As I see it, this is the list of things that you have to deny at least some of in order to reject AGW as it is generally understood. Denialists and skeptics, please tell me which of these you reject (list the numbers, then explain in detail if you wish, please). Realists, please tell me if I got anything significantly wrong, and/or provide evidence for the various things I'm claiming.
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2. We are adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels
3. A lot of the CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere is staying in the atmosphere (not necessarily the individual molecules, but us raising the atmospheric level of CO2 has made the atmospheric level of CO2 remain elevated, since most processes that take CO2 out of the air lead to others that add it back)
4. Adding more of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere will increase the average temperature.
5. Increasing the average temperature, from any cause, will trigger positive feedbacks (one of the simplest is the water vapor feedback) that will increase the average temperature further
6. This warming (in 5) can be masked by various temporary factors (such as El Nino cycles or the effects of particulate pollution), especially in atmospheric measurements, leading to an irregular temperature rise instead of a steady one.
7. Given the caveat in 6, we have seen roughly the temperature rise we would expect from 4 and 5 in the past century, in various direct and indirect measurements
8. Changing the Earth's average temperature is likely to change weather patterns and the like.
9. Changing weather patterns will change what crops we can grow where, yields, and et cetera, as well as changing the ranges for various non-managed life forms (wild animals and plants, crop pests, et cetera)
10. Rising temperatures will melt glacial ice and cause thermal expansion of the ocean, making sea levels rise 11. Rising sea levels can potentially flood, or at least lead to salt poisoning or other damage to, areas where we currently live, farm, have businesses, and et cetera.
12. The changes in 8-11 are likely to prove, on average, at least somewhat harmful in the short to medium term to humanity and to most ecosystems.
13. We can reduce or eliminate most or all of the harm in 12 if we significantly reduce our total output of greenhouse gasses, starting as soon as possible.
Did I miss anything important? Is there anything that doesn't follow either from known basic principles, or from the things stated before it?
2012-09-20T23:28:31Z
Pindar: um, aside from this comment, do you see the word "denier" anywhere in my question?...
Baccheus2012-09-20T09:58:13Z
Favorite Answer
You missed one. They deny that scientific research exists. Note Jeff Engr's answer; this is from a regular on this forum who is polite, honest and thoughtful -- and yet he really claims to believe that solar influence has not been considered despite his being shown a plethora of research from multiple solar researchers which all shows that the sun has not changed in a way to cause warming. This part of the puzzle is clearly not ignored yet Jeff Engr claims it is simply because researchers do not come back with the findings we hope for. People who are locked into a belief will not change even when the underpinnings of their beliefs are shown to be wrong.
Variances of this locked-in, 'don't care what the research shows' mindset are JimZ's continual posts which always say "I don't know so nobody can know; nobody know nutttn' or Maxx continually posting videos with the note to "see what the expert say" even though he knows that the experts in his videos long ago explained that the videos are wrong. These people just deny that real research exists.
A related phenomenum is choosing the messenger based on the message -- even when the messenger the same person. The best example of this is Anthony Watts loving Richard Muller when Muller was criticizing climatologists, but once Muller did the work and came back with the finding that the scientific body was correct and that AGW is indeed real and serious, Watts changed his tune to claim that Muller is some pinko; Watts makes his living by denying science and cannot ever accept real work when it is shown. Jeff Engr showed that same response here when he claimed that research from Ilya Usoskin proved that the sun caused global warming -- but once it was shown to him that Usoskin specifically noted the past 35 years are different, Jeff Engr switched to denying that Usoskin exists. This is the same as Maxx with Henrik Svensmark: 'watch this video that features Svensmark in 2007 because is seems to say what I want it to say', but then ignore that Svensmark's very clear explanation of his conclusions in 2009 as if the explanation does not exist.
Flunky, you are trying to appeal to rational thought from these people but you have to understand that they are locked onto a belief that has no scientific support and they will ignore anything that challenges their beliefs. These are not rational people.
There is only so much fossil fuel available to us, and we don't even have to be at the bottom of the barrel for the price of it increase enough to drive people to renewable / sustainable fuels.
We will inevitably head towards cleaner fuels purely by supply and demand. So why don't we spend some money on AIDS, or cancer, or world hunger instead of trying to whip everyone into a frenzy about global warming. If the money spent advertising and researching 'global warming' was put into retrofitting power plants, you would probably have seen a much greater reduction in emissions.
Basically, no matter what you prove, until it is financially viable it wont happen. It will become viable when fossil fuel becomes more expensive.
I suppose I deny the extremism of 'alarmists'. I just don't think definitively proving global warming is worth so much time and money. With our help or not the planet will eventually try to wipe us out, and the fact in X many years we will have no choice but to use renewable crops and solar / wind just makes all this hoo-haa kinda irrelevant.
It's always helpful to take a philosophy class on Logical Fallacies to help recognize the style & form of Liberal debating techniques.
The strawman is popular favorite where the opponent is GIVEN a stupid position, then called stupid for having it. E.g. call a skeptic a denier, then ask what they are denying.
That said I will tell you what I'm am SKEPTICAL of. I.e. I do not feel the IPCC claim of climate sensitivity is justified by the data. Namely the MGT does not appear to track rises in CO2, hence is unlikely to be sensitive to the tune of 3°C/doubling.
That's pretty much it. You are exaggerating. The rest of our colorful debates are speculations on why.
So 1,2,3 - CO2s a greenhouse gas & we are adding it.
4 - This raises the temperature but not by an significant amount. Certainly not 3°C/doubling.
5 - Earth Temperatures cycle which means negative feedbacks dominate positive ones. Water vapor forms clouds, clouds drop the temperature. So it sounds like you've got that backwards.
6 - Right, but the CO2 effect is so small it is easily 'masked' by other more significant factors. Saying CO2 affects the MGT is like saying Jupiter affects the tides.
7 - Since 1940 CO2 has steadily risen, while MGT has fallen, risen & plateaued, which suggests the effect of CO2 on the MGT is fairly small.
8 - Which means WE aren't changing the Temperature, at least not by any meaningful amount.
9-12 - The sea will rise & fall. Glaciers will ebb & flow. Not a lot we can do about that. Nothing ecologically dire about warming, Ice Ages kill things but even then life goes on. All this has happened before, all this will happen again.
13 - The problem is faked for the sake of a specific 'solution', I.e. the Socialist control of Energy & thus the Free Market.
The single principal failure of "anthropogenic local weather change" scientists is their failure to comply with the Scientific mannequin. First you discover phenomenon, then you accumulate knowledge, formulate a speculation, test the hypothesis, and refine it until unbiased verification promotes the speculation to a thought. They located a phenomenon and picked up data correctly. At this factor, they failed--they jumped to the conclusion "human beings are causing the ordinary international temperature to broaden, as a way to rationale catastrophic damage" after which started looking for ways to find or skew data to support this conclusion. They failed on a second point, as well. The testing section of the Scientific procedure requires experiments to be mounted with "manipulate" and "scan" agencies; the "manage" staff is the "norm" even as the "test" workforce assessments the variable. The field of "anthropogenic local weather change" accordingly *requires* a replica Earth upon which no human beings are gift. If no such duplicate Earth exists, then trying out through the Scientific system can't be implemented. ************* do not worry, though. There is an extra science that follows the identical sample of a) gazing a phenomenon, b) formulating a conclusion to explain the phenomenon, and c) accumulating knowledge to support the conclusion from section b. That science is referred to as "conspiracy thought". Conclusion: "anthropogenic local weather trade" is a conspiracy conception.
The first thing I reject is the use of any form of the word 'denial'.
It is difficult to take you seriously when you begin that way. It is a combination of an ad hominem and pettito principi. It is also an example of the 'language of totalism'; in this case, a 'thought-terminating cliche'. It is an indication that you will not tolerate disagreement with the central tenets of your belief system (CAGW); if true, it answers a question you asked some months ago. That kind of unshakable certainty is a characteristic of religious conviction, not science.
So, here is where I think you (and the entire CAGW community) run off the rails:
3. The evidence for the long persistence of CO2 is weak.
4. Not proven; this statement assumes no net negative feedback. That there is, or has been, warming does not prove attribution.
5. Not proven. The estimates for climate sensitivity are all over the map, even in the IPCC reports. Various lines of evidence suggest that it cannot be as high as the warmists claim, and some suggest it is negative.
6. Not proven. Warmists often use this (*after* the fact) to explain away the failures of their models...which is a 'moving the goalposts' fallacy.
7. Dubious.
7a. There are substantial problems with data integrity in all of the surface temperature datasets. The satellite datasets are likely to be much better, but they only go back to 1979. This strains credibility, more so because many of the researchers have tried to deny critics access to the data. A large proportion of the warming signal exists only in the 'corrections' to the data, not the raw data itself.
b. Various studies show that between half and all of the warming in the 20th century is explained by UHI effects.
8. Not proven. In fact, the CAGW assertion that global warming will lead to more extreme weather events is not only not proven, it runs counter to the evidence.
9. Probably true; but likely in the opposite direction claimed by CAGW proponents. Warming would expand the range of the temperate zone, and result in a net increase in arable land. Historically, warm periods are associated with more agricultural output, and cold with less. The assertion that warming would result in crop failures and famines is not supported by the evidence.
10. Rejected. Envirastat data shows no significant sea level rise. The ARGO data show that the oceans are cooling. Several lines of evidence suggest we may be entering a cooling phase. If we do experience warming, the magnitude is not likely to be sufficient to cause a catastrophic rise in sea levels. (see climate sensitivity, above).
11. Potentially, yes. Probably, no. Without the high climate sensitivity, sea level rise over the next 100 years is likely to be minimal (maybe 7").
12. Rejected, for the reasons cited above. What impacts might be negative will be so minor in their magnitude that adaptation will be an insignificant problem.
13. Rejected. See Carlin's work. If the sensitivity is low, it is low in both directions. Decarbonization is going to be devastating to the economy, and will have almost no measurable effect (due to the low sensitivity). It will also cripple our ability to weather a cold cycle, if that indeed turns out to be what is coming next. More people die in cold weather than in warm. Also, this statement assumes there is no harm from the decarbonization measures themselves, which is bogus. Keeney has found that we can expect one statistical death from each $14 million in additional costs. There is no free lunch.
Yes, you missed some important things. Consensus is not science. It is propaganda (bandwagon fallacy). Science requires reproducible results; experiments have to be redone, and validated, by others, including critics. The CAGW crowd has a very poor record in this regard; many of the critical datasets have never been archived, and the researchers have vigorously avoided providing data to critics. That is not acceptable if you want your conclusions to be taken seriously.
“One sign that an idea is not scientific is the claim that the idea is infallibly certain and irrefutable. Claims of infallibility and the demand for absolute certainty characterize not science but pseudoscience.” --Karl Popper