Skeptics, how are "warmies" deluded?

Because there is no hard proof. The AGW debate says that we have to cut back on our use of fossil fuels or else we are heading for catastrophe. Proponents are basing their theory on three theories that are connected but yet separate.

Theory #1: Co2 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing this greenhouse gas will increase the earth's greenhouse effect. According to climate models this will amount to a one degree of warming. This in NOT a controversial amount on both side of the debate.

More details:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

Theory#2: This initial one degree of warming will be amplified many time over by strong NET positive feedbacks namely clouds and water vapour. Both of these feedbacks have to be positive and strong. If they are negative or if they are weak then we are not going to get much warming. But clouds are poorly understood and we lack the technology to track its behaviour. So there is no proof of that.

Roy Spencer using that latest in satellite technology found that clouds act as a negative feedback.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/the-dessler-cl...

The best indication of a strong water vapour feedback would be a tropical hot spot. All climate models predict that the troposphere 10km up in the tropics has to warm at a rate three time the surface rate. Winds would then redistribute this warm air to other parts of the earth. There is no hotspot. The data does not support a tropical hotspot. Proponents say that there is no hotspot because we have problems monitoring it but do not give proof that it actually exists. It is an asinine argument. It assumes that if we could monitor it, it would be there. No good scientists makes such an assumption.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-g...

Theory #3: This increase in global temperatures will cause climate change. Predicting climate change on a regional basis is paramount. If we get less rain in regions that already receive heavy rain then it is not a concern. It is only a concern if dry regions become drier. Conversely if dry regions receive more rain, that is a benefit. Many studies show that when it comes to climate models predicting regional changes is hard and off the mark.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?co...

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a...

Theory#1 is not in dispute. Whenever you see proof of global warming it is only to prove theory #1.

But that only accounts for one degree of warming. If there is a catastrophe that comes from proving theory #2. But I have yet to see convincing evidence that proves theory#2. It is then assumed that if warming occurs theory#3 is a given. No proof is given. In other words your reasoning is that co2 will cause some warming, since we have had some warming, all of the warming must be due to co2 and this warming will be catastrophic. In the rare occasions when they do mention theory#2, what they do is give evidence and disguise it as proof. There is a difference between evidence and proof. Would you convict somebody of murder if certain evidence exists while other evidence does not. Proof is when all evidence points to the same conclusion.

But do not take my word for it. Study the subject on your own and draw your own conclusion.

I would say "deluded" is a bit harsh. There is a lot of good science supporting the AGW hypothesis. If you look at it from a simple-minded point of view, we are releasing gigatons of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere while chopping down Texas sized chunks of forest (carbon sinks). There will be an effect. We know the relationship between CO2 and temperature rise is logarithmic, linear temperature increase with every doubling of CO2 concentration.

So increased CO2 won't do it alone. If we see a catastrophic rise in temperature, it will be due to the effect of feedbacks, not CO2. And it's these feedback mechanisms which I believe are the weak link. Nobody really knows what all the feedbacks are and how they interact with each other. Nobody really knows the impact of the sun. Scientists really don't have any hard data, just models based our incomplete understanding of atmospheric dynamics. And so far, the models aren't doing so well. They are wiping egg off their faces over in the UK for predicting a mild winter, and finding a weather model to explain it after the fact. How many more weather models will climatologists need to develop after the fact?

But don't take my word for it. A number of prominent scientists agree. This is Joanne Simpson who has written over 190 journal articles in her career:

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”

Read the statement carefully. There is a lot to it, and others agree.

I think it's foolhardy to think the "science is settled" and the climate models are accurate when we are still getting climatic "surprises" like this winter in the UK. I can show you other surpises as well. Deluded? No, more like jumping to an unsupported conclusion.

I saw a program on TV about the Permian-Tertiary extinction event, the likely cause being massive volcanism in what's Siberia today. Lavas erupted and flowed for a million years, throwing up tens of thousands of times more CO2 into the air than all mankind has ever. It only killed off about 95% of all life on Earth. Cogent logic says that we'll be killing off less than that, and mankind will not be obligated to live underground for centuries. We'll just continue with our usual wars and famines, that's all, nothing we can't handle. A little overpopulation control isn't necessarily a bad thing.

They believe that a few years of hard data proves their flawed theory. It's the equivalent to having five days of temperature readings and claiming it's proof that the earth is warming because one day was much warmer than the rest. We only have a very limited amount of "accurate" data over a really short period. Digital thermometers have not been around that long thus those old relics that were relied upon were read with the best guess scenario. Not very accurate and even more so could be entered as 10 different readings by 10 different people. They are deluded into thinking that this theory is fact when it's nowhere near being proven despite the claims of the AGW society.

1. You can't legitimately do that. Kinda like discrimination little one.

2. I've already submitted to this trap once. It's old hash

3. Nobody has to denude or describe the warmers delusion...self explanatory.

4. It will not be me that reports the question.

5. The entire question is anecdotal...whats your point?

If you understand Creation Science, you understand Global Warming Science.

Creation Scientists make many interesting observations. They have many good arguments too. But ultimately the science is flawed because the conclusion is presumed. At the core of all Creationist research is the absolute faith that 'God did it'. Conclude otherwise & your are out of the Creationist club, or never allowed in.

AGW Scientists make many interesting observations. They have many good arguments too. But ultimately the science is flawed because the conclusion is presumed. At the core of all AGW research is the absolute faith that 'Man did it'. Conclude otherwise & your are out of the AGW club, or never allowed in.

AGW believers say "The Science is Settled" when Science is never settled.

Like Creationists they endlessly pronounce the 'evidence is overwhelming'

But if you take a look at a Global Temperature chart, made by Phil Jones himself - well the hockey stick is turned the wrong way. 10 to 15 years without warming. All while man's release of CO2 has steadily increased.

The hacked emails from East Anglia tell private story far different from the public facade.

Kevin Trenberth, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), was particularly frustrated by computer models that failed to predict the cooling. He said, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

In private we have Global Warming priests questioning their faith. In public the matter is somehow 'beyond debate'. And Trillions in new taxes hang in the balance.

Now the 0.01% change in atmospheric CO2 that most agree man has caused seems intuitively too small to matter. CO2 is by no means a 'strong' greenhouse gas. Still, it is certainly worth monitoring.

But "Settled Science" & "Beyond Debate". Calling Skeptics 'Deniers' as if the charts give no cause to doubt?

Please. How can Science progress if we cannot separate it from Religious Faith?

And how can the absolute assertions of AGW scientists, in the face of clearly debatable evidence, be viewed as anything else.

They are Deluded by putting credence in the proclamations of snake-oil salesmen relying on the P.T. Barnum school of marketing.

Earth's climate change is caused by numerous factors that don't necessarily coincide with one another. Some of the more important factors are earth rotation, earth orbit, and sun spots (look up Maunder Minimum cooling cycles of the 1645-1715 era). Earth rotation is not finite, the Earth wobbles on it's axis over periods of years, neither is it’s orbit around the sun which is elliptical and inconsistent due to gravitational effects of Jupiter and other planets, (look up Malkovich Earth Orbit Cycles), sunspot activity is not dependent on either rotation or orbit, adding to the randomness of climate change. Warming and cooling happens, sometimes erratically, sometimes producing unexpected spikes. Since 1715 the earth (ok…ok…the ”Globe”) has been warming. After the dust has finally settled, the U.N. Climate studies panel (after much disinformation and in-fighting) has finally established that mans true contribution to overall annual Global greenhouse gas production is 3.6% of the total. As global temperatures naturally rise, atmospheric greenhouse gas percentage naturally increases (look up Vostok Ice Core Studies). Now, do the math, if world governments manage to unite and mandate a 10% reduction in the use of fossil fuel (which will cause massive social unrest, revolutions and starvation, wind and solar power notwithstanding) how does that reduction effect total overall “Global” greenhouse gas production? (that’s going to be a bit of a math problem, 10% of 3.6%…Uhmmmm).

Gore and his Toadies are (now) a very wealthy Con Men.... Climate change is a natural occurring phenomenon, political opportunists are using these natural climate cycles as a scare tactic to secure political advantage and $$$$$$... They should be taken out back and nutted so they can't reproduce.

Lol, may I know the meaning of "warmies"? Does it mean someone who loves warmth?

I think that much of it boils down to misperceptions fuelled by a lack of objectivity and the desire on the part of some people to convince themselves that they are correct, even if there is no tangible evidence available with which to achieve this psychological objective.

Time and again we see claims that the warmies are deluded, but there is rarely anything presented in order to substantiate such claims. These are often personal opinions that are being passed off as fact by persons who, more often than not, have demonstrated their inability to present a rational and coherent argument. Bereft of evidence to support their cause it is necessary therefore to resort to tactics that don’t require any evidence, consequent to which is the propensity amongst some skeptics and deniers to resort to accusations, name-calling, misrepresentations etc.

In order to maintain the notion that the warmies are deluded the skeptics frequently have to ignore all evidence that points to the contrary. Peter J provides a good example when he states “Warmies think they've been making accurate predictions”.

Any non-biased person taking a rational and objective look at the predictions that have been made will see that in the majority of cases the predictions have been correct. Of course, there have been some mistakes along the way and some predictions have been way off the mark. But instead of looking at the whole picture, some people ignore all instances where the predictions were correct and attempt to convince themselves otherwise.

Again, Peter is a good example of this. The last question he asked related to predictions http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmdXO... Peter made the claim that he had been predicting better than the climate scientists.

I’ve bookmarked a lot of the predictions that have been made on Answers so was quickly and easily able to demonstrate that Peter’s predictions were appalling and that the skeptics and deniers had an abysmal record when it came to making predictions. Conversely, the warmies have a good track record. Without reading through the questions and answers I would guess that the warmies had a moderate or good degree of accuracy in 70% of their predictions whereas for the skeptics it would be less than 10%.

Despite the fact that it is there for all to see and the facts are irrefutable, Peter still makes the claim that “Warmies think they've been making accurate predictions”. (Peter – nothing personal it’s just that you happen to have answered this question and recently asked a question relating to predictions).

So there’s this desire to create negative characteristics within the ‘opposition’ even where they don’t exist. The person who is attributing these characteristics is then able to subconsciously claim an air of superiority and bolster their own ego. Despite the removal from reality, this form of self-ingratiation is a tool by which certain people are able to convince themselves that they’re right.

These behavioural traits are endemic in criminals. Faced with overwhelming evidence that they’re guilty of a crime, they make no attempt to refute the allegations with evidence but instead resort to tactics such as falsely accusing others, accusing the police of corruption or simply denying all knowledge of the offence. Often they are able to convince themselves that they’re innocent, which is one of the reasons that so many criminals think they can get away with something – they’ve managed to fool themselves into believing they’ve done nothing wrong.

Whether it’s criminals claiming not to have committed a crime or skeptics labelling warmies as deluded, it’s all part of the psychology of denial. Ironically, those labelling others as being deluded are often the ones who are themselves deluded.

Apologies again to Peter and also for the psychological slant – a consequence of having a mother who’s a psychologist.

George Orwell:

<<Fraudulent data has been used to support the warmers theory and claims.

Examples:

http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/all-your-...

He said cogent, logical evidence, not irrelevant nor anecdotal. Steve Goddard, to whom Cbullit links as the main source for his claim (if there is one, the info he gives is amazingly little apart from the animated gif), is a well-known cherry-picker of info to back up his own denial argument. Some experts in the field (real experts, not self-appointed ones) call Steve Goddard 'Mr Cherry Picking'.

<<http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey...

Joanne Nova is not a climate scientist, for starters. A 16 page booklet titled "The Sceptics Hand Book" was distributed by the Heartland Institute which is in part funded by the oil industry.

Regarding her claim that the Hockey Stick theory is fraudulent, she uses a graph issue by a website called www.co2science.org. That website is part of the "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change" (CSCDGC) organization. The Mother Jones magazine called it to be "one of the "Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial."

Not surprisingly, the CSCDGC has also received generous funding from Exxon Mobil. (1)

As for the hockey stick theory itself, the data has been confirmed in separate, independent studies. (2)