The medieval warm period was NOT warmer than now.

Peter Sinclair actually did a video on it. At 3:00 he explains the Medieval lie.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07 ... at_glo.php

It is quite obvious the type of people were dealing with. While we're on the subject of denialist shills, take a look at James Delingpole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0

[Sixstrings]

I find it interesting that 6s protects his skeptics argument, yet berated the video dissection i posted. In that video, they use a temperature graph with data to 1990, but label 1990 'now' to give the impression of no heating.

The filmmaker disputes the IPCC's temp claims from 1990 to whatever date "now" was at production time. That's the whole point, the filmmaker wasn't trying to mislead -- he has a problem with the IPCC numbers.

I'm swayed enough about the heat island effect to doubt the validity of land temps. Although I grant that poor monitoring station locales ought to average out in the end, but on something this important you have to be *sure*. So I'm more interested in sea temps. Similarly, another big area of contention are paleo climatic proxies. They're using all kinds of "proxies" to estimate past temps. I can't think of them all, tree rings are one and I think they have geologic and erosion proxies too. IMHO there's a lot of room for error and fudging the more proxies you add.

Whereas ice core samples are much more straightforward -- what you're measuring there are actual captured air samples from the past. I'm going to keep an eye out, one of these days I'm bound to run across some good ice core temp charts.

I finally found a decent sea temp chart by the way:


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

Ok, so there you have a graph that does NOT end in 1990. The funny thing though is that it just ended pretty much back to what is was in 1990.

To be fair, if you draw a trend line from start point to end point it would be a very tiny but gradual increase. This graph only goes to 2008 though, since even folks in the AGW camp have said "temps have leveled out the last decade" then I wonder what the sea temps were from '08-'10. Have they gone down from the '08 endpoint in that graph?

There is no problem with the hockey stick, and there is no controversy.

My bottom line question.. I'd like to see a graph that shows JUST ice core temps (and for recent temps you can add in sea temp). Let me look at a graph like that, and if it really shows it's warmer now than the medieval warming period then you will have made your point.

That's my big block there, I really want to know if it's warmer now than the medieval warm period -- but using undeniable data like the air samples in ice cores and the sea temps which has no heat island effect.

(by the way, I know the central argument is really the runaway chain reaction hothouse warming but I can't even get to that point until I get past my initial questions)

[scas]

Heat island effect? Jeeze

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM

And his older one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw

Do you know what graph you attached? Monthly Mean global sea surface temperature anomaly? It shows that the oceans have been warm since the 1990s, and you yourself state the oceans been warming. Thats a huge heat capacity.
I'm not sure how that relates to the 1990s atmospheric temperature anomaly...(same link)

What's your deal with ice core data? They can only be taken from Greenland and Antarctica. Ocean cores, lakebed cores, pollen measurements, petrified trees, and fossils can be taken from various locations...and they all point to warming.

[Graeme]

Climate sceptic 'misled Congress over funding from oil industry'

A leading climate sceptic patronised by the oil billionaire Koch brothers faced a potential investigation today on charges that he misled Congress on the extent of his funding from the oil industry.

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a thinktank founded by Charles and David Koch to promote their libertarian, anti-government views, appeared before the house energy and commerce committee in February 2009.

At the time, the committee was headed by the California Democrat Henry Waxman and Michaels was the only one in the line-up of witnesses to cast doubt on global warming, testifying that mainstream science had exaggerated the threat posed by climate change.

Now, Waxman writes in a letter to the incoming committee chair, Fred Upton, it appears as if Michaels may have misled the committee. In 2009, Michaels said 3% of his $4.2m in financial support came from the oil and gas industry. But in an appearance on CNN in August last year, and in subsequent interviews, Michaels suggested that figure was 40%.

guardian

[Asterisk]

Yep, he is now a verifiable denier if I ever saw one.

That means this debate will continue ad nauseum if we let it.

6, you know how to use google (afterall you have certainly become an expert at googling "global warming scam" and "earth is really cooling") so I'm sure you can find the info you need (as if you are truly seeking answers, LMAO) on your own.

[Sixstrings]

Ok I think I'm ready to give up, you guys don't want to talk to anyone who has doubts. From what I gather from the comments in these threads, only half of you want to see large scale governmental mitigation anyway.. but those of you who do, surely you understand that mitigation WILL NEVER HAPPEN if you flat out refuse to talk to anyone who has doubts.

Not that it's up to you specifically, but if you're representative of the activist movement overall then any kind of mitigation is hopeless. If you won't even talk, and be polite and refrain from insults, then there's zero chance of EVER swinging conservatives and independents over to your side.

[vision-master]

Let's see,,,,,,,,, Julian Assange, ain't he the guy wanted for sex charges.....

I wonder what those secret papers have to say about global warming?

WikiLeaks memos reveal "climate change" con game

Science blogger Anthony Watts has read numerous WikiLeaks diplomatic cables related to climate change and has noticed a common theme -- an attempt by Second World nations to siphon wealth and political power from First World nations, all in the name of Third World nations assumed to be "victims" of global warming. At the same time, the US and other First World nations tried to offer aid directly to Third World nations; certainly a curious case of "better the devil you know" diplomacy.

link

[Sixstrings]

What's your deal with ice core data? They can only be taken from Greenland and Antarctica. Ocean cores, lakebed cores, pollen measurements, petrified trees, and fossils can be taken from various locations...and they all point to warming.

There are too many questions about the proxies for me to be comfortable with. For one thing, trees can grow faster if there's more CO2 in the air -- so right there, how do you know if you're measuring temp or CO2 concentration?

And going around looking at tree rings has to be error prone. So many factors there with tree growth, it's very complex.

But ice cores.. much simpler, straightforward, and less room for question and error. With ice cores you're dealing with actual samples of the atmosphere as it existed at that time. There's no interpretation or room for BS, it's a direct sample.

EDIT: to prove I'm objective, I'll go ahead and give you the probable case against ice cores. You can't figure out global climate from just Greenland and Antarctica, and that's why they use other proxies. BUT....... on the fundamental question of warming trends IMHO Greenland and Antarctica are good enough, and you can't deny the results from actual atmospheric samples from the past (they're bubbles trapped in the ice). That's something I can trust, real air samples, I just have too much doubt about the other proxies.

[mos6507]

Ok I think I'm ready to give up.

[vision-master]

Get Up Stand Up

[Asterisk]

But if you're representative of the activist movement overall then any kind of mitigation is hopeless. If you won't even talk, and be polite and refrain from insults, then there's zero chance of EVER swinging conservatives and independents over to your side.

Put yourself in our shoes and imagine yourself debating a flat-earther (yes they do exist: http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ ).

Every argument you could give would be dismissed and they would grasp at whatever straws they could find in order to prove you WRONG. They don't want the truth, they want to be RIGHT because the bible says (in their reading of it) that the earth is flat. For you to be right would mean they would have to adjust their entire world view, and they are simply not willing to do that.

You would eventually get so frustrated that surely you would begin telling them the truth: "you believe the earth is flat and there is nothing I can say...no evidence I can point to that would convince you otherwise, so what is the point of this discussion?"

I know you don't realize it, but you are essentially a flat-earther. You refuse to look objectively at the facts, but instead cling to anything that says we are wrong (even though every argument you have presented to contradict the reality of AGW has been debunked over and over).

There is no room for doubt at this point, none whatsoever. And we have dealt with deniers for years and years and they ALL post the same exact [debunked] arguments over and over and simply disregard the truth.

After awhile it REALLY gets old and over the years we have become more and more intolerant of their cookie-cutter rants. I apologize if I am rude at times, but it's just so damn frustrating to argue with someone who is incapable of rationally discussing facts.

As for conservatives, they are irrational about their beliefs as well. I could no more convince a conservative that tax cuts do not stimulate the economy (even though it is an objective fact that they DON'T) then I could convince a denier of the reality of AGW. For this reason I gave up debating politics with conservatives awhile back.

Ok, I'm rambling....but you get my drift.

If nothing else, it has been interesting watching a denier-to-be blossom into a full-fledged Meemoe_UK. It sort of gave an interesting perspective into denier thinking.

[Lore]

Usually deniers start out with some argument that has been previously dismissed many times by the science, but they hold it dear since they’ve invested in so much time in defending it. See WUWT and Anthony Watts’ surface temp fiasco as a case in point. When it finally comes down to the realization that continuing to defend their argument would put them squarely in the nitwit category, they then quickly try to find some other vagrant arguments, running pillar to post in attempting to salvage their position. Ultimately they get tangled up in conflicting facts or poorly studied and reasoned research to finally dissolve into making accusations of uncertainty, conspiracy, deceit and lies. Which is all they have left to shield their denial.

[Asterisk]

Damn Lore, well said!

[mos6507]

Ultimately they get tangled up in conflicting facts or poorly studied and reasoned research to finally dissolve into making accusations of uncertainty, conspiracy, deceit and lies. Which is all they have left to shield their denial.

There's one final stop for the denialist, and that's an acceptance along the lines of "it's too late to do anything". You see, it's not the denial that a denialist cares about the most, it's personal restraint. They may not like conceding that we're screwed, and we're responsible, but if they feel they are "off the hook" because we've passed all the tipping points, they can at least eat drink and be merry for what little time of normalcy is left.

Right now I'm clinging to the idea of doing something about AGW more to avoid being confused by the above contingent than any realistic hope that it's gonna "save us". Some things you just have to do out of principle.

[Sixstrings]

Politics: The State of the Union Is All About Energy—Not Climate

Tonight's State of the Union may be remembered as the moment when the White House stopped working on climate—and started working on energy.

(snip)

But there's no avoiding the fact that a candidate who spoke of climate change as an existential threat on the 2008 campaign trail—and whose diplomats were still promising to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 as recently as last month in Cancun—didn't mention the term "climate change," nor "global warming," nor "carbon." As Climate Progress's baleful Joe Romm put it:
These omissions were depressingly predictable (see “Can you solve global warming without talking about global warming?“) and thus, predictably, depressing to climate hawks.
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/01/25/politics-the-state-of-the-union-is-all-about-energy%E2%80%94not-climate/

We really don't have anything to argue about. I was just freaking out about cap and trade, but the reality is that something like that is waaaaaaay off the political radar. Nothing big is going to get done for a few years at the least (actually probably the rest of the decade), so we'll have that time to get a better handle on what the climate change situation really is. And there will be time for me to finally get answers about the little ice age, medieval warm period and ice cores.

So nothing to argue about, it ain't up to you or me the pols have already decided to put this on the back burner. Don't blame me folks, blame the Democratic Party and blame China and blame a lot of other people.

And articles like this aren't exactly helping the IPCC's credibility:

Africagate: top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece

[Keith_McClary]

And there will be time for me to finally get answers about the little ice age, medieval warm period and ice cores.

Only if you look where the answers are, instead of everywhere else.

[Shar_Lamagne]

Nothing big is going to get done for a few years at the least (actually probably the rest of the decade), so we'll have that time to get a better handle on what the climate change situation really is.

By the time 2020 rolls around you will be experiencing the planet die and trying to blame the Democrats for doing nothing, even though it was too late by the time Obama was in office and the rightys blocked every attempt at mitigation, not just in your country, but worldwide, for decades.

Maybe it was their plan all along. Get those pesky ice caps out of the way, so thay could rape the poles of their resources.

It's comforting to know people like you will be dying right along with the rest of us, but with all the pain of knowing deep down you were a fool.

But of course you will be saying, "Who could have known?" People like you make me sick. Loathing is not a strong enough word.

[AdTheNad]

I was just freaking out about cap and trade,

You post about cap and trade a lot, and seem to really hate the idea of it, so I have a question for you.

How much do you think oil should cost? Presumably, as most people do, you believe the cost should be however much pumping it out of the ground plus shipping etc costs (ignoring the whole, charging as much as the market can bare thing). I think this is fundamentally unsustainable, and the wrong way to think of things.

In comparison, how much should a table cost? Is it just the cost of cutting down the tree and turning it into a table? Or is it the sustainable cost of replacing the tree, money for the land it grew on, years of growing, any nutrients it took up on the way so you can make another table down the line.

If you are not paying all costs associated with producing something, including waste disposal, you are using up a one time bounty, not paying the full economic cost and ditching the problem on future generations. This is not sustainable, and the extra cost should be included in the cost of the good.

Maybe cap and trade is not the best solution, but if someone polluted your house, you would expect them to clean it up. If you pollute the atmosphere, you should pay to clean it up, and all other negative externalities. If that includes re housing people who have been displaced through rising sea levels, that becomes your responsibility.

You, and anyone, can shirk their responsibilities, but should also then be judged accordingly.

[SeaGypsy]

Ultimately they get tangled up in conflicting facts or poorly studied and reasoned research to finally dissolve into making accusations of uncertainty, conspiracy, deceit and lies. Which is all they have left to shield their denial.

There's one final stop for the denialist, and that's an acceptance along the lines of "it's too late to do anything". You see, it's not the denial that a denialist cares about the most, it's personal restraint. They may not like conceding that we're screwed, and we're responsible, but if they feel they are "off the hook" because we've passed all the tipping points, they can at least eat drink and be merry for what little time of normalcy is left.

Right now I'm clinging to the idea of doing something about AGW more to avoid being confused by the above contingent than any realistic hope that it's gonna "save us". Some things you just have to do out of principle.

Bravo! If everyone just threw their hands in the air right now on a scientificly justifiable basis (scattered to the four winds) that would be the best outcome for the planet and for many individuals. Even though they aren't quite ready for that (yet) the principle applies.