How many deniers does it take to produce GW/CC 'proof', logic and evidence?

Question

I haven't seen a piece of logic in here posted by a GW/CC denier backed up by actual evidence and only the gibberish that they want us all to believe, cause they wrote it, so it must be true.

Its also easy to verify that the links and blogs they produce are clearly manufactured and paid for. I have personally seen an image from a NASA site that showed the substantial warming in the Arctic stolen and the red replaced with blue to attempt to show there was global cooling. Clearly oil companies like BP and Exxon that can afford to lose billions and still thrive and buy out politicians and scientists have much more to do with the denieir websites and attempts to attack science. BP can loose 42+ billion and destroy the Gulf environment and still thrive.

For those who continue their desperation, sorry Climategate was proven to be just another on of your attacks. All scientists were completely cleared in 5 independent investigation. That was 6 months ago.

I won't comment during the interim cause I have no desire to waste my time on denier logic. I just want to see the 'rock solid' proof, evidence and logic that the frauds and real hoaxters put out.

Richard M · Accepted Answer

See the (hi-def) video called "HOME" at..........http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU.....

It addresses, specifcally, some of the issues(GLOBAL WARMING AND OUR WORLD) in this question......

and enjoy!

Jeff M · Answer

So dent takes an article from 1997 and puts it forward as proof the current warming is natural. When asked about the year of his article he snaps back with Fourier. He does not seem to understand that Fourier is only used as a historical reference. He also seems to not understand that as data accumulation widens science advances. The second peer reviewed journal is misrepresented by him as it states right in the abstract that the current waring is due to anthropogenic sources. The rest are just wikipedia links and blog articles. He also attempts to show that the current warming is due to solar input by showing how solar input has affected temperatures in the past, maunder minimum/little ice age, even though current measurements of such things as solar irradiance, vertical temperature profiles and energy measurements within the troposphere show differently. These are the techniques the denier camp take to lure people in.

Rio · Answer

Anonymity on YA defeats validity, though I have respect for certain individuals on both sides of the line.

In factual response to your question: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

What is all the ruckus about?... an opinionated forum?

Anonymous · Answer

http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al.,%201997%20Millenial%20Scale%20Holocene%20Change.pdf
Here is a study that suggests that we are merely in the upswing of a natural process.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Monte Hieb states a persuasive case for natural variability. Though he is just a geologist under the employ of an evil coal mining company.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5461/2246.abstract
Here's a study suggesting that most of the past century's warming is natural.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm
Now I know you people obsess over this blog. But this is in direct contradiction to evidence in the ice core record.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6992/fig_tab/nature02599_F1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png (Provide me with a blended graph from another source, and I'll drop this wiki link. Though I believe Mr. Rohde did an excellent job of it.)

Here's another explanation for coming out of the recent cold spell. An increase in solar activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png sunspots
http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/activity/sunspot_history.html
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon-14_with_activity_labels.png (Notice that the modern maximum is in line with the medieval maximum.)

But as long as you keep counting white swans, they are all you will ever see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Yeah, about all I expected from the likes of you... You can not attack the substance of the first two links, so just attack the date on them. Who is it that is always foisting Joseph Fourier? Ah yes, you people are. So uh, why is his work from nearly 200 years ago valid, yet Garard Bond's work from 13 years ago isn't?

And what? No smarmy comments about the rest? Your slacking, or you struggling to keep on believing...

No no, smarmy, look it up. And when and how have you proved me wrong? I'm still waiting for something more than just rhetoric from you. May be a while...

martin · Answer

As an alarmist, the burden of proof is on you to support your allegations of AGW with evidence not produced by crooked scientists and their crooked computers!
p.s. nobody denies climate change, given that it's been going on since the beginning of this beautiful planet.
grow up sonny!

GABY · Answer

One. Just study the ice core sample data and you cannot deny the earth has been in a natural warming cycle for over 16,000 years. Just look at the avg earth temperature for the last 12 years and you cannot deny that mother nature is not cooperating with the IPCC models used to push AGW.

d/dx+d/dy+d/dz · Answer

@GABY,  the age of Merlin is past.  In age of science we have a concept called causality.  The ice cores are a record of cause and effect:  small changes in the earth's tilt alter the balance of solar radiation at polar latitudes and these small changes are amplified by albedo and greenhouse gas feedbacks.  The temperature changes in the ice cores are explained by causes, not some predestined magical natural cycle.  If the causes (including greenhouse gas concentrations) change, the effect (temperature) changes in response.  Causality.

pegminer · Answer

I've come to the conclusion that most deniers are scientifically illiterate and even worse than that they have poor logic skills. Most are also politically motivated.

Political motivation, lack of understanding of science and being illogical creates a combination that proves deadly to reasoned argument.

Hey Dook · Answer

All it takes is a forum tolerant of incessant lies. Such as Yahoo Answers. We can't even generate a list of the top ten denier posters here (see my open but barely answered question on this point). Every time some 13 year old asks an innocent question, a volley of denier distortions and fables is likely to ensue. Deniers pose their own copious BS questions and get their buddies to answer them with denier crap which is then baked in, as "best answer," to the denier-polluted databank of "Resolved Questions." Go to skepticalscience.com and don't waste time with the half-wit anti-science deniers-in-training here.

PS to Raj: You are step or two behind trend in your comment about oil companies paying deniers. No oil exec in his right mind would pay any of the semi-literate denier trainees on Yahoo Answers anyway, but the denial industry overall has recently experienced the equivalent of a wave of management buyouts and new start-ups.  It is now mainly run by crackpot hobbyists who love to lie like crazy and get away with, and of course by the platinum liars like Limbaugh, and unscrupulous ignorance-pandering politicians. The oil companies, even Exxon-Mobil, have all moved on meanwhile and say they support consensus science on global warming (their main denial now is to deny their past denial of climate science). By the way, what is the record for the number of thumbs down? Am I in contention with 9 on this answer?

Matthew · Answer

NASA? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC0uO4VWP88

Trending News

How many deniers does it take to produce GW/CC 'proof', logic and evidence?

10 Answers