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

[Keepitsimple]

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?

Because you're jumping to the unproven conclusion that the planet cannot absorb/adapt/mitigate any CO2 that falls outside your "closed carbon cycle" without facing Armageddon. You know - like those tennis balls - moving from 4 in 10,000 to 4.5 in 10,000.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

Because you're jumping to the unproven conclusion that the planet cannot absorb/adapt/mitigate any CO2 that falls outside your "closed carbon cycle" without facing Armageddon. You know - like those tennis balls - moving from 4 in 10,000 to 4.5 in 10,000.

The planet can quite easily absorb it, it has before. Look back to the Jurrasic if you like. Except we weren't here then and we won't be again if we go and release all that sequestered carbon.

[waldo]

Because you're jumping to the unproven conclusion that the planet cannot absorb/adapt/mitigate any CO2 that falls outside your "closed carbon cycle" without facing Armageddon. You know - like those tennis balls - moving from 4 in 10,000 to 4.5 in 10,000.

Simple, I won't bother to repeat the same challenge questions I've put forward for you to address each previous time you trot out your "tennis ball" nonsense... you'll simply ignore them anyway. However, this thread could use a mindset sprinkling of fake-skeptic/denier flavoured "skepticism" toward the greenhouse effect. Please proceed Governor!

[jbg]

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

Back in 1988 the so-called "testimony", really perjury of the advocates of the "greenhouse effect" predetermined the cause.

[waldo]

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.

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.

Back in 1988 the so-called "testimony", really perjury of the advocates of the "greenhouse effect" predetermined the cause.

Simple, this thread can always use more... yes, more... of your recycling best! The fake-skeptic/denier mindset runs strong, runs deep! Of course, having the outright self-declared denier, MLW member, 'jgb', add in his conspiratorial perjury accusation is simply gravy!

one of the last times you played this "IPCC pre-determined" nugget of yours, I chose to accumulate a linked reference to... but a few... of your past recycling efforts in this regard. You said the same thing in 2012, you said the same thing in 2013 and earlier this year you said the same thing in Feb 2014.

Simple, in keeping with your recycling best, I will also recycle a partial extract from a prior debunking response provided to you... a response you choose to ignore in favour of your continued recycling mindset:

no sir – your own most significant bias is offering a most incorrect assessment. That IPCC role statement you quote is one arrived at more than 10 years after the inception of the IPCC… approved on Oct 2, 1998 at the Fourteenth Session of the IPCC

if you actually knew anything about the IPCC beyond your denier talking points, you would realize there has been a building iterative confidence level in mankind’s contributory influence on global warming… a confidence level that reflects upon the complete and equally building assessment of scientific works that associates with an increased focus and concerted effort by scientists. During that 10 year period you’re clearly unaware of (or purposely ignoring), the IPCC released 2 major assessment reports and 2 physical science based supplemental reports….. those reports and the subsequent 2 other major IPCC iterative assessment reports over the following ~15 years, are the build-up to the upcoming release of the next IPCC major assessment report later this month – the ‘AR5 Report’. Over that ~25 year period, across the iterative reports, the IPCC has shifted its growing confidence level in mankind’s attribution contribution to global warming from a 50% probability likelihood, to 66%, to 90%... to a 95% level finding within the upcoming AR5 report. This is your "IPCC mind made up"??? 25 years... it took them long enough, hey?

.

[Michael Hardner]

Did jbg really put "greenhouse effect" in quotes ? That's really denier territory.

[-1=e^ipi]

The planet can quite easily absorb it, it has before. Look back to the Jurrasic if you like. Except we weren't here then and we won't be again if we go and release all that sequestered carbon.

Uhh, yeah we will. Humans are a tropical species. The vast majority of human evolution took place in East Equatorial Africa. That's why we are comfortable in a room temperature of 23 C as opposed to the Earth's average temperature of 15 C. That's why we are relatively hairless and have sweat glands everywhere. So even if humans were still in the stone age, we wouldn't go extinct due to CO2 emissions. Of course, given the human brain and technology, humans will be able to adapt and thrive in the Earth's changing climate, not to mention eventually colonize other celestial bodies.

[Wilber]

Apparently man can change anything except what he is already doing.

[On Guard for Thee]

Uhh, yeah we will. Humans are a tropical species. The vast majority of human evolution took place in East Equatorial Africa. That's why we are comfortable in a room temperature of 23 C as opposed to the Earth's average temperature of 15 C. That's why we are relatively hairless and have sweat glands everywhere. So even if humans were still in the stone age, we wouldn't go extinct due to CO2 emissions. Of course, given the human brain and technology, humans will be able to adapt and thrive in the Earth's changing climate, not to mention eventually colonize other celestial bodies.

That's good we have all those sweat glands, we'll need them. And we may have to go a ways further to get good water to replace all that sweat. Space might just be the best altrnative.

[eyeball]

Maybe, but we'll probably have to go through another stone age first while the planet's ecosystems adapt. Adapting to a changing climate is one thing but doing so while everything else we rely on is trying to adapt too is another. An ecological interregnum of even 3 or 4 decades would probably set most of our current global civilization back on it's ass for centuries if not forever.

Sure, somethings will adapt and survive especially us but I expect it'll be a rather sparse planet of weeds we're bequeathing our species and quite unlike the world of diversity we're evolved for.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Sure, somethings will adapt and survive especially us but I expect it'll be a rather sparse planet of weeds we're bequeathing our species and quite unlike the world of diversity we're evolved for.

Meh....99% of all that has ever "evolved" doesn't exist anymore....long before "climate change" became bad words. It's back to the future....

[On Guard for Thee]

And then there were those that never evolved.

[eyeball]

Probably the one's that went 'meh'.

[bush_cheney2004]

They all went 'meh'...even the commercial fisherpersons.

[waldo]

Did jbg really put "greenhouse effect" in quotes ? That's really denier territory.

he's been all over the denial map these past years... his latest wrinkle has him finally accepting to warming but he now states it's simply a result of the earth "naturally coming out of the Little Ice Age". Of course when he's challenged to provide interpreted support for such a claim, he disappears for a period of time until the challenge/request gets buried.

[-1=e^ipi]

That's good we have all those sweat glands, we'll need them. And we may have to go a ways further to get good water to replace all that sweat. Space might just be the best altrnative.

The amount of water on the Earth will not change. Water distribution will however. For example, the Sahara is far more lush and green during interglacial periods than during glacial periods. What you are implying, that somehow water scarcity problems will greatly increase due to increased atmospheric CO2, is absurd.

Maybe, but we'll probably have to go through another stone age first while the planet's ecosystems adapt.

Why? This sounds like religious nonsense to me.

"We have sinned against Gaia for out sinful acts of burning fossil fuels and trying to make the world a better place for humans! Gaia will punish us for our sins unless we repent."

There is no basis behind your claims. Just religious nonsense.

[-1=e^ipi]

Here's a question? Why do climate alarmists associate anything and everything that's bad with respect to the climate to human CO2 emissions? Rain, Drought, Flood, Blizzards, Hurricanes, Hot, Cold, etc. It all will be the result for human sins against Gaia. Furthermore, why do these same alarmists jump to these positions without sufficient evidence and feel that they can't circumvent the burden of evidence so don't feel the need to justify their positions?

[jbg]

Did jbg really put "greenhouse effect" in quotes ? That's really denier territory.

The scale of the emissions is greatly swamped by the size of the atmosphere. The other aspect is that more "dirty fuels" were burned during the early part of the Industrial Revolution. Could some of the alleged "warming" have been from the partial removal of those fuels?

[waldo]

Here's a question? Why do climate alarmists associate anything and everything that's bad with respect to the climate to human CO2 emissions? Rain, Drought, Flood, Blizzards, Hurricanes, Hot, Cold, etc. It all will be the result for human sins against Gaia. Furthermore, why do these same alarmists jump to these positions without sufficient evidence and feel that they can't circumvent the burden of evidence so don't feel the need to justify their positions?

please take your extreme weather strawman to an appropriate thread... there are several available; you know they exist since you've participated in them. Or, if you feel inclined, start a new thread if you feel you have something significantly new to add in that regard.

[eyeball]

Why? This sounds like religious nonsense to me.

"We have sinned against Gaia for out sinful acts of burning fossil fuels and trying to make the world a better place for humans! Gaia will punish us for our sins unless we repent."

There is no basis behind your claims. Just religious nonsense.

Were you drunk or something when you wrote this?

Why? Because of the time it will take for adaptation to occur. How long for example do you think it will take for the Sahara to green up in any way that could be considered meaningful in terms of our present global economy? Overnight, the next business cycle, 500 years...what?

[waldo]

The scale of the emissions is greatly swamped by the size of the atmosphere. The other aspect is that more "dirty fuels" were burned during the early part of the Industrial Revolution. Could some of the alleged "warming" have been from the partial removal of those fuels?

huh! You're now back to stating "warming" is alleged? I had thought you had come off your extremes-of-the-extreme denial position by at least acknowledging warming... albeit you repeatedly tagged that warming as simply a reflection on "the Earth coming out of the Little Ice Age".

you appear to have a slight twist on Simple's repeated 'tennis ball' nonsense... it also appears you both question the greenhouse effect. In the interests of mindset attachment, perhaps you/he could clarify further.

.

[-1=e^ipi]

Were you drunk or something when you wrote this?

No, I don't drink. Nor have I ever been drunk. I don't understand the appeal of distorting my perception of reality.

Why? Because of the time it will take for adaptation to occur. How long for example do you think it will take for the Sahara to green up in any way that could be considered meaningful in terms of our present global economy? Overnight, the next business cycle, 500 years...what?

See, some people need evidence to believe claims along the lines of 'because of the unusually high rate of warming due to CO2 emissions, there will be mass extinction and humans will go back to the stone age'. You are happy believing this nonsense without evidence, and thus why I consider it comparable with religion.

[eyeball]

No, I don't drink. Nor have I ever been drunk. I don't understand the appeal of distorting my perception of reality.

Maybe the concussion you suffered is still clouding your thinking.

See, some people need evidence to believe claims along the lines of 'because of the unusually high rate of warming due to CO2 emissions, there will be mass extinction and humans will go back to the stone age'. You are happy believing this nonsense without evidence, and thus why I consider it comparable with religion.

I'd just like an answer to my question about the Sahara.

[On Guard for Thee]

The amount of water on the Earth will not change. Water distribution will however. For example, the Sahara is far more lush and green during interglacial periods than during glacial periods. What you are implying, that somehow water scarcity problems will greatly increase due to increased atmospheric CO2, is absurd.

Why? This sounds like religious nonsense to me.

"We have sinned against Gaia for out sinful acts of burning fossil fuels and trying to make the world a better place for humans! Gaia will punish us for our sins unless we repent."

There is no basis behind your claims. Just religious nonsense.

You are correct, the water content on earth will not change, but the change in distribution will. To think that those distribution problems such as floods and droughts (go speak to Cal. farmers) won't be serious is in fact, absurd.

[-1=e^ipi]

You are correct, the water content on earth will not change, but the change in distribution will. To think that those distribution problems such as floods and droughts (go speak to Cal. farmers) won't be serious is in fact, absurd.

We agree there is a change in water distribution. But immediately after this premise you, like the climate alarmists, hold the implicit assumption that this change is necessarily bad. Why is it necessarily bad? Doesn't such a strong claim require proof?

Reasonable people such as myself would hold the position "I don't know if it is good or bad, such a claim would require proof". Yet climate alarmists think they can just circumvent the burden of proof and associate anything that is bad with the weather or climate with human caused CO2 emissions.