Skip to main content

View Diary: Don't Call Them "Climate Skeptics" -- They're Climate Deniers, Period (125 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  your response indicates that you have (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    John Crapper

    not seriously evaluated the evidence

    •  Specifically what did I say there that tells you (0+ / 0-)


      •  this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        John Crapper

        That's a hard question of course, because I do understand that the climatologists are saying that if we wait too long in demanding more evidence, it will be too late to take effective action. But for me it's something more than what we've seen to date. There hasn't been a significant rise in world temperatures. There hasn't been a significant rise in the sea levels. The glaciers remain intact for the most part. And I've never been particularly convinced that the state of the Earth's climate circa 1900 is so particularly ideal for human habitation such that it should be preserved at all costs. I do know that colder climates than what has generally prevailed since the last glaciation have been less ideal of human habitation.

        •  So . . . (0+ / 0-)

          It's not true that "climatologists are saying that if we wait too long in demanding more evidence, it will be too late to take effective action"?

          •  they are saying it but they are right (0+ / 0-)

            and you are wrong.  I could comment on the other parts but I have the idea that you know where you are misdirecting and obfuscating.

            •  Where did I say they were wrong? (0+ / 0-)
              •  here (0+ / 0-)

                because I do understand that the climatologists are saying that if we wait too long in demanding more evidence, it will be too late to take effective action. But for me it's something more than what we've seen to date.

                It would be helpful if you could keep your "arguments" straight rather than just saying "I didn't say that" every time you are called on something.  Very tiresome.

                •  I didn't say they were wrong (0+ / 0-)

                  I said that for me, the evidence is not sufficient to warrant the policies being advocated. I can accept that the longer we wait to act, the more difficult it is going to be, and still believe that we shouldn't act.

                  The weak one-liner responses to my comment are indicative of why climate change advocates are losing this debate so badly. There's no willingness to engage at all beyond the "tiresome" appeals to the authority of "science".

                  •  pretty funny from a person giving me (0+ / 0-)

                    one liner responses.

                    so to take your comment above, I guess what you are saying is that the scientists are wrong and you are right.

                    That means you are saying the scientists are wrong, or something?  What are you saying?


                    •  The scientific consensus as stated by the IPCC (0+ / 0-)

                      is as follows (from Wikipedia:

                      1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.

                      2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.

                      3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.


                      I don't see anything in that "consensus" mandating any particular policy response. It doesn't address how much it would cost to reduce CO2 emissions versus the harms that would be avoided or the cost of adapting to forseeable changes. It doesn't address the likelihood that the impacts will be catastrophic, as opposed to "significant" or less than significant. It doesn't address the relative environmental costs of alternative ways of generating energy such as wind, solar, nuclear and geothermal, all of which are well-known to be significant. It doesn't address the likelihood that any particular CO2 reduction scheme will work as intended, or end up failing in the way that Kyoto and the EU cap and trade schemes have largely failed as measured by reductions in greenhouse gases.

                      So, yes, I'm saying that even if I accept the "consensus" as stated by the IPCC, it doesn't answer the questions that I posed in my comment with respect to policy alternatives that only make sense in the context of the threat of catastrophic climate change, i.e. cap and trade, carbon taxes, nuclear energy, carbon sequestration, and limiting access to sources of fossil fuels.

                      And that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of questions around the validity of the climate modeling that has been done to date, wherein the models failed to predict the relatively flat temperatures over the past decade or so, and what that does or does not mean to the decision-making process.

                  •  now appeals to the scientific method and (0+ / 0-)

                    science are "tiresome"?  How is that exactly?

                    •  Which scientific method are you referring to (0+ / 0-)

                      that can deduce conclusive answers to questions of public policy?

                      •  if the science says that increased levels of (0+ / 0-)

                        CO2 are causing problems and will cause worse problems if not stemmed then the only response is to reduce CO2 emissions or come up with some other way to reduce them by sequestration, etc.

                        I don't know of too many scientists who have ONE solution. There are myriad approaches.

                        What you keep insisting is that YOU don't see a need to do anything because YOU don't have enough evidence that there is a problem caused by CO2 emissions from human activity.

                        The really sad fact is that our emissions and the resultant warming is going to release far more greenhouse gases in the form of methane from melting permafrost and hydrates under the sea floor.

                        And yes I know the earth has been warmer in the past, but temps never changed at this rate (not even close) and we did not have fixed civilizations in place.  

                        •  It's just not true that temps haven't changed at (0+ / 0-)

                          this rate in the past. We've had not even one degree of change over the last 100 years; in the past we've gone into and out of glacial periods in a matter of decades.

                          It's also not true that I said that "there isn't a need to do anything". I mentioned that I think the evidence warrants us dong those things that we make sense even absent climate change such as controlling local pollution, reforestation, investing in r&d for alternative fuels, energy conservation.

                          •  check your facts on rates of temp change (0+ / 0-)

                            as for the rest, then what is your point again?  You keep confusing issues.

                          •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                            We've had approximately 0.8 degrees Celsium warming over the last 100 years.

                            Briefly, the data indicate that cooling into the Younger Dryas occurred in a few prominent decade(s)-long steps, whereas warming at the end of it occurred primarily in one especially large step of about 8°C in about 10 years.

                            . . .

                            the Younger Dryas was one in a long string of large, abrupt, widespread climate changes. To a first approximation, the Younger Dryas pattern of change (size, rate, extent) occurred more than 24 times during that interval; additional evidence from marine sediments indicates similar changes over longer times in earlier ice-age cycles.


                            So on the one hand, we have 0.8 degrees Celsius over 100 years, and on the other hand, we have a warming of 8 degrees Celsius in 10 years. Ten times the warming in one tenth of the amount of time! That would be a rate of warming 100 times faster than what we've seen over the last century, no?

                            And this occured 24 times during the last 100,000 years, and countless times before that.

                            Maybe you should think about checking your facts!

                            With respect to your second question, I haven't changed my position at all. The evidence in my opinion warrants policies that make sense whether or not we are facing catastrophic climate change, but not policies that make sense only in the context of that threat. In my original comment, I characterized the distinction as follows:

                            I'm in support of adopting environmental policies that make sense whether or not CO2 emissions are likely to result in catastrophic climate change. Examples of those would be: habitat conservation, reforestation, research and development of alternative fuels, reducing local pollution, etc. But no, I don't think that the evidence at present warrants things like: carbon sequestration, nuclear energy, keeping new sources of fossil fuels off the market, cap and trade, carbon taxes.
                            Is that difficult to understand. By way of a practical example, I read in my local paper this morning that a host of environmental groups are on record in opposition to a solar power project in the California desert because of the effect that it will have on sensitive habitat. The only potentially legitimate reason to ignore them as well as the local governments who are also opposed is because of climate change considerations.
                          •  your link appears to be about central (0+ / 0-)

                            Greenland, not even all of Greenland and certainly not about the globe.

                            so are you comparing temp changes in central Greenland to globla temp changes in the past century?  And aren't the scientific models projecting 2 - 4 degrees in the coming century?

                            It would be disingenious of you compare temp shifts in one small part of the globe to global averages, would it not?

                            As for the rest of your comment I will think about it some more.  

                          •  I'm having trouble believing that (0+ / 0-)

                            you're questioning the fact that Greenland ice cores are commonly used as proxies for the Earth's climate:

                            An ice core is a core sample that is typically removed from an ice sheet, most commonly from the polar ice caps of Antarctica, Greenland or from high mountain glaciers elsewhere. As the ice forms from the incremental build up of annual layers of snow, lower layers are older than upper, and an ice core contains ice formed over a range of years. The properties of the ice and the recrystallized inclusions within the ice can then be used to reconstruct a climatic record over the age range of the core, normally through isotopic analysis. This enables the reconstruction of local temperature records and the history of atmospheric composition.

                            Ice cores contain an abundance of climate information. Inclusions in the snow of each year remain in the ice, such as wind-blown dust, ash, bubbles of atmospheric gas and radioactive substances. The variety of climatic proxies is greater than in any other natural recorder of climate, such as tree rings or sediment layers. These include (proxies for) temperature, ocean volume, precipitation, chemistry and gas composition of the lower atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sea-surface productivity, desert extent and forest fires.

                            . . .

                            An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research.


                            I think if you explore the topic, you will see that the usefulness of Greenland (and other) ice cores in reconstructing global climatic conditions across time is well-established.
                          •  I understand how ice cores work but (0+ / 0-)

                            I thought your link gave climate/temp changes for the Greenland area, not the globe.  I may have misread the link.

                            Of course ice cores can give clues to global temps and to global CO2 concentrations.  but do they tell use global temp shifts from one region's ice cores?

                          •  see what you think of this (0+ / 0-)

                            stating that the temp changes were in the North Atlantic, not globally. that is what I was trying to say.


                          •  here is an excerpt from the link (0+ / 0-)

                            Scientific data show that abrupt changes in the climate at the regional scale have occurred throughout history and are characteristic of the Earth’s climate system (NRC, 2002). During the last glacial period, abrupt regional warmings (likely up to 16°C within decades over Greenland) and coolings occurred repeatedly over the North Atlantic region (Jansen et al., 2007). These warmings likely had some large-scale effects such as major shifts in tropical rainfall patterns and redistribution of heat within the climate system but it is unlikely that they were associated with large changes in global mean surface temperature.

                          •  Also, we're not comparing "projections" (0+ / 0-)

                            versus the record. That would be apples to oranges. I could just as easly say that I "project" that there's will be a millenial-scale solar minimum leading to a new Ice Age in the next several decades. For now, we're comparing the record of AGW with the record of natural variation.

                          •  I think it prudent to use the consensus (0+ / 0-)

                            projections for what is likely to happen in the next 100 years or so as a basis for action

                          •  Confronted with facts, and you run away? (0+ / 0-)
        •  Your assertions (0+ / 0-)

          re glaciers, sea level rises, earth's climate in the recent past, etc. are just plain WRONG.

          Labor was the first price paid for all things. It was not by money, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased. - Adam Smith

          by boatwright on Tue May 08, 2012 at 02:36:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site