Common Climate Change lies

[w1z4rd]

Found this great article on common lies / mistruths the climate change denialists use to in their argument. We see them here so often I thought I would share. Ill share 10 here, and link to the rest of the 119.

1.) "Its the Sun" (killadoob) - In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
2.) “Climate’s changed before” (many forumites) - Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
3.) “It’s cooling” (Arthur) - The last decade was the hotted on record.
4.) “Ice age predicted in the 70s” (Alan) - The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
5.) “Antarctica is gaining ice” (techne) - Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise.
6.) “Al Gore got it wrong” (any conservative) - Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools.
7.) “It’s just a natural cycle” (Pitbull) - Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans.
8.) “Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy” (Chris) - Several investigations have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing.
9.) “Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans” (Arthur) - Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
10.) “The science isn’t settled” (multiple) - That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations.

There are 119 common mistruths and disinformation at this link: http://planetsave.com/2010/08/13/119-one-liners-to-respond-to-climate-science-myths/

People are ganna be loving me in this thread Information is important though.

 

[Pitbull]

Found this great article on common lies / mistruths the climate change denialists use to in their argument. We see them here so often I thought I would share. Ill share 10 here, and link to the rest of the 119.

1.) "Its the Sun" (killadoob) - In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
2.) “Climate’s changed before” (many forumites) - Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
3.) “It’s cooling” (Arthur) - The last decade was the hotted on record.
4.) “Ice age predicted in the 70s” (Alan) - The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
5.) “Antarctica is gaining ice” (techne) - Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise.
6.) “Al Gore got it wrong” (any conservative) - Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools.
7.) “It’s just a natural cycle” (Pitbull) - Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans.
8.) “Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy” (Chris) - Several investigations have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing.
9.) “Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans” (Arthur) - Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
10.) “The science isn’t settled” (multiple) - That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations.

There are 119 common mistruths and disinformation at this link: http://planetsave.com/2010/08/13/119-one-liners-to-respond-to-climate-science-myths/

People are ganna be loving me in this thread Information is important though.

ghoti,

I'm all for having an open discussion about this. But once people or let me say science throws historical data out of the window because it doesn't fit in with their findings, whats the point then? Earth has been hotter before and it has been colder before. So if earth survived back then I'm pretty sure it will do so again.

 

[Fazda]

I am going to enjoy following this thread, and watching the usual crowd calling us Liberal Pinkos who don't know what we are talking about!

 

[w1z4rd]

ghoti,

I'm all for having an open discussion about this. But once people or let me say science throws historical data out of the window because it doesn't fit in with their findings, whats the point then? Earth has been hotter before and it has been colder before. So if earth survived back then I'm pretty sure it will do so again.

I do actually agree with you here. Life is very resilient. A portion of life will definitely survive this, but there will also be mass extinctions for animals that are not able to adapt quickly enough, and a lot less food for humans.

 

[killadoob]

This is from nasa as well.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/18jan_solarback/

It is very interesting to think that the sun could dictate the earth's temp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

Seems to me both nasa is backing up what i read on wiki, the un is hotter than it has been for many decades but of course that doesn't mean it would heat up earth does it?

 

[w1z4rd]

This is from nasa as well.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/18jan_solarback/

It is very interesting to think that the sun could dictate the earth's temp.

Yeah, its totally amazing. Like during this thing called "the day" it gets warmer, and when there is less sun (we call this "night") its cooler. Its amazing how the sun can dictate the earths temp.

 

[killadoob]

Yeah, its totally amazing. Like during this thing called "the day" it gets warmer, and when there is less sun (we call this "night") its cooler. Its amazing how the sun can dictate the earths temp.

It is amazing how something as silly as the sun could possibly heat up the earth or cool it depending on the cycle.

Amazes me every time i think about the sun being the cause of the heat cycle. I sit and wonder but how could the sun be causing the earth to heat? makes no bleeding sense.

They are predicting the sun will start cooling earth from the beginning or mid 2012. So i think all will be answered in 2012. If the earth starts to cool boy would that blow the theory right out the water and perhaps it will show what a big effect the sun actually has on earths temps.

 

[w1z4rd]

This is from nasa as well.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/18jan_solarback/

It is very interesting to think that the sun could dictate the earth's temp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

Seems to me both nasa is backing up what i read on wiki, the un is hotter than it has been for many decades but of course that doesn't mean it would heat up earth does it?

First off, the NASA article you link is from 2002 and has nothing to do with climate change. Secondly, please actually click on the link I posted with your name in it. Kthnxbi (It has easy, intermediate and advanced responses depending on your knowledge levels).

Nasa also says you are distoring the truth:

Solar irradiance

It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ and here as well: http://climate.nasa.gov/climatechangeFAQ/

 

[Ancalagon]

Hmmm..

What I will say is that to think we understand the climate perfectly would be the height of arrogance. We definitely dont - all these models that we currently have, have a very hard time predicting next years climate. I know how difficult it is to predict the weather - I'm not arguing that our inability to accurately predict the weather means we cant predict the climate. I'm saying our inability to even understand the current state of our climate means we are unable to effectively predict its next state.

Do humans have an impact? Yes we do. How big is that impact? I dont know, and I dont think any climatologists know with complete certainty. And yet the media force feeds this stuff and calls people like me capitalists, skeptics, deniers of the worst sort, oil barons, etc etc. Just for having a dissenting opinion. And no, my dissenting opinion is not that the climate is not changing or that it is not warming. It is changing. I'm just reluctant to say that humans are definitely 110% the cause of everything. I dont think we are - I think a lot of people have overexaggerated that part and refused to look at other alternatives, such as the sun being the most obvious one. Feed more energy into a system and its temperature will increase.

I also think its disgusting that people focus so much on "climate change", which is the new keyword, and forget about habitat destruction and rainforest destruction, and the overfishing of the oceans. But you see, those terms are not fashionable anymore. They are still huge problems, but because they arent fashionable, we dont focus on them so much. So instead we focus on global warming, and try to get everyone to feel ashamed about driving big cars, and get them to buy hybrids instead. Not that its a bad idea to look after the environment like that. I just cant stand the groupthink part of it - the idea that it is a fashionable position to adopt at the moment.

So one day, when we've eaten all the fish, burned all the rainforests, and dried up all the wetlands, we will parade our victory over climate change. What is our victory exactly? We have demonstrated just how much control we have over this planet - we still havent worked out why exactly it is getting warmer than we would like, but by Jupiter we are going to stop it, because we like things The Way They Are (tm).

 

[w1z4rd]

Hmmm..

What I will say is that to think we understand the climate perfectly would be the height of arrogance. We definitely dont - all these models that we currently have, have a very hard time predicting next years climate. I know how difficult it is to predict the weather - I'm not arguing that our inability to accurately predict the weather means we cant predict the climate. I'm saying our inability to even understand the current state of our climate means we are unable to effectively predict its next state.

“Models are unreliable” (Ancalagon) - While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.

“Scientists can’t even predict weather” (Ancalagon) - Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail.

All your other arguments were dealt with already, like the sun lie. As pointed out the sun is not heating up more and the outer layers of our atmosphere are cooler than the inner layers. If the sun was heating the earth significantly, then temp increases would also be recorded in the outer layers of the atmosphere and not just the lower layers.

Habitat destruction is definitely a contributer to global warming and is strongly dealt with by climate change scientists.

 

[Pitbull]

Hmmm..

What I will say is that to think we understand the climate perfectly would be the height of arrogance. We definitely dont - all these models that we currently have, have a very hard time predicting next years climate. I know how difficult it is to predict the weather - I'm not arguing that our inability to accurately predict the weather means we cant predict the climate. I'm saying our inability to even understand the current state of our climate means we are unable to effectively predict its next state.

Do humans have an impact? Yes we do. How big is that impact? I dont know, and I dont think any climatologists know with complete certainty. And yet the media force feeds this stuff and calls people like me capitalists, skeptics, deniers of the worst sort, oil barons, etc etc. Just for having a dissenting opinion. And no, my dissenting opinion is not that the climate is not changing or that it is not warming. It is changing. I'm just reluctant to say that humans are definitely 110% the cause of everything. I dont think we are - I think a lot of people have overexaggerated that part and refused to look at other alternatives, such as the sun being the most obvious one. Feed more energy into a system and its temperature will increase.

I also think its disgusting that people focus so much on "climate change", which is the new keyword, and forget about habitat destruction and rainforest destruction, and the overfishing of the oceans. But you see, those terms are not fashionable anymore. They are still huge problems, but because they arent fashionable, we dont focus on them so much. So instead we focus on global warming, and try to get everyone to feel ashamed about driving big cars, and get them to buy hybrids instead. Not that its a bad idea to look after the environment like that. I just cant stand the groupthink part of it - the idea that it is a fashionable position to adopt at the moment.

So one day, when we've eaten all the fish, burned all the rainforests, and dried up all the wetlands, we will parade our victory over climate change. What is our victory exactly? We have demonstrated just how much control we have over this planet - we still havent worked out why exactly it is getting warmer than we would like, but by Jupiter we are going to stop it, because we like things The Way They Are (tm).

I support your view as mine is the same.

The climate is changing. The reason for it I dispute.
I do however support living green 100% as it's for the better, whether we're the reason earth is warming up or not makes no difference. Living green only does good. This is where it ends. I don't support the trade in carbon credits, I don't support the taxes attached to not living green and I don't support the scientists views as they are neglecting data in order to push their own agenda.

Live green, incentivise living green instead of taxing those who don't and so on. Learn to adopt to the changes and change your way of generating power, powering of automobiles and so on.

I don't by this Global Warming bullshyte. Global warming is a money making racket. Climate change is happening and that much is obvious.

Wish someone could tell me why they changed it from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" did they realize now that the world isn't actually warming but the climate is changing? I'm just curious.

 

[killadoob]

Awesome post anca

I also wonder how it is we are so focused on climate change yet we are plundering almost every resource available to us. All i hear these days is climate this and climate that but nothing about the football size forests being chopper down every second or the diminishing fish stock world wide.

As for the sun being the cause of the current heat well you would have to be a complete nutter to believe that i guess.

Pitbull the earth is heating up, i think climate change is better than global warming because global warming makes people think every country on the planet is getting warmer so climate change is far better name.

 

[w1z4rd]

“It’s not us” (Multiple people) - Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.

The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:

Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.
Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)
Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.
Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:

Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.
Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.
The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:

An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.
If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.
This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.
It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.

 

[bubbatentoe]

I hope the alarmists who post here power their PC's & ADSL routers with wind turbines, or bicycle power.
Otherwise they should shut up & check Oxford's for the term "hypocrite".

Seriously, I find it utterly hilarious how some people are thick enough to fall for the global warming BS while doing absolutely nothing to curb their own carbon footprint or make any real world difference in others' carbon footprints - (other than continuously talking k@k on online forums).

 

[Nicodeamus]

Please add: "government can provide solutions to climate change - because they are sooooooooooo awesome"!

 

[w1z4rd]

Please add: "government can provide solutions to climate change - because they are sooooooooooo awesome"!

Yeah, we should rather trust the corporations creating most of the pollution There`s no ways a corporation would put profits before people.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Yeah, we should rather trust the corporations creating most of the pollution There`s no ways a corporation would put profits before people.

It is cheaper to go over to greener energy, unless they're regulated! I do not share your optimism believing that the Cop17 conference knows how to make the economy more efficient...Or the Copenhagen one, they kinda all failed.

 

[bubbatentoe]

lol,



"I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

"The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

"After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

 

[w1z4rd]

It is cheaper to go over to greener energy, unless they're regulated! I do not share your optimism believing that the Cop17 conference knows how to make the economy more efficient...Or the Copenhagen one, they kinda all failed.

Yup, cause big money have bought out key governments and are slowing down our efforts to deal with the issue. At least we have some kinda forum to address these issues, even if the corporations are hamstringing the event.

@bubbatentoe: I give your trolling attempts about a 3/10. You gotta try harder man.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Yup, cause big money have bought out key governments and are slowing down our efforts to deal with the issue.

Isn't it ironic that if you give corporations the incentive to get around their responsibility through regulation, then they end up going the easy route. You should really read a book called 'human action' by Ludwig von Mises. It describes quite well how market driven incentives work.