Climate Change Denial: State of the Art
Climate Change Denial: State of the Art
Somebody sent me this Toronto Sun piece the other day and I tried to ignore it. Seriously, in two short paragraphs, columnist Lorrie Goldstein dismisses we "global warming fanatics" as unreasonable, indecent, insensible, absurd, disgusting, juvenile, half-baked, self-righteous and mindless propagandists.
He then lays out a careful scientific argument convincingly refuting the global scientific consensus on climate change ... no, I'm kidding. He just goes on being insulting for his entire 600-word budget.
Perhaps we should take heart that this the opposition has been reduced to this ....
- Richard Littlemore's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Sigh . . .
It's not even very creative. Brings to mind the quip "I've been called worse by better."
Fern Mackenzie
Renewed wave of denier attacks.
There appears to be a new assault on the AGW front.
The deniers have become extremely bold and are now attacking the message and the messenger on all fronts.
Recently the National Post, which I occasionally read just to see how ridiculous their commentary is, spent at least two days with full page articles and letters attacking David Suzuki. The two letters came from the team of Patterson and Ball, both of which denounced the science behind global warming and referred to Suzuki as a tired old crack pot whose message hasn't changed in over 20 years.
Now we have an article in the Toronto Sun loudly denying global warming and making fun of anybody who is "crazy" enough to believe, or worse "preach the gospel" of AGW.
Mr. Goldstien does make on good point though, "Their absurd, disgusting and juvenile attempts to suggest anyone who doesn't bow down before their half-baked ideas, self-righteous prattle and mindless propaganda is comparable to a Holocaust denier, have gone on unchallenged for too long."
Given that the science behind AGW supports the "global warming fanatics" position and thus refutes the "half-baked ideas" that the deniers cling to makes it clear who the real "fanatics" are.
One thing this article does, as well as the others I have read lately, is to make it very clear that the deniers fell that they are gaining more support and that now is the time to “strike”. The call to arms, "have gone on unchallenged for too long" is clearly meant to incite an increase in action amongst the deniers.
Day after day, year after year, decade after decade, while we drag or feet, the warming continues.
Stop the warming!
cyb3r_ph4ntom
The Closet Environmentalist
http://polarbearadventures.blogspot.com/
If the shoe fits ...
"Lorrie Goldstein dismisses we "global warming fanatics" as unreasonable, indecent, insensible, absurd, disgusting, juvenile, half-baked, self-righteous and mindless propagandists."
Yes. So what's your point, Richard?
Half-baked
All those half-baked fanatics at NASA, the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society, then there's those "mindless" Nobel Prize winning scientists.
Sore losers
Resulting to ad hominem's to make a point is the surest sign of a sore loser. They're at the point where they only embarrassing themselves.
^ meant to sound ironic!
^ meant to sound ironic!
Standard junk
I would think we should expect no less from a reliable source such as the Toronto Sun (meant to sound sarcastic) - a paper likened to that of taboid magazines and comprised of more advertisements than text.
GloBull Warming
Here is a bone for you true believers:
Most of the world is laughing at this embarrasing nonsense, but I'm betting you guys will eat it up.
Have fun.
Global warming blamed for unusual cold spell
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=61512&sid=17581089&con_type=1
Excertp:
Unusually cold weather is gripping a number of countries, including China and Canada.
"We are seeing extremely unusual weather across the world," said polar researcher Rebecca Lee Lok-sze. "This is due to human activities and our style of living.
"Most of the world is
"Most of the world is laughing at this embarrasing nonsense"
Can you provide a peer-reviewed citation for this?
GloBull Warming
HI, Peer Review?
No of course not. Only GreenPeace are dumb enough to back such idiocy.
Of course they were quick to jump in and back the statement. But then they only have one brain cell that they share amoung them on different days so its understandable.
I just thought you might get a kick out of the sheer sillyness of it.
This whole issue has become such a joke.
Just gotta laugh.
Laugh?
Me too...
But at you, not with you!
"not clear on the concept"
When I read arguments like those, or the one below, I almost feel pity.
///
“Attempts to maintain the focus against C02, a colourless, odourless benign gas essential for plant photosynthesis, have become truly ludicrous,” Dr. Tim Ball wrote in his Canada Free Press (CFP) column last moth. “Incredibly, C02 is branded by many as a `pollutant’—the continual references of Al Gore and Senator Barbara Boxer to “global warming pollution” are prime examples—and some governments have even labeled C02 as a toxic substance.”
Pitiful sums it up.
although I find Tim Ball to be just plain sad.
Fern Mackenzie
So.... exactly what in
So.... exactly what in perticular is incorrect about this statement?
Hmmmmm.
The whole AGW hypothysis is falling apart daily now. You have to be blind or a zealot not to see it.
You think CO2 is harmless?
You think CO2 is harmless? Depends on the circumstances.
Read about Lake Nyos.
...On 21 August 1986, possibly triggered by a landslide, the lake suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby villages...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
And of course CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect which leads to global warming, but you are not bright enough to understand how that works, Troll.
CO2 is harmless
Now that was a brainy retort. Too much of anything can hurt you. Too much oxygen even.
Geez it embarrassing to have have to point that our.
Take a look historical CO2 data. I know I know, looking at historical FACTS is not the AGW way but just take a peak.
380 ppm is just above the minimum to sustain life on the freaking planet. We are a historical low point.
2000 ppm would be more like normal.
Don't you guy read at all?
Provide backup for your
Provide backup for your statements. Citations and links, please.
Just one of many available
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Surely you aren't going to suggest that the historical normal CO2 levels have been below current are you?
Your link is useless without
Your link is useless without its context. Who made the graph, based on what data? Was it published in a peer-reviewed journal, or what other reasons might there be for considering it credible? And how exactly does it support the claims you made?
So typical
Yawn!.... So show me a graph that is peer reviewed that shows CO2 levels over history being flat and below 1000 ppm.
And please don't even attempt to throw our the Fradulent work of Michael Mann. Nobody but the Propoganda club at realclimate support that crap any more.
`Liar.
`Liar.
Why don't you try living in 2000 ppm CO2?
Troll said: "2000 ppm would be more like normal".
OK are you volunteering to live in a 2000 ppm CO2 atmosphere for an extended period of time? I don't think you would be able to stay there for very long before the effects were noticeable.
Wouldn't it be nice to get an intelligent troll once in a while. These ignorant trolls are so boring.
Ian Forrester
You said "I don't think you
You said "I don't think you would be able to stay there for very long before the effects were noticeable."
Links please to support your suggestion that it would be in any way harmful.
CO2 is plantfood.
Beyond that it is the best tool available to control society, raise taxes and push the radicle green agend of demented fools like GreenPeacers.
Don't you know how to use Google?
Try this one for starters:
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/jun252006/1607.pdf
Also note that maximum allowable concentrations for an 8 hour exposure is 5,000 ppm. How do you think you would react to 6 weeks exposure (2,000 ppm) let alone a life time?
Ian Forrester
Ian: You've outdone yourself
What a blatent work of AGW propoganda. The paper even uses the typical taget year or 2050 for dooms day.
Pure conjecture.
Even so. it clearly states the current standard for work is 5000ppm and says a liveable level might me lower than that.
Then goes on to conclude (from wild guesses) that the ultimate target must be 426ppm.
Was that paper sponcored by Greenpeace by any chance?
I will do my part for a better climate and go a drive.
Will you?
Can you please write in understandable English?
How can any one have any support for your ideas when you can't even explain them in understandable English? It always amazes me that people write about how scientists are misunderstanding the basic science behind AGW when they themselves cannot read nor write in understandable English. Do you AGW deniers now deny the proper use of the English language?
Example "I will do my part for a better climate and go a drive."
Have you been living in too high a CO2 atmosphere and has it affected your mental abilities?
Ian Forrester
Let's be sure what this means
It may very well be that the maximum exposure for a human being to breathe an atmosphere of 5,000ppm of CO2 is 8 hours, and you think you'd be quite happy living in 2,000ppm indefinitely, surrounded by lush vegetation. But that isn't what AGW is about. Feed 2,000ppm through the models and see what you get in terms of sea level rise, average temperature increase, extreme weather events, etc etc etc. We'd have to invent a new scale for storm intensity. Have you reckoned that into your scenario? Oh, sorry -- I forgot. CO2 has no chemical nor physical properties that might affect how the atmosphere retains heat. Silly of me.
Fern Mackenzie
CO2: doubling 280-560 ppm
CO2: doubling 280-560 ppm (1.1 C), 560-1120 (another 1.1 C), 1120-2240 (another 1.1 C). Not that there is enough fossil fuel left on earth to ever reach 2000 ppm.
Positive and negative feedbacks (both still not very well understood or reliably modeled in GCM's) could change that somewhat. Climate has a tendency to regulate itself (Lindzen's Iris effect? Oceans?) considering that high CO2 levels in the past haven't caused run-away temperature disasters making the earth uninhabitable.
Jurassic and Cretaceous CO2 levels were somewhere between 4500 and 2000 ppm (gas released probably by the break-up of Gondwana) and nature didn't suffer, on the contrary. Indeed today's CO2 levels are geologically speaking very low. How well humans and modern mammals can adapt to high levels of CO2, I couldn't tell, but is a hypothetical problem anyway, since we will never pass the 1000 ppm.
We have only added some 100ppm to the atmosphere thus far and we will probably add another 200 ppm, at the most, this century. By that time fossil fuels will be an ancient form of energy production. Hopefully, the Cadarach project will make nuclear fusion the energy source of the future.
These numbers are way too low
You are just distributing lies again Chris. If you have read the IPCC reports you will see that the effects of doubling of CO2 concentrations are much higher than you are claiming. If you have done research to dis-prove the IPCC conclusions then cite it, if not then you are a lyin' denyin' fool.
Also the feed backs will become much more important the warmer it gets.
The IPCC numbers for CO2 doubling are in the range of 3C per doubling.
You are supposedly a scientist but most scientists I know are honest, what happened to you? I assume that you were employed by a company which is responsible for high releases of CO2, oil and gas or perhaps coal?
I find it rather fitting that most "scientists" who oppose AGW have "geo" as a prefix to their particular science. Seems to me that large numbers of "geo-scientists" are employed in the very industries who are responsible for denying the effects of high CO2 levels.
Ian Forrester
Help me here, Ian
I'm just a dumb artsci, but it looks to me as though Chris is saying that increasing the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere by an order of magnitude will result in a fixed temperature increase of 1.1 C with each increase in the exponent. Your statement that "the IPCC numbers for CO2 doubling are in the range of 3C per doubling" suggests the same thing. I find this counter-intuitive. Can you suggest a "CO2 Chemistry for Dummies" that would help?
Fern Mackenzie
The relationship between
The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect as I pointed out in my original post.
The latest formula for calculation of radiative forcing from changing concentrations of carbon dioxide(Myhre et al 1998) is:
Delta F=5.35ln(C/Co).
The doubling in the range of 3C mentioned by the IPCC includes "positive feedbacks", however, they admit that the possible negative feedbacks from clouds are not well underestood.
Fern, here is a good place to start
Fern, the climate sensitivity of CO2 concentrations is related to the Beer-Lambert law which states that "there is a logarithmic dependence between the transmission of light through a substance and the concentration of the substance".
This is applicable to all wave lengths but is a bit more complicated with light at IR wavelengths.
The absorption of the light results in more highly energized molecules which results in them warming the surrounding atmosphere.
Thus you get the same heating effect going from 280 ppm to 560 as you get going from 560 to 1120 ppm. I'm not sure where you got the order of magnitude (10x) from, we are just looking at doubling of the CO2 concentration.
Because of pressure effects on the IR absorption bands there are departures from a strict Beer-Lambert interpretation.
A good place to look at CO2 sensitivity is this post at RealClimate:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2w2anm
Step 5 in that post describes how a doubling of CO2 will result in approximately 3 C degrees of warming, not the 1 C degree that deniers like CS are claiming.
Feedbacks are very important, especially the increased concentration of water vapour at higher temperatures, which causes two problems. Firstly, water vapour is a GHG so the temperature is increased even more and so on (this is a positive feedback). Secondly, more water vapour results in more precipitation, rain in warm months, snow and freezing rain in cold months. This is already happening but those with their heads in the sand refuse to admit it.
There are other positive feed backs which will again result in more warming. The negative feedbacks are either very weak or are non existent (e.g. Lindzen's Iris effect).
I hope this helps clarify this. It is quite a complicated area and gets confusing even for people who have some knowledge of the area. I hope that anyone who has better information than I have presented will jump in and correct any error I may have made.
Ian Forrester
Thanks
I will check out the real climate reference you cite.
As for the order of magnitude, that's just me exposing my ignorance of the terminology. I figured that repeatedly doubling a number (280 x 2 x 2 x 2) could also be described as 280 x "2 to the 3rd power" etc, and that the term "order of magnitude" applied. It's been a long time since I did any math more complicated than my tax return (and that's bad enough!)
Cheers,
Fern Mackenzie
Chris, that's a boatload of
Chris, that's a boatload of BS and you know it! If this is what you believe to be true, you must really think the Earth is flat.
You sound a lot like that
You sound a lot like that Sherwood Idso from the "Greening Earth Coalition" or like the Competitive Enterprise Institute lackeys who did up that disinformation ad which said "CO2 = Life." Either that or you've been suckered in by their brainwashing.
Brainwashing
Interesting you would mention brainwashing;
It is effective on large groups that think alike and reenforce their beliefs by repeated chanting of the accepted dogma.
Sound familiar?
AGW chant anyone?
You really are a piece of
You really are a piece of work, aren't you, Troll.
Mmm...
It might be an interesting experiment.
Could I turn the valve? Please?
Tom, I think he has already tried
And fried his brain cells.
Ian Forrester
Oh Puhleese!
Firstly the Sun is like some dlist newspaper so just ignor whatever the miserable ungreen git had to say and secondly the only thing that should be dismissed is his ungreen ass!