AGW/CC Deniers & "Fake-Skeptics" - their mindset

[Keepitsimple]

Doesn't go back the millions of years that were posted but yep - instead of 3 red tennis balls among 10,000 - we're now up to 4 tennis balls among those 10,000 - and apparently, we're on our way to self-annihilation. That's what moving to 400 PPM has done. That's what adding one tennis ball has done.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[-1=e^ipi]

It's not about the level, it's about the accelerating rate of change. Also the large increase in other greenhouse gasses such as methane and NOX.

Let's see, the title is: "Rising carbon dioxide emissions push greenhouse gases to record high".

How is that not about 'level'?

Furthermore, it is only the fastest rate in 30 years. Not exactly a long time frame.

In addition, what is really relevant is the increase in the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, not atmospheric CO2 concentrations, since the radiative forcing of CO2 is roughly a logarithmic function of CO2 concentrations.

Well the Guardian is just reporting what the WMO has published. You can go direct to them and see the report for yourself.

Look, making claims such as "in 2013 concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere were 142% of what they were before the Industrial Revolution" is simply misleading to the public and a bastardization of the English language.

Before the 'industrial revolution' could mean in 1750, it could mean in 1000, it could mean 10,000 years ago, it could mean a billion years ago, etc. This leaves the ignorant public to have a false perception that CO2 levels have been basically constant (or at least below 400 ppm) for the past few billion years. Obviously, they mean 142% higher than in 1750 (they want to pick the middle of the little ice age to maximize the different for political reasons), but the public doesn't know this. Why not say 'highest levels in the past 2.6 million years'? That would be far more accurate.

[waldo]

Doesn't go back the millions of years that were posted but yep - instead of 3 red tennis balls among 10,000 - we're now up to 4 tennis balls among those 10,000 - and apparently, we're on our way to self-annihilation. That's what moving to 400 PPM has done. That's what adding one tennis ball has done.

of course the essence of this fake-skeptic/denier ramble is that "anthropogenic sourced CO2 is just so, so, so... inconsequential... just a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of CO2 emissions". Of course, Simple tried to apply his tennis ball math here, but somehow couldn't be bothered to respond to the questions/challenge.

[waldo]

Let's see

you're picking at nits. The Guardian article hasn't stated anything incorrectly... it provides linkage to the WMO news release should one look for clarification. The article speaks to both level and radiative forcing. To thinking types a reference to 'before the industrial revolution' sets the reference point at the industrial revolution... you know... when significant human emission influence first started. You know, the point of relative and related comparative meaning and reference. The fastest level rate rise is specifically mentioned (since 1984)...

[Mighty AC]

Doesn't go back the millions of years that were posted but yep - instead of 3 red tennis balls among 10,000 - we're now up to 4 tennis balls among those 10,000 - and apparently, we're on our way to self-annihilation. That's what moving to 400 PPM has done. That's what adding one tennis ball has done.

I expect that you are aware that the greenhouse effect is necessary for our survival right? If only 3 red tennis balls are responsible for keeping the earth from freezing, don't you think that increasing that amount by 33% (or more) could cause excess heat to accumulate?

Essentially you saying that small concentrations of a substance cannot have an impact. Would you be willing to test that ratio with certain poisons and toxins on yourself?

[-1=e^ipi]

you're picking at nits. The Guardian article hasn't stated anything incorrectly... it provides linkage to the WMO news release should one look for clarification. The article speaks to both level and radiative forcing. To thinking types a reference to 'before the industrial revolution' sets the reference point at the industrial revolution... you know... when significant human emission influence first started. You know, the point of relative and related comparative meaning and reference. The fastest level rate rise is specifically mentioned (since 1984)...

And the WMO news release does the exact same thing.

This is taking advantage of the ignorance and scientific illiteracy of the public in order to spread alarmism. The public doesn't understand the geological record, nor what 'pre-industrial levels' means. Why not simply state the facts in a way that cannot be easily misinterpreted? Oh, that's right, because it would hurt the alarmist cause.

[Wilber]

Let's see, the title is: "Rising carbon dioxide emissions push greenhouse gases to record high".

How is that not about 'level'?

Furthermore, it is only the fastest rate in 30 years. Not exactly a long time frame.

In addition, what is really relevant is the increase in the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, not atmospheric CO2 concentrations, since the radiative forcing of CO2 is roughly a logarithmic function of CO2 concentrations.

Look, making claims such as "in 2013 concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere were 142% of what they were before the Industrial Revolution" is simply misleading to the public and a bastardization of the English language.

Before the 'industrial revolution' could mean in 1750, it could mean in 1000, it could mean 10,000 years ago, it could mean a billion years ago, etc. This leaves the ignorant public to have a false perception that CO2 levels have been basically constant (or at least below 400 ppm) for the past few billion years. Obviously, they mean 142% higher than in 1750 (they want to pick the middle of the little ice age to maximize the different for political reasons), but the public doesn't know this. Why not say 'highest levels in the past 2.6 million years'? That would be far more accurate.

The article states several times that the rate is accelerating.

Do you automatically discount all data on everything collected during just the last half century because of the time frame or only that which doesn't support your position? Apparently you think humans are intelligent enough to do anything except figure out how they are damaging their own planet.

Historians date the Industrial Revolution from 1760. Why would you assume anything else?

The planet's population has doubled in the past 40 years. The two most populous countries in the world have become two of the highest consuming in that time. We dump over 33 billion tons of previously trapped carbon into the atmosphere every year and existing carbon sinks can handle less than half of it. We have massive garbage patches churning around in the worlds oceans but could humans be having any effect on climate? Impossible according to you guys.

You remind me of three little figurines we have on a widow sill. One has his hands over his eyes, another his ears and the other his mouth.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Wilber

[-1=e^ipi]

The article states several times that the rate is accelerating.

Yes, that is expected since economic output is accelerating. But accelerating atmospheric CO2 does not imply accelerating warming. That is why the logarithm is more useful in this context.

Do you automatically discount all data on everything collected during just the last half century because of the time frame or only thatvwich doesn't support your position?

No. I do have a problem with people trying to misinform the public though.

Apparently you think humans are intelligent enough to do anything except figure out how they are damaging their own planet.

I'm not the one that thinks that physical laws such as conservation of energy or the second law of thermodynamics are mere inconveniences that can be circumvented to satisfy one's dogma. Apparently many climate alarmists can to. Include your and your claims that a warmer climate will be 'more energetic' which will result in more hurricanes.

Apparently all the physics we know about heat engines must be all wrong. It's not like reducing the temperature gradient between the surface and the tropopause would have any effect on hurricanes... *sarcasm*

Historians date the Indistrial Revolution from 1760. Why would you assume anything else?

Yes, and that also corresponds to the little ice age.

could humans be having any effect on climate? Impossible according to you guys.

That isn't my position. Yet another strawman argument.

[Wilber]

No. I do have a problem with people trying to misinform the public though.

That isn't my position. Yet another strawman argument.

I also have a problem with people trying to misinform the public.

What is your position other than trying to convince people of your intellectual superiority by belittling people who actually do research.

[On Guard for Thee]

Wilber, on 09 Sept 2014 - 6:25 PM, said:

I also have a problem with people trying to misinform the public.

What is your position other than trying to convince people of your intellectual superiority by belittling people who actually do research.

I think that's about the only position he's got, and it ain't working real well. Wehould believe him and dismiss the WMO?

[-1=e^ipi]

What is your position

Position with respect to what? Be specific please.

[waldo]

And the WMO news release does the exact same thing.

This is taking advantage of the ignorance and scientific illiteracy of the public in order to spread alarmism. The public doesn't understand the geological record, nor what 'pre-industrial levels' means. Why not simply state the facts in a way that cannot be easily misinterpreted? Oh, that's right, because it would hurt the alarmist cause.

no - you're simply continuing to pick nits. For what it's worth, by definition, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is in that 1750-1760 period... and that is what the WMO release/report speaks to; specifically, "pre-industrial era (1750). Are you really suggesting the Guardian article... the WMO for that matter... should have explained what the Industrial Revolution was... what pre-industrial era means? Really... cause... otherwise, without the explanations, it's "open to misinterpretation"??? Really?

perhaps you should elaborate on what you presume to be "open to misinterpretation"... and how that supposed misinterpretation boogey-man of yours would, presumably, aid the, as you say, "alarmist cause"?

in any case, thanks for the dialog... it's a most useful and representative example; one fitting for this thread.

[Mighty AC]

I also have a problem with people trying to misinform the public.

What is your position other than trying to convince people of your intellectual superiority by belittling people who actually do research.

Well said! It amazes me that laypersons, bolstered by fossil fuel funded sources, feel they can deny the experts in the field. It amazes me more, that they feel that a conspiracy involving all climate scientists is more likely than blogs being funded by fossil fuel companies. I think that this is simply more proof that people with a vested interest in a desired outcome will ignore any data or evidence that does not fit their ideological view.

[On Guard for Thee]

and Mighty AC, on 09 Sept 2014 - 10:40 PM, said:

Well said! It amazes me that laypersons, bolstered by fossil fuel funded sources, feel they can deny the experts in the field. It amazes me more, that they feel that a conspiracy involving all climate scientists is more likely than blogs being funded by fossil fuel companies. I think that this is simply more proof that people with a vested interest in a desired outcome will ignore any data or evidence that does not fit their ideological view.

Also well said. I have various times worked as a contractor for UN and I will venture to say that the job security is pretty good there no matter what your research says so why the hell would experienced and recognized proffesional scientists risk their reputations by slanting their findings toward any vested interests. Oil patch people maybe not so much.

[Keepitsimple]

I expect that you are aware that the greenhouse effect is necessary for our survival right? If only 3 red tennis balls are responsible for keeping the earth from freezing, don't you think that increasing that amount by 33% (or more) could cause excess heat to accumulate?

Essentially you saying that small concentrations of a substance cannot have an impact. Would you be willing to test that ratio with certain poisons and toxins on yourself?

Already answered your question before.....but again - equating CO2 to some sort of poisonous venom is kind of nuts. Our bodies exhale it, plants inhale it, we can't live without it. In the last 150 years we've added that one tennis ball and I don't see anyone dropping dead yet......and no increase in land temperature for almost 20 years......and arctic ice is thickening up nicely along with record ice in the antarctic - and Polar Bears are not drowning. Observation is increasingly proving that humans, while making a warming contribution to Climate Change, are not the major factor and driving force that Alarmists would have us believe........and that is good news for the Planet.

[-1=e^ipi]

no - you're simply continuing to pick nits. For what it's worth, by definition, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is in that 1750-1760 period... and that is what the WMO release/report speaks to; specifically, "pre-industrial era (1750).

You must have misunderstood what I meant by 'exact same thing'. I meant that they take advantage of ignorance to spread alarmism. I apologize for my ambiguous wording though.

"We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board,” he said. “We are running out of time.”"

"we have the tools for action to try keep temperature increases within 2°C to give our planet a chance and to give our children and grandchildren a future."

"“If global warming is not a strong enough reason to cut CO2 emissions, ocean acidification should be – we ARE running out of time,”"

Yep. Alarmism. They could have just reported the facts, observations and implications. But instead they feel they need to insert this unjustified alarmist BS.

[Wilber]

Already answered your question before.....but again - equating CO2 to some sort of poisonous venom is kind of nuts. Our bodies exhale it, plants inhale it, we can't live without it. In the last 150 years we've added that one tennis ball and I don't see anyone dropping dead yet......and no increase in land temperature for almost 20 years......and arctic ice is thickening up nicely along with record ice in the antarctic - and Polar Bears are not drowning. Observation is increasingly proving that humans, while making a warming contribution to Climate Change, are not the major factor and driving force that Alarmists would have us believe........and that is good news for the Planet.

Water is non toxic and we we can't live with out it but we can still drown in it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Water intoxication can be fatal.

[Keepitsimple]

Water is non toxic and we we can't live with out it but we can still drown in it.

...and your point is??

[waldo]

You must have misunderstood what I meant by 'exact same thing'. I meant that they take advantage of ignorance to spread alarmism. I apologize for my ambiguous wording though.

"We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board,” he said. “We are running out of time.”"

"we have the tools for action to try keep temperature increases within 2°C to give our planet a chance and to give our children and grandchildren a future."

"“If global warming is not a strong enough reason to cut CO2 emissions, ocean acidification should be – we ARE running out of time,”"

Yep. Alarmism. They could have just reported the facts, observations and implications. But instead they feel they need to insert this unjustified alarmist BS.

it was a press release, where the WMO spokesman simply elaborated on the underlying report... you may not agree with the statements, you may call them "unjustified alarmist BS"... they are not... they are backed up by the related WMO report the statements reflect upon. As a related representative summary accounting from that WMO report - eg. the combined and individual GHG radiative forcing levels and projections relative to an assortment of emission reduction scenarios:

if you want to take on the WMO report, the specifics therein, I suggest you strike up an appropriate thread... there's a couple that come to mind with a specific focus on CO2 emissions.

[waldo]

...and your point is??

my point, as stated now several times in regards you continuing to pump your silly tennis ball analogy... is that you refuse to take up the questions/challenge to your repeated reference to your tennis ball analogy. In keeping with the fake-skeptic/denier mindset focused theme of this thread, you simply choose to ignore question/challenge and feel that by simply repeating your silly analogy, you're making some type of informed commentary.

[Keepitsimple]

my point, as stated now several times in regards you continuing to pump your silly tennis ball analogy... is that you refuse to take up the questions/challenge to your repeated reference to your tennis ball analogy. In keeping with the fake-skeptic/denier mindset focused theme of this thread, you simply choose to ignore question/challenge and feel that by simply repeating your silly analogy, you're making some type of informed commentary.

Don't recall asking for your point, tiresome as it is.

[waldo]

Don't recall asking for your point, tiresome as it is.

but I recall, now several times over, your repeat use of your silly tennis ball analogy. I recall, now several times over, asking you questions and challenging the nonsense behind your tennis ball analogy. I recall, now several times over, you refusing to respond to those questions, that challenge. I recall, now several times over, you simply choose to repeat your silly tennis ball analogy... in keeping with one of the tenets of fake-skeptics/deniers: to deny challenge and simply repeat statements/claims.

[Keepitsimple]

but I recall, now several times over, your repeat use of your silly tennis ball analogy. I recall, now several times over, asking you questions and challenging the nonsense behind your tennis ball analogy. I recall, now several times over, you refusing to respond to those questions, that challenge. I recall, now several times over, you simply choose to repeat your silly tennis ball analogy... in keeping with one of the tenets of fake-skeptics/deniers: to deny challenge and simply repeat statements/claims.

Guess you just decided to ignore the context that I originally provided. My original analogy was to provide a perspective to the Global Warming debate. We get swamped with "peer-reviewed" papers and media trumpeted predictions of what COULD happen IF temperatures rise at an alarming rate. You waldo, are the worst perpetraor on the board with your cut-and-paste mania. But it's all - ALL - tied to the theory that human produced CO2 emissions are the root cause of it all. Perspective - we've gone from 3 tennis balls in 10,000 to 4 tennis balls in the last 150 years. We've gone from 3 and a half to 4 since 1950. 3 red tennis balls in 10,000 - now up to 4. Is that single tennis ball really the end of life as we know it? That's what all the papers, prognotications, drowning Polar Bears, rising seas, extreme weather and resulting Armageddon is all about. You might call the analogy silly - but if you asked the general public - many of whom support emissions reductions - if you asked them how many of those 10,000 tennis balls represent CO2......I can guarantee you that the vast majority would be guessing - and the number they come up with would be far, far greater than 4. Perspective.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Guess you just decided to ignore the context that I originally provided. My original analogy was to provide a perspective to the Global Warming debate. We get swamped with "peer-reviewed" papers and media trumpeted predictions of what COULD happen IF temperatures rise at an alarming rate. You waldo, are the worst perpetraor on the board with your cut-and-paste mania. But it's all - ALL - tied to the theory that human produced CO2 emissions are the root cause of it all. Perspective - we've gone from 3 tennis balls in 10,000 to 4 tennis balls in the last 150 years. We've gone from 3 and a half to 4 since 1950. 3 red tennis balls in 10,000 - now up to 4. Is that single tennis ball really the end of life as we know it? That's what all the papers, prognotications, drowning Polar Bears, rising seas, extreme weather and resulting Armageddon is all about. You might call the analogy silly - but if you asked the general public - many of whom support emissions reductions - if you asked them how many of those 10,000 tennis balls represent CO2......I can guarantee you that the vast majority would be guessing - and the number they come up with would be far, far greater than 4. Perspective.

nothing in what you've just written addresses the challenge put to you over that silly tennis ball analogy. In fact, what you've just written absolutely reinforces that you weren't being disengenuous in putting that analogy forward, repeatedly... you simply don't know what you're talking about. A few posts back you were again provided with a link to previous questions/challenge to your use of that tennis-ball nonsense... take that up instead of writing more to reinforce your confusion/misunderstanding/lack of knowledge/etc. The only Perspective you're providing is to reinforce your analogy nonsense and to add fuel to the mindset profile intent of this thread.