Climate Change and Well-Informed Denial

On climate change, we’re politically polarized—which would be bad enough, but that’s not all. The hole we’ve dug is even deeper—as new research clearly suggests.

There’s yet another study out on Democrats, Republicans, and climate change, this time from Lawrence Hamilton of the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire. Over the last two years, in a series of regional surveys, Hamilton asked nearly 9,500 people questions about climate change—from Appalachia to the Gulf Coast, and from New Hampshire to Alaska. 

Across all these regions, he consistently found the following phenomenon:  Democrats and Republicans who claimed to know less about the climate issue were more like one another in terms of whether they accepted the science. Democrats and Republicans who claimed to know a lot about the issue, by contrast, were vastly polarized—with knowledgeable Democrats overwhelmingly accepting the science, and knowledgeable Republicans overwhelmingly denying it.

Political polarization is greatest among the Republicans and Democrats who are most confident that they understand this issue,” writes Hamilton. “Republicans and Democrats less sure about their understanding also tend to be less far apart in their beliefs.”

This core finding itself is not new—a 2008 Pew survey also found that Republicans with a college level of education were less likely to accept the science of climate than Republicans who lack such education. Other studies have also underscored this fundamental point. But for precisely that reason, Hamilton’s research kind of puts it in the realm of indisputable political fact. Not only are we polarized over climate change, but our knowledge and sophistication, when combined with our politics, make matters worse.

How could this be? For Hamilton, the explanation lies in the interaction between how we get information (from trusted news and Internet sources, we think, but we’re actually being selective) and our own biases in evaluating it (objectively, we think, but again, we’re actually being selective). “People increasingly choose news sources that match their own views,” Hamilton writes. “Moreover, they tend to selectively absorb information even from this biased flow, fitting it into their pre-existing beliefs.” In other words, we’re twice biased—based on our views and information sources—and moreover, twice biased in different directions.

Thus it really makes a lot of sense that those who are paying less attention to the climate issue, whether nominally Democrat or Republican, are less polarized and less sure of themselves. They’re not working nearly as hard at reaffirming their convictions, and refuting the convictions of the other side. (Hamilton’s study implies, though, that that they may have a different problem—they know so little that they may be more likely to be buffeted by the weather in terms of how they think about climate. If it’s hot out, maybe they’ll worry. If it’s cold, they’ll scoff.)

Overall, the big picture is that our society is not making up its mind in anything like a rational or scientific manner about climate change. That’s unfortunate–but it would be a form of denial itself at this point to reject the finding. 



Dr Doom and Darth Vader.

It included real people too: chiropodists, dentists and pet care specialists.

this is untrue:

‘Check with your local plant growers (or scientists involved in experiments with CO2). The plants love it, and there is a feedback - more CO2.’

To remind you:

Wheat gets worse as CO2 rises


Effects of Rising Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide on Plants

and this tells you why you believe as you do, although the Greening Earth campaign has been going since before 2010:

Carbon Lobby Launches “CO2 is Green” Campaign
Ads Backed by Fossil-Fuel Interests Argue ‘CO2 Is Green’
Greenwire, July 14, 2010

So please don’t offer this crap again for it will be classed as spam.

BTW I have not yet done with your post in which you call on Carter, Singer and Co’ - they deserve special treatment by belonging to the no-longer trusted as scientist brigade, they have been ‘hung’ by their own deeds and actions as has been made clear in numerous sources including here on DesMogBlog. Try reading from other than your ‘prayer books’.

I am taking your posts small bites at a time as you seem to seem to suffer from attention deficit disorder with long posts and resort to incoherent blathering in response.

BBTW Where have I indulged in name calling? This appears to be another fantasy of yours.

How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?

A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate.

The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years.

The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.

“Global Climate Change Indicators”, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center

Please document YOUR conclusions, and in your own words. Mine were more specific than yours!

However, the first thing you need to do is explain why the MWP was not due to natural climate variation, and after you’ve done that, explain why our current warming period (flat since 1998) is not also natural variation?

Why is there no moderation on this blog? It has become a cess-pit of denier lies, dishonesty, malfeasance etc. Most progressive blogs have a comments policy which if not followed allows all those idiotic posts to go into a pool where they can rot away out of public viewing.

Honest people will get fed up rebutting the nonsense and lies put out by these deniers and will leave, in fact, lots of previous prolific posters have left.

Do you want this blog to be an echo chamber for the deniers? If so please tell us and we will leave. If not do some thing about the dishonest trolls who are taking over.

As you know this blogging is a new experience for me. I’ve taken a look at a few sites and have made the following observations:

There’s a site called RealClimate which appears to be heavily moderated as they do not post opposing views. They have little activity and appear just to exist to keep the faith for the faithful. Is this what you mean by ‘progressive’.

On the other hand there is a site called Wattsupwiththat (voted top science blog of the year) which appears to be unmoderated. Anybody can publish there. There are many sites like this. One called Climate Etc. appears to take very deep dives into the ‘science’ with very lively debate. If you want this blog to reach out to Joe public then these folks seem to be able to show you the way.

By listing wattsuphisbutt and curriedclimate you just showed that you do not know the difference between science blogs and anti-science junk sites.

This blog is starting to look like these two sites with all the rubbish deniers are posting. It is becoming an echo chamber for all the nonsense posted on denier sites.

If you believe that these denier sites are not moderated then you are even more gullible than I thought.

How come you never mention Open mind or skepticalscience? These are where science is discussed and junk science exposed.

If this site continues to allow un-moderated slander and lies from the likes of you then I’m afraid it will sink to the level of a denier site. The original posts are good but dishonest deniers like you are taking over.

You and the other denier trolls who have invaded this site denigrate anyone who tries to show what the real science is saying.

You never answer questions and never ever refer to actual science papers in the scientific literature.

I have wasted too much time already trying to correct you people.

I have had enough, I have better things to do with my time than play games with scum like you.

Good Bye.

“wattsuphisbutt and curriedclimate” indeed. Is that how you refer to them?

You are truly delusional and past any human help if you say that Climate Etc is “Anti-Science”.

I think it would be good for you to take a rest from all this. It is clearly causing you distress.

Aufedersein and thanks for the education and memories…….

Ive realized this was a con game before Monckton was ever heard from.

The only people who love this junk science are the same people who cling to the government teat because they took no rigorous science or mathematics while they attended college. Al Gore as their arch-typical prototype.

Was Fourier gearing up for people not yet born to make a killing back in 1820?

“The only people who love this junk science are the same people who cling to the government teat ”

Ah, your problem is you’re a libertard. The government WHATEVER IT DOES is wrong. This is a faith-based conclusion.

I guess you’ve never done an honest day’s work in your life, have you.

What the hell does Fourier have to do with the “average” thermal energy of all the earth’s molecules.

…and Yes I’m opposed to a theocratic state as were our founders, even when the faith is cult scientism.

If you’d attempted to come out of your comfortable bubble and do some research (necessary before you can make a scientific deduction, but unnecessary in a faith-based assertion such as your modus operandi), you’d know that Fourier found that CO2 was an absorber at infra-red frequencies but transparent at visible ones.

“n the other hand there is a site called Wattsupwiththat (voted top science blog of the year) which appears to be unmoderated. ”

You have got to be kidding me. That is simply delusion & confirmation bias.

They are one of the most heavily censored sites on the net in regards to climate science.

“Anybody can publish there”

Yes of course they can…….if they are a denier. Then they are allowed to say what they want. If you spent any time on actual science blogs you would see evidence that they outright prevent comments from those that expose their lies. Many times I have been prevented from commenting on that site & when I have been allowed to comment. They either snipped me or censored me or straight out deleted posts that would harm their cause.

Why don’t you try skeptical science, or deltoid. There is moderation there , but no censorship unlike WUWT, NOVA, CA or Depot.

Even try JREF.

“If you want this blog to reach out to Joe public then these folks seem to be able to show you the way.”

Like Fox news does?

They do moderate on language. Perhaps that is what you experience.

A lot of the language on this blog would not be tolerated for sure.

Such as when the language isn’t “Yes, AGW is false and it’s all a conspiracy”.

Then the posts are moderated like heck.

The denialists don’t want to know when they’ve got something wrong because their faith in themselves is unshakeable as long as they ignore facts.

Phil M quoted:

“n the other hand there is a site called Wattsupwiththat (voted top science blog of the year) which appears to be unmoderated. ”

Yes. I was going to answer that little bit of stupid Phil (not from you) but there has just been so much stupid to wade through on this thread.

‘…appears to me unmoderated’

You gotta be kidding. People who don’t agree with Anthony or expose his duplicity get booted out, this after their more embarrassing posts—to Anthony— don’t appear at all. This has become clear when others have responded quoting some of a missing post, which sometimes make a brief appearance and leave such a trail. Poor Anthony then has to wade through and cleanse the threads—which he does. He also cleanses his posts as his assertions about trends etc. prove not to work out in practice. This behaviour has been commented on elsewhere.

Now as for that ‘top science blog of the year’ business, hey I could vote myself ‘top climate denier vampire hitter of the year’ with about as much validity or relevance.

Bizarro world ‘Bloggies’ finalist for Best Science Blog is … anti-science website WattsUpWithThat

another feature of Watt’s duplicity is:

Hits charade: WattsUpWithThat hypes itself with dubious webstats, while lowballing other blogs

and here is an example of Watts blowing distortion around:

FoxNews, WattsUpWithThat push falsehood-filled Daily Mail article on global cooling that utterly misquotes, misrepresents work of Mojib Latif and NSIDC

Now for all those blowing the smoke and mirrors of distorted land temperature data so beloved of Watts, D’Aleo and a bloke called Smith (aka Chiefio):

Anthony Watts contradicted by Watts et al

That’s why it took Watts so long, he could not avoid the obvious and if he had done he could not have achieved peer reviewed publication in a reputable journal, i.e. something other than E&E.

I’ll take what you say into account when I review these blogs. I’m still learning and just gave you my first impressions. Had personal experience of being censored by RealClimate and only read WUWT and it appeared a welcoming sort of place. Climate Etc also seemed to bring on many views which I found interesting.

I’ll keep on the lookout. Thanks…….

Like many climate denier bloggers, you seem to be incapable of properly documenting your assertions.

It also HAS been explained. The IPCC chapter goes into it:

But you haven’t read anything about it because all you’ve wanted to know is that it is a “killer argument” against AGW by the echo chamber you hear the things you want to know in.

Linking to a site that reference revealed truth is not science; its religion.

“Linking to a site that reference revealed truth is not science; its religion.”

Let me guess Gareth, the only sites that will be acceptable for you will be commentary blogs like WUWT, CA, Depot, Nova?

One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1200 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

“Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions. Further evidence (Figure 1) suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.

“Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today’s warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

“Overall, our conclusions are:

a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2000 years, and

b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.

Source: “Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science” by Robert Way, Skeptical Science, Aug 23, 2010

The MWP doesn’t “prove” that we can’t be doing damage this around. However,as Phil Jones himself as said, if the MWP was global, that’s a whole other game, or words to that effect. Those 963 studies imply that it was “as warm or warmer” than now. How in the world can you, from that, conclude that it hasn’t been this warm in 2000 years?

The null hypothesis has to be that our current warming must be natural, because it’s happened before (not only during the MWP, but at earlier points in this same interglacial. And it was a global phenomena. Those numerous reports (which can easily be accessed) confirm this. But obviously whether or not it’s warming, there will be short durations in some locations at least, of cooling. Shall we reject the fact that we can’t have had global warming for the past two centuries, because there’s been some cooling periods (1940 to 1975) being one. There was an earlier cooling period as well after the start of the industrial revolution, and satellite readings now show that the planet’s temperature has been flat since 1998.

There must be some evidence provided by the AGW believers before we just walk away from the null hypothesis. And, given the significant implications of policy changes needed in that case, weak evidence is not adequate.

There is no evidence. Clearly the computer models are not evidence. The “hot spot” in the troposphere predicted by the models is NOT there. There have been cooling durations during this current warming even as CO2 level continued to rise (1940 to 1975). In fact, the big threat back then was the oncoming ice age. (Even by Obama’s current science advisor - Holdren)

“However,as Phil Jones himself as said, if the MWP was global, that’s a whole other game”

So prove it was global.

“Those 963 studies imply that it was “as warm or warmer” than now”

False. It said that it cannot be proven that the MWP was not as warm as it was during the data taken for those studies. Now it is warmer than any period during the MWP.

You see, as temperature rises due to AGW, the temperature it is now rises, and that means that it is warmer now than when those 953 studies were made.

“Clearly the computer models are not evidence.”

It isn’t and except for deniers making a strawman, it never was said it was evidence.

“The “hot spot” in the troposphere predicted by the models is NOT there”

It is there. And it’s not a signature of AGW, but any warming.

“There have been cooling durations during this current warming”

False. There have been no cooling conditions for long enough to determine a trend.

“even as CO2 level continued to rise (1940 to 1975).”

Except we had a war at that time and the warming effect of CO2 is cumulative.

“In fact, the big threat back then was the oncoming ice age.”

False. the consensus was warming from CO2 emissions would trump cooling from SO2 pollution. But a tired old meme from a denialist. Go figure.

‘The MWP doesn’t “prove” that we can’t be doing damage this around. However,as Phil Jones himself as said, if the MWP was global, that’s a whole other game, or words to that effect. Those 963 studies imply that it was “as warm or warmer” than now. How in the world can you, from that, conclude that it hasn’t been this warm in 2000 years?’

Why do you not understand that all that is bunk? Don’t tell me you are senile.

And you have the gall to call me rigid. Well FMOSB! If you had ever visited Malta you would know what that means.

Here, and mark well:

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

Now read this slowly and carefully:


Sphaerica at 06:51 AM on 24 January, 2011
Stefann, Oxford Kevin,

Some time ago I went through as many of the co2science papers as I could bear. What I discovered was that:

1) Very many papers described a “medieval warm period”, but differed from each other in actual dates by hundreds of years. Some would say 900, some, 1200, some 1400. Often there might be a period of some warmth for a few hundred years, but the period coming close to modern temperatures would be a peak covering a mere 20 span, and the peaks varied by hundreds of years from one study to the next.

So the site will quote papers as seeing the MWP from 900 to 1250, and exceeding current temperatures by 1.5˚C, any yet the actual period where temps were that high were a mere couple of decades, and never the same couple decades from one study to the next.

This would be the equivalent of taking the warmest annual temperatures from each country in the past three hundred years, and using each such maximum in concert to determine the temperature for the entire globe in that period. You couldn’t even justify doing that in a single year, let alone ten, let alone hundreds.

2) I found several studies that were very selectively interpreted. For instance, one was based on a graph from a paper which showed warming in South American lake sediments. If you went to the paper, there were five other lakes in the study, all of which showed substantially cooler temperatures. They picked the one that showed extreme warmth and ignored the others.

In another study, it was clearly stated by the authors that they were not studying climate and that their results could not be taken to reflect the climate in the region. But that didn’t stop CO2science.

In another case, the study only went back 500 years from the present (to 1500). That didn’t stop them from including it in the MWP.

In many cases, there were very wide error bars on the temperature and/or period range, or both, but these were always interpreted kindly in favor of the preferred conclusion.

In other cases, the papers or graphics were so vague as to be worthless… they looked like they were scribbled on napkins. They either came from non-peer-reviewed articles and write ups (not studies), or else the subject of the study was not actual temperatures in the period in question, so any graphs included were worthless in that respect.

After too much time wasted, it became quite obvious to me that there was neither rigor nor honesty in the effort. If there were, it would be published as a comprehensive, meaningful study, such as Mann et al (2009) (which reached the opposite conclusion, by combining all available proxies and systematically determining that while there was regional warming, such warming was not global… but it did so out in the open, in a peer reviewed study, not on a web site with no rigor or honesty).

It says a lot, I think, when something is designed as a fun to use interactive map on a web site, yet can’t make into the realm of peer reviewed science. <—endquote—>

Lionel, rather than have me chase around the internet, how about summarizing what you think that reference says, and why you think it is a rebuttal of something I wrote.

. my other considered response would have been to provide you with my google doc and say .. “you first” …..

now you have become a boor, to boot.

‘Lionel, rather than have me chase around the internet,’

Afraid of what you might read that will shatter your strange illusions.

Listen bud, if you cannot be bothered to read anything other than presented to you through the door of a certain googledoc then to bad. Don’t blame me for now being intolerent of your self imposed ignorance.

You scoff at reading books, cherry pick discussion points meanwhile the Earth is warming up as this shows:

Extreme warming forces climate scientists to add hot pink to temperature map


Tennessee Valley Authority: “We have never experienced such a major weather event in our history”


April 26 news: Climate change worsens Western water woes; Gas prices slam mobility — and Obama’s popularity, too


Masters: Midwest deluge enhanced by near-record Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures

and look at this:

glacier mass balance data 2008 and 2009

Note that the Chacaltaya glacier in Bolivia, which scientists only as recently as 2005 stated would likely vanish has by 2009 already gone.

I don’t know where you are in the US but HTF you can be ignorant of the truth amazes me, cognitive dissonance can be the only reason.

So I repeat, afraid that what you might read will shatter your strange illusions.

“Period of relative warmth in some regions of the Northern Hemisphere in comparison with the subsequent several centuries. Also referred to as the Medieval Warm Epoch (MWE). As with the ‘Little Ice Age’ (LIA), no well-defined precise date range exists. The dates A.D. 900–1300 cover most ranges generally used in the literature. Origin is difficult to track down, but it is believed to have been first used in the 1960s (probably by Lamb in 1965). As with the LIA, the attribution of the term at regional scales is complicated by significant regional variations in temperature changes, and the utility of the term in describing regional climate changes in past centuries has been questioned in the literature. As with the LIA, numerous myths can still be found in the literature with regard to the details of this climate period. These include the citation of the cultivation of vines in Medieval England, and the settlement of Iceland and southwestern Greenland about 1000 years ago, as evidence of unusual warmth at this time. As noted by Jones and Mann (2004) [Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004], arguments that such evidence supports anomalous global warmth during this time period is based on faulty logic and/or misinterpretations of the available evidence.”

Source: Medieval Warm Period (“MWP”), RealClimate, Nov 28, 2004

One of the “editors” of Wikipedia was terminated not too long ago for unbelievably biased modifications to anything touching on AGW.

Anecdotal evidence is just that. But in that case it happens to confirm 963 peer-reviewed studies, and that looks like more than coincidence.

What does “faulty logic” have to do with burials below perma frost, or mapping the coastline of Greenland, or antique vineyards further north than where grapes can now be grown?

However, the science papers in the IPCC WG1 don’t use anecdote.

Your 953 peer reviewed studies are out of date, false, misrepresented or all of the above.

The temperature for this decade is warmer than any global temperature during any of the periods that the MWP has existed for in the regions.

And the antique vinyards were much further south than they are today, whilst in those times the wine was a religious requirement, and you didn’t have to compete with New Zealand wines down at the local Threshers wine store, therefore its quality was undetermined. You can grow crap wine much further north still.

What was the “average” temperature of the deep pacific ocean during last 1000 years and who took the measurements?

The concept of a global average temperature is a myth. There is no way of assessing it. Taking the “average” speed of all automobiles of the past century would be far easier yet science has no tools reconstruct the past accurately. It calls its SWAGs (silly wild-ass guesses) data.hfu

Which molecules are included in this “average” and which are excluded?

The faithful oan not answer this question

Or who do you think took the temperatures there?

The concept of an average is a mathematical fact. Global average temperatures are a mathematical fact. You just can’t handle it.

There is a way of assessing it. Several ways.

And the average speed of the car in London has been measured and compared with the horse-and-carriage speeds of the Victorian age.

Which molecules are included in what average? You can’t measure temperature on molecules, since temperature is a bulk property (an average velocity of the molecules).

You understand very little yet are so extremely certain. Dunning Kruger effect to the Max.

The faithful of Ayn Rand have been given the answers many times, yet they refuse to hear because their blind faith requires faith remain unchanged.

RE: “The concept of an average is a mathematical fact.”

No it’s many mathematical facts, is it a fully integrated temporal and spacial average or something more arbitrary? Is it a mean, a modal, a median, or perhaps an RMS average. Does it matter? Tell me more about your “averages” Do they take a daily high and low and divide by 2; no that can’t be right—-just what do they do?

RE: “Global average temperatures are a mathematical fact. You just can’t handle it.”

Mathematical “facts” are generally expressed in mathematical proofs; Show me your mathematical proofs that you or any other human being can accurately assess the instantaneous thermal energy of all of the earths molecules. I doubt that you are even dimly aware of what mathematics are about.

RE: And the average speed of the car in London has been measured and compared with the horse-and-carriage speeds of the Victorian age.

Great what was the “average” speed of an automobile in London for the month of June in 1978?

Which automobiles are significant for your “average.” Can they be idling, must they be occupied? or simply moving? are you counting all London city registered automobiles? or simply ones observed on the streets? What if they are parked or simply stalled in traffic?

Would it matter?

I’m eager to see the studies that back up your claim; how would you construct a proof that they are accurate?

Average. Fact of maths for anyone who managed to stay at school for more than 6 years.

RMS average” Root ***MEAN*** Square. Redundant to add “average” there.

And the global average and its methodology is available from the IPCC reports for anyone willing to read and take the risk that their comforting deceptions are removed.

I take it that the travel agents are in on the “scam” too, then, since they assert that there is a climate. E.g. when you go to trinidad and tobago, they tell you it has hot wet summers (a climatological measure). I take it gardners are likewise in on the act since they have climate zones for growing plants (another climate measure, where the movement of the warmer zones northward is another measure of a warming globe).

Are they in it for the grant money too?

Or are you nuts?

“Show me your mathematical proofs that you or any other human being can accurately assess the instantaneous thermal energy of all of the earths molecules.”

It’s called “Temperature”.

Compared to the number of cubic meters the earth atmosphere contains, the number of molecules in a cubic meter (which people can and have measured temperature in) is practically unity.

And knowing the temperature of a sample leads to statistically valid conclusions about the population that sample is from:

Which would be known to anyone doing mathematics at a higher level (pre-university). Getting there would require staying at school, mind, so you may have missed it.

All of which shows that you have no clue about maths, statistics or science in general, yet you insist you can gainsay the experts in all fields:

“Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.”

Source: “Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming” by John Cook, Skeptical Science, June 26, 2010

How does one “observe” a man made CO2 molecule vs a natural Made CO2 molecule (one created by a grass fire for instance)

‘How does one “observe” a man made CO2 molecule vs a natural Made CO2 molecule (one created by a grass fire for instance)’

Isotopes of the constituant atoms are different.

RE: Isotopes of the constituant atoms are different.

How is the isotopic makeup a a carbon dioxide molecule released in a lightning ignited grass fire different from the one I exhale.

Please be specific.

Or by asking the man who made it how much they’ve made.

You DO know that cars run on fossil fuels in the main, don’t you?

They don’t run on dreams and fairy dust.

CO2 is increasing at 2ppmv ANNUALLY. It’s current level in the atmosphere is around 390ppmv. It is called a trace gas for good reason. Water vapor, which happens to also be a greenhouse gas if 50 times as prevalent. The annual rate of increase has been constant and linear for a number of years now. An annual rate of increase at 1/2 of one percent per year, of a trace gas is hardly worthy of the descriptor “sharply rising”.

Neither does it all need to be escaping from the atmosphere. The ocean, which is beginning to cool is a very good absorber.

“The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can’t be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.”

Source: “How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?”, Advanced version, Skeptical Science, Sep 9, 2010