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

[On Guard for Thee]

The conversation went like this:

You: Most of the CO2 is under the ground.

Me: No, most of the CO2 is in the troposphere. There is a significant amount in the Oceans. There is very little CO2 underground.

You: Very little? Ever heard of this stuff called coal?

Me: Coal isn't CO2. Coal is primarily solid carbon with various impurities

You:

Come on, you are really going to pretend you didn't mean to say that most of the CO2 is underground?

You need to get over your ego, suck up your pride and admit when you are wrong. It will help you grow as a person. It's only an anonymous internet forum!

As for what happens when you burn coal, assuming a complete combustion, you will primarily end up with CO2 and water vapour + a lot of energy. Of course you will also end up with significant amounts of nitrous oxides and sulfur oxides, which cause smog and acid rain, as well as a radioactive ash residue that contains significant amounts of Thorium, Uranium and other elements.

At least you finally got around to admitting coal gives off lots of CO2 when you burn it. Other than that all I can suggest is you take your own advice with that ego thing you seem to be having a problem with.

[-1=e^ipi]

At least you finally got around to admitting coal gives off lots of CO2 when you burn it.

I never denied that.

Other than that all I can suggest is you take your own advice with that ego thing you seem to be having a problem with.

You are confusing my shrinking level of tolerance for nonsense claims regarding climate change as basic science. You've been a member for over a year and have 4 times as many posts as me, surely you've read through quite a few climate threads. If not, surely you passed high school. If not that, surely you have been informed by the various media sources about even some basic science. How is it even possible for you to do all this and still not understand the very basics such as the fact that coal isn't CO2?

[On Guard for Thee]

I never denied that.

You are confusing my shrinking level of tolerance for nonsense claims regarding climate change as basic science. You've been a member for over a year and have 4 times as many posts as me, surely you've read through quite a few climate threads. If not, surely you passed high school. If not that, surely you have been informed by the various media sources about even some basic science. How is it even possible for you to do all this and still not understand the very basics such as the fact that coal isn't CO2?

Coal is basically carbon. When you burn it you get CO2, along with other pollutants. I've already stated that at least twice. Perhaps read before you reply.

[-1=e^ipi]

Coal is basically carbon. When you burn it you get CO2, along with other pollutants. I've already stated that at least twice. Perhaps read before you reply.

CO2 isn't a pollutant. The fact that you can burn coal to produce CO2 doesn't mean that Coal is CO2. I can use flour to make pancakes but flour and pancakes are not the same thing. Your statement that the majority of CO2 is underground is wrong.

Edited October 1, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

CO2 isn't a pollutant. The fact that you can burn coal to produce CO2 doesn't mean that Coal is CO2. I can use flour to make pancakes but flour and pancakes are not the same thing. So your statement that the majority of CO2 is underground is wrong.

Your reading skills need work. "other pollutants" doesn't assume CO2 is also a pollutant in the context of my statement. I have already set you straight on the CO2 underground thing. Your pancakes thingy?, I'll just leave that one lay.

[-1=e^ipi]

Your reading skills need work. "other pollutants" doesn't assume CO2 is also a pollutant in the context of my statement.

Yeah it does, otherwise there no purpose in the word 'other'.

Your constant attempts to try to redefine your very clear past statements into something else in order to not be wrong show that you seriously have an unhealthy ego problem where you are afraid to ever admit being wrong on an internet forum. It's unhealthy psychologically and that kind of mentality is not good for society either.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yeah it does, otherwise there no purpose in the word 'other'.

Your constant attempts to try to redefine your very clear past statements into something else in order to not be wrong show that you seriously have an unhealthy ego problem where you are afraid to ever admit being wrong on an internet forum. It's unhealthy psychologically and that kind of mentality is not good for society either.

Please feel free to take the word "other" out altogether or just leave it in but put the emphasis on "pollutants". Whatever makes you feel better.

[-1=e^ipi]

Please feel free to take the word "other" out altogether or just leave it in but put the emphasis on "pollutants". Whatever makes you feel better.

I'm sorry, I'm not capable of cognitive dissonance. It is repulsive to me. I'm not going to pretend that sentences mean something else than what is written.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm sorry, I'm not capable of cognitive dissonance. It is repulsive to me. I'm not going to pretend that sentences mean something else than what is written.

Maybe go read a science book then.

[Shady]

Yes...they are trapped by the very word games they used to begin this "global warming" circle jerk.

Won't work any more.

Exactly. If they really had a real grasp of the science, the term global warming never would have been initially used. But they didn't have a grasp of it. And because of it, they've had to invent new terms to fit their agenda. They also invent new processes that were never discussed in the past as well.

[On Guard for Thee]

Exactly. If they really had a real grasp of the science, the term global warming never would have been initially used. But they didn't have a grasp of it. And because of it, they've had to invent new terms to fit their agenda. They also invent new processes that were never discussed in the past as well.

The term was coined by a pretty well qualified scientist. (Wallace Smith Broeker) But then you like quoting your "pinochio sources" that seem to keep getting slammed.

[Michael Hardner]

Exactly. If they really had a real grasp of the science, the term global warming never would have been initially used. But they didn't have a grasp of it. And because of it, they've had to invent new terms to fit their agenda. They also invent new processes that were never discussed in the past as well.

I don't fully agree. Global warming is an accurate description of what's happening, but the other effects weren't appreciate until later. That's why they started using a different term.

The "agenda" tag really only applies if you're implying that they are conspiring to do something other than study and model the climate. We heard this when people were saying that temperatures aren't rising, but hardly anybody says that anymore. If there wasn't a conspiracy there, then people should just admit they were wrong.

Conspiracies are very difficult to pull off in an environment where there is open information.

[Mighty AC]

Conspiracies are very difficult to pull off in an environment where there is open information.

Though scientific findings are published, peer reviewed, duplicated, challenged, etc. information has no standards. It certainly would be near impossible to get thousands of scientists to conspire to falsify climate studies. However, it is very easy, with enough cash, to buy politicians and fund web based misinformation campaigns.

[Shady]

I don't fully agree. Global warming is an accurate description of what's happening, but the other effects weren't appreciate until later. That's why they started using a different term.The "agenda" tag really only applies if you're implying that they are conspiring to do something other than study and model the climate. We heard this when people were saying that temperatures aren't rising, but hardly anybody says that anymore. If there wasn't a conspiracy there, then people should just admit they were wrong.Conspiracies are very difficult to pull off in an environment where there is open information.

I said nothing of any conspiracy. Just a lack of a full understanding, basically from the beginning.

[Shady]

Though scientific findings are published, peer reviewed, duplicated, challenged, etc. information has no standards. It certainly would be near impossible to get thousands of scientists to conspire to falsify climate studies. However, it is very easy, with enough cash, to buy politicians and fund web based misinformation campaigns.

Unfortunately, the peer review process has been competely undermined by alarmists that look to silence opposing views. We learned this from climate gate and the hacked emails.

[Mighty AC]

I said nothing of any conspiracy. Just a lack of a full understanding, basically from the beginning.

The data isn't in dispute and the world's experts overwhelmingly agree with AGW/CC so what do you base this statement on?

Unfortunately, the peer review process has been competely undermined by alarmists that look to silence opposing views. We learned this from climate gate and the hacked emails.

This is, of course, untrue and again speaks to a belief in conspiracies. So many people would have to be in on a movement to suppress scientifically valid studies that it would be impossible to contain. When you find yourself on the wrong side of data, evidence and expert opinion and your justification is linked to highly improbable actions requiring the silence or acquiescence of many...then you're probably a conspiracy theorist.

[Keepitsimple]

Though scientific findings are published, peer reviewed, duplicated, challenged, etc. information has no standards. It certainly would be near impossible to get thousands of scientists to conspire to falsify climate studies. However, it is very easy, with enough cash, to buy politicians and fund web based misinformation campaigns.

Probably not - but since the IPCC only focuses their efforts only on "Human induced" Climate Change, the money and the studies follow suit. Surely you can see that if the mandate was reversed - or even combined with a similar effort (and money) towards Natural Climate Change, the scientists and their studies would reflect that change.

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Mighty AC]

Probably not - but since the IPCC only focuses their efforts only on "Human induced" Climate Change, the money and the studies follow suit. Surely you can see that if the mandate was reversed - or even combined with a similar effort (and money) towards Natural Climate Change, the scientists and their studies would reflect that change.

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

I find it interesting that when you copied that text from the IPCC website you omitted the first part of the passage. You know that part that mentions they did a comprehensive review of all climate change research starting back in 1988. Now that it has been determined that humans are the principal force behind GW their role is determining the impacts and options for mitigation.

"The initial task for the IPCC as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988 was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate. Today the IPCC's role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, " - Your passage begins here

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml

Another point that you left out is that the IPCC does not actually conduct or fund the studies used. Scientists contribute research on a volunteer basis, so there isn't any money to follow.

"The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise."

Since, you were on the website reading this information I think you probably were aware of these points, yet deliberately chose to frame the information in a misleading fashion. Why would you do that?

Edited October 2, 2014 by Mighty AC

[On Guard for Thee]

I find it interesting that when you copied that text from the IPCC website you omitted the first part of the passage. You know that part that mentions they did a comprehensive review of all climate change research starting back in 1988. Now that it has been determined that humans are the principal force behind GW their role is determining the impacts and options for mitigation.

"The initial task for the IPCC as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988 was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate. Today the IPCC's role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, " - Your passage begins here

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml

Another point that you left out is that the IPCC does not actually conduct or fund the studies used. Scientists contribute research on a volunteer basis, so there isn't any money to follow.

"The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise."

Since, you were on the website reading this information I think you probably were aware of these points, yet deliberately chose to frame the information in a misleading fashion. Why would you do that?

Now that kind of ommission sounds like it could be a conspiracy to me.

[Keepitsimple]

I find it interesting that when you copied that text from the IPCC website you omitted the first part of the passage. You know that part that mentions they did a comprehensive review of all climate change research starting back in 1988. Now that it has been determined that humans are the principal force behind GW their role is determining the impacts and options for mitigation.

That really just emphasizes my point. They deduced/theorized that humans were the principle force behind Climate Change back in 1988 - and their mandate was thus established. Since then, we've had over 25 years of contradictory observations and shot a few holes in the theories/predictions that were prevalent back then.

[Mighty AC]

That really just emphasizes my point. They deduced/theorized that humans were the principle force behind Climate Change back in 1988 - and their mandate was thus established. Since then, we've had over 25 years of contradictory observations and shot a few holes in the theories/predictions that were prevalent back then.

The review started back in 1988. Today the vast majority of experts agree that humans are the driving force. To dispute that fact you have to go against the data and an overwhelming consensus of experts. To do that you have to either be a conspiracy theorist or have an agenda which is hindered by this reality.

“Don’t undermine the science just because you don’t like the economics. That’s a dangerous slope, because the problem of course is you’re not undermining just that, you’re undermining the basis of rational decision-making in society.” - Brian Cox

[waldo]

No it sounds exactly like the sort of derailing mealy mouthed crap that's usually thrown into these discussions.

yes, quite literally, a hundreds+ posting derail! Typical fake-skeptic/denier attempt to posture relevancy. Considering their big-time fail in understanding the carbon cycle, this derail is a classic case-in-point; one that truly speaks to the fake-skeptic/denier mindset!

.

You mean like......uh, facts? The very basic fact that humans, cattle, sheep, horses, pigs, cats, & dogs emit CO2? Facts that at least two pro-alarmist posters were blissfully unaware of? Indeed, the fact that you say this "derails" the thread says a lot about the Alarmist mindset - and of course, mindset is the intent of this thread.

If humans weren't around then the carbon would still be in the trees and plant life. Our bodies are engines that produce CO2. If there are 3 billion people on earth then they will produce less CO2 than the 7 billion that we will see shortly. Just like if 3 billion people were burning hydrocarbons from the ground, it would be less than 7 billion people doing it. Either way, humans have an impact on CO2 output.

With that said it is obvious that our output of C02 by breathing is much less than our output by burning fossil fuels (10% I believe). But the reality is that shutting down fossil fuels to the point that 'alarmists' want is equivalent to asking humans to stop breathing as it would have the same effects in many areas where fossil fuels are the only reliable source of energy.

The point is hardly semantics.

of course, these 2 quoted posts are simply another recycle... in keeping with that recycle theme, I'll simply repost a partial extract of a previous post I put forward one of the prior times this "humans breathing impact on CO2" nonsense was trotted out:

How much carbon dioxide do humans contribute through breathing?

The average person, through the natural process of breathing, produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of carbon dioxide per day. The actual amount depends strongly on the person’s activity level. However, this carbon dioxide is part of a natural closed-loop cycle and does not contribute to the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Natural processes of photosynthesis (in plants) and respiration (in plants and animals) maintain a balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thus, the carbon dioxide from natural process is not included in greenhouse gas inventories.

In contrast, the burning of fossil fuels upsets this natural equilibrium by adding a surplus of carbon dioxide into the system. The carbon in fossil fuels has been stored underground for millions of years and thus is not part of the current natural carbon cycle. When those fuels are burned, the carbon dioxide generated is over and above the amount circulating from natural sources. Land use changes such as deforestation also upset the natural equilibrium by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by forests. Thus, both fossil fuel burning and deforestation are accounted for by scientists who develop greenhouse gas inventories to study how greenhouse gases contribute to climate change.

.

[waldo]

Unfortunately, the peer review process has been competely undermined by alarmists that look to silence opposing views. We learned this from climate gate and the hacked emails.

more recycling nonsense! Those past MLW discussions on hackergate are but a mere MLW search away... I see you're back to liberally using your "alarmist" tag; in this case you're openly applying it to any/all legitimate scientists that presume to publish and engage in peer review/response. Notwithstanding your big-time conspiracy play. Thanks Shady, yours is a welcome addition to this fake-skeptic/deniers mindset thread!

a fitting commentary:

[On Guard for Thee]

I dunno, I think I feel quite proud now that I have developed into a human, CO2 producing, engine. I think I may move out to the country so I can fully employ my new talents and provide all the CO2 those trees can possibly suck up. They'll be happy to have me.

Seriously, why is it so hard for the closed carbon cycle so hard to comprehend for some?

[eyeball]

I guess when dazzling with brilliance doesn't work you give baffling with bullshit whirl.