Denialists, what are you actually denying?

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

for me it is the following:

5. In part. I believe and there is some significant evidence that there are also Negative feed backs. Warmist tend to ignore or "deny" those.

6. This is an example of possible negative feed backs that warmist wish to write off or ignore.

7. I dispute this. The warming seen is within the margin of error for the normal "natural" warming seen since the end of the little ice age in general and the end of the lAst ice age specifically.

13. I dispute this. For a large part because I dispute the assumed impact of CO2 as a global warming gas. ALL things and forces in nature have physical limits. Based on current science, and our understanding of the GWP of CO2, we are near the theoretical maximum for the influence of CO2 regardless of how much higher the CO2 concentration gets.

Warmists dismiss and/or ignore natural factors and natural variances. Warmist dismiss changes in solar activity BLINDLY saying the TSI does not change so much so it can not be the sun. This is naive AT BEST and deceitful at worst. Many more things beside TSI impact the earth and its climate. Soalr wind, variations in the soalr magnetic field strength and the sympathetic reactions of the earth's geomanetic field etc.

At least those of us who are denialists openly admit that we do NOT know everything. We admit the science is "not settled". The mere concept that ANY sceince is settled expresses a COMPLETE lack of understanding of the ENTIRE scientific process.

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

You can and will call CO2 anything you wish. Does it function like the glass on a greenhouse? No.

As to the rest, they sound like hypnotic drivel coming from the many Communist leaning professors in many of our universities and has never been proven.

The fact is that the Earth's temperature has declined over the last decade and yet CO2 has increased. So that blows 4-5-6 right out of the water. You see, real scientists don't look at probabilities and potentialities without solid proof as to the odds of it happening are extremely low. We don't look for reasons to raise taxes. Those are politicians. Politicians act just like what you are doing.

Tell you what, why don't you scientifically prove what you allege. Then when you present us with the proof and when and if we don't accept it then you may call us deniers. Cinderella's glass slippers make more scientific sense than your AGW questions.

@ Jeff Engr --

>>5. In part. I believe and there is some significant evidence that there are also Negative feed backs. Warmist tend to ignore or "deny" those.<<

That is a Bullshlt lie.

>>7. I dispute this. The warming seen is within the margin of error for the normal "natural" warming seen since the end of the little ice age in general and the end of the lAst ice age specifically.<<

This is a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) question. Your claim that "The warming seen is within the margin of error" has a mathematical solution.

Please either provide that solution - or STFU.

>>Based on current science, and our understanding of the GWP of CO2, we are near the theoretical maximum for the influence of CO2 regardless of how much higher the CO2 concentration gets. <<

Please provide supporting evidence for this statement - or STFU.

>>Warmists dismiss and/or ignore natural factors and natural variances.<<

Provide evidence of scientists ignoring natural factors and tell us what the mathematical parameters of these "natural variances" are - or STFU.

>>At least those of us who are denialists openly admit that we do NOT know everything.<<

You need to admit that you don't know "anything".

>>We admit the science is "not settled".<<

No, you do not. You claim that there is no scientific evidence for AGW and, so, you therefore consider the science settled.

Other than ignorance and dishonesty, do you have anything else to contribute to the discussion?

=======

jim z --

>>13. If we allow the left to win their war on energy and capitalism which they have engaged in for a hundred years<<

For crying out loud. In 1912, the "Left" was the Progressive Party formed by Theodore Roosevelt.

======

Quill --

>>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. <<

What do you you call it when the opponent CHOOSES a stupid position and then stubbornly defends it with lies and slander? "Denier" is a tame description. It could be a lot worse.

2. Still we don't know what the CO2 would be without human emissions. Alarmists insist that all CO2 we add goes into the ocean except that which cannot be absorbed by the ocean and completetly (it sometimes seems like purposefully) misunderstand the process of how the ocean absorbes CO2 and how it gets rid of it from either outgassing at the surface or precipitating it as solids. In any event, the amount of carbon in the ocean is hundreds of times greater than what humans have emitted.

3. We don't know what the CO2 concentration would be without our emissions. We don't know what the effect increased concentrations would have on the temperature. What we do know, that alarmists deny and deflect, is that in the past temperature drove the CO2 concentrations.

<<<4. Adding more of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere will increase the average temperature.>>> It didn't in the 1970s and don't give me psuedo-scientific crapola that that was caused by aerosols.

5. Alarmists depend on feedbacks for any catastrophic predictions. In fact their predictions of water vapor feedback have failed miserably.

6. If the warming from our CO2 emssions is insignificant as seems to be the case, then it is extremely small compared to natural variation and it could be masked by just about anything. It is so masked that we haven't found it yet.

7. It rose about a degree, the same as the previous century (without any human help). What planet are you living on?

8. Why would you want to make wild assumptions like that? There is no justification for it except alarmism requires schrill predictions.

9. Bull

10. The rate of glacier melt and accumulation isn't governed only by temperature and it isn't something that I fret about. I am glad that glaciers melted away from Manhattan.

11. If someone lives too close the sea, that is because they are stupid and the rest of us should not bail them out. That only encourages moronic behaviour.

12. They are likely to prove beneficial. My answer is far more likely than yours. I have history on my side. You just have your shrill predictions of catastrophe

13. If we allow the left to win their war on energy and capitalism which they have engaged in for a hundred years, then we can kiss our legacy of prosperity and freedom goodbye. I for one am not that gullible.

I just can't take anyone who uses the term 'denier' seriously. Amongst other things it puts a disturbing religious element into your ravings, neither would I waste my time by trying to reason with fanatics.

Oh I do beg your pardon, I see now that I'm a denying denialist, not a denying denier, oh well that's a big difference isn't it and obviously far different from a holocaust denying denier.Well I can answer now then.

3 - I deny

4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 - No one in world knows

9 - maybe

10, 11, 12, 13 - for simplicities sake I'll just deny/holocaust these.

ps the fact that in your mind there's a big difference between deniers and denialists is not a good advert for your sanity.