Do the Climate Deniers Also Deny Our Role in Destroying the Ecology?

[sean miguel]

Do the math. $9X40 hrs= $360. After Florida payroll deductions leaves $305.50. $20X40 hrs= $800. After Denmark 66% tax leaves $267. Now lets do or buy anything and rake 25% more. These are your burgher flippers wages. Do cops make twice as much in Denmark? No. Let's take a Brandon, FL cop. $50k after taxes brings home $760 wk. $78k Denmark brings home $500 wk. But wait you say, what about those benefits the Danes get? The Danish cop is paying $260 wk for them while the Florida cop gets them for free (minus college). Aside from minimum wage jobs, NO ONE is making remotely close to twice in Denmark compared to USA. And yea, there are overtime laws here too. I'm not arguing if they are happy or not. If they say so I believe them. Hell no. I like having a car. 81-100 people here. 59 for Germany and 48 for Denmark. And with that car I like to do things. Perhaps USA people take that for granted and Danes have been programed into thinking it's only for the...I don't know. One thing is for sure, you don't have to be rich to own one here. I'm sure they are envious that a pair of shoes or jeans doesn't cost $150 too. But if they're happy then God bless them. If I were to go there it would be for the horse racing which is fucking awesome.

^ is that true??

I'm doing relatively well with just a high school education and a good work ethic. And I have a kick-ass car with plenty of road to enjoy it on. And extra to buy shit with.
I'll take the U.S., thank you.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I'm not a climate change denier. I'm a man-made climate change denier. Do I think we should be better stewards of Earf? Hells yeah I do. Ducks Unlimited and wetland preservation charities get my money pretty regularly.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

[...] By skeptics, I was referring mostly to those within the scientific community who have called into question the claims of AGW. All of them can't have some ulterior motive and have been bought out by the Koch Bros, right? (cuckoo) None of them have a legitimate concern with the climate models presented by the global warmingists? Like "you failed to factor in x" or "what about y?" Haven't global warmingists been caught manipulating data to support their conclusions? [...]

To make it easier for myself I'm going to use the words pro and con to identify the scientific community that says "global warming by mankind", and the skeptic scientific community respectively.

As I mentioned in an earlier post scientists aren't white knights. Will there be "good guys" and "bad guys" within the pro and con scientific community? Sure.

Science is in general funded by the governement, the industry and all kinds of organisations. But no, this does not mean skeptics and deniers are all funded by polluting industries and the Koch brothers. Neither does it mean the pro camp are all funded by green technologies. However, there is something remarkable about it. When it comes to falsified or manipulated articles by scientists funded by a certain industry I have yet one to find from the pro side, while on the con side it's remarkable to see quite a few, mainly funded by oil companies and the Koch brothers. The goal of the oil companies and the Koch brothers is to sow doubt. Of course it would be an unfounded claim of me to say it could or would never occur in the pro camp. I can only say that so far I have not found anything about it. In itself that's something interesting to notice don't you think? Sometimes I hear people say the "Green tech industries have so much to gain from it" or "the pro side must be corrupt too", so you would expect a balance of corruption and manipulation on both sides. Yet so far this balance is tipping remarkably heavily over to the con side.

How about manipulating data? it would be very naive to say there would never have been a pro scientist who has altered data to match his hypothesis. For whatever reason. It probably will happen in pro and con. Of course after reading this there's going to be a denier who will shout "You see?! THIS PROVES IT !". Well... what does it prove exactly... Weed all the bad stuff in both camps and there still will be a vast majority against the minority. This is done by the scientific community itself using peer-review, debate, collecting new data, new research etc. This is something that basically fixes itself.
And that's basically what science does. It's driven by knowledge and when something is wrong (whether a scientist did a bad job on purpose or not; or when new findings contradict something; or...) it fixes the mistakes and improves. Once again there is something to be noticed here: if the scientific community constantly improves it's knowledge and corrects it's mistakes, shouldn't there be more skeptics (or even a majority) by now if there was any reasonable doubt or some major proof men was not involved in global warming?

So know that we have the part of "bad science" out of the way, I can happily say there are indeed skeptic scientists with legit research. Once again there's going to be a denier who will shout: "You see?! THIS PROVES IT !". Well... the only thing I can say is to hold your horses as they are part of a scientific debate and are under heavy scrutiny. The list is pretty short. Starting from James Lawrence Powell's research who searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012: he found 13,950 articles of which only 24 rejected climate change. That is 0.17%. Four of these articles have never been cited !

To quote the author:

Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science
. (source)

I've been trying to study a few of them to grasp what it is about. And by that I don't mean I'm such a genious that I can understand all of it. I mean that I try to get a grasp of it, see what's it about, if there are articles debunking or proving it, etc. Of the 4 articles I have studied so far 3 have been debunked and one is heavy criticized because of a very liberal interpretation of some numbers.

So what is the big fuzz about? Well, the scientific community sees no more reason to debate it, as I mentioned before. The only reason there seems to be debate is because of pseudoscience, blogs posting ridiculous claims, confusion, fake science, corruption, the media, politics and so on. And this brings us back to the beginning of this post. Where does the doubt come from?

And human nature being what it is, I'm always wary when the sky is falling is being drummed into us daily by the media, popular culture and politicians, especially when new and massive legislation is involved. Again, scientists were predicting an impending ice age just a few decades ago.

Like I said in another thread, I'm not opposed to protecting the environment. I live in the pac nw and it's beautiful up here and I want to keep it that way. It's just a matter of what measures will be taken and how drastic. When it comes to human-caused climate change and it's severity/urgency, I think there's manipulation of the public going on, if even for the greater good for some.

You don't have to be a skeptic to feel uncertainty about the future. It concerns us all.

My apologies for once again writing a wall of text. But I think it's important enough

 

[Red XXX]

When it comes to falsified or manipulated articles by scientists funded by a certain industry I have yet one to find from the pro side, while on the con side it's remarkable to see quite a few, mainly funded by oil companies and the Koch brothers.

Well now you have!

 

[GodsEmbryo]

Well now you have!

I'm talking about a falsified or manipulated schientific article funded by some green industries and this is what you come up with? A news article from 2009 about those mails? Something already debunked oh I don't know... a million times?

:rofl2: :rofl2:

 

[MMMariah]

Do the math. $9X40 hrs= $360. After Florida payroll deductions leaves $305.50. $20X40 hrs= $800. After Denmark 66% tax leaves $267. Now lets do or buy anything and rake 25% more. These are your burgher flippers wages. Do cops make twice as much in Denmark? No. Let's take a Brandon, FL cop. $50k after taxes brings home $760 wk. $78k Denmark brings home $500 wk. But wait you say, what about those benefits the Danes get? The Danish cop is paying $260 wk for them while the Florida cop gets them for free (minus college). Aside from minimum wage jobs, NO ONE is making remotely close to twice in Denmark compared to USA. And yea, there are overtime laws here too. I'm not arguing if they are happy or not. If they say so I believe them. Hell no. I like having a car. 81-100 people here. 59 for Germany and 48 for Denmark. And with that car I like to do things. Perhaps USA people take that for granted and Danes have been programed into thinking it's only for the...I don't know. One thing is for sure, you don't have to be rich to own one here. I'm sure they are envious that a pair of shoes or jeans doesn't cost $150 too. But if they're happy then God bless them. If I were to go there it would be for the horse racing which is fucking awesome.

Bob most of those without cars don't have them because they don't want them or need them. Have you been there? I have. Everyone rides bicycles and takes public transportation (another benefit they get which is amazingly safe clean and efficient!) And yes, their income is MUCH higher than the income here in EVERY aspect. I have a friend who owns a restaurant in Copenhagen and he pays his servers $21 hourly PLUS they get tips. He drives a Maserati and has 2 homes as well as a working farm. He was born and raised there by middle class parents, not wealthy. He is hardly poor and yes here he may be worth more than he is living there but he's doing fine.

And again, what do you think the ratio is here in the states of happy to stressed/miserable? Ok so you love your car, as do I. But is that your line in the sand? You just need to realize they have a very different culture where cars for one aren't the necessity that they are here in the US. I'll take happy any day.

 

[MMMariah]

But that is not a knock on the United States with the plastic. It is from China and India. We have local recycle programs but Milwaukee might lose theirs because of that Kochsucker Scott Walker. Or we put them in a landfill for the ones who don't recycle. Battery Park in New York is a landfill.

I never said it's our trash. The point is that its there and its growing. We are HUGE consumers of bottled water. I have a boat and live on the water so I see first hand the amount of trash people here throw into the gulf of Mexico. When the tide goes out there isn't a day that there is a plastci grocery bag or beer can or something on the rocks below my sea wall. This isn't just a US problem, but we need to do out part. Many other countries are finally getting it in their heads that this is an issue that is important.

 

[MMMariah]

I'm not a climate change denier. I'm a man-made climate change denier. Do I think we should be better stewards of Earf? Hells yeah I do. Ducks Unlimited and wetland preservation charities get my money pretty regularly.

SO again I point out and ask:

Here are just a few FACTS:

We destroy the natural resources which are not endless. As our population booms we take more and more from the earth.

We cut down the forests that process CO2 and turn it into oxygen

We are depleting our food supply

We pollute the air with poisons

We pollute the oceans with trash

We pollute the oceans with oil and chemicals

We destroy vital ecosystems like the everglades by expanding human habitation

This is just off the top of my head. Now please, tell me how you think that those things don't damage the atmosphere as well as the balance that is needed to maintain the earth in such a manor that is needed for our existence? Gravity is real I hope you'll agree at least, so all that pollution from burning coal and exhaust and farting cows goes up but then comes back down into drinking water, on the ice caps, into our lungs, etc.

Do you dispute this is causing issues to the ecology and is causing damage to the world we live in???????????????? You think we have infinite resources and that pollution pumped into the sky all day every day just disappears without any of it falling back to earth? Come on dude you can't be that thick in the head.

 

[mikexmoran]

But that is not a knock on the United States with the plastic. It is from China and India. We have local recycle programs but Milwaukee might lose theirs because of that Kochsucker Scott Walker. Or we put them in a landfill for the ones who don't recycle. Battery Park in New York is a landfill.

Thanks for posting this.

I just think the debate should change. The whole man-made-climate change debate just take up time and energy. I think it misses that point.
Isn't the bottom line - Less pollution, recycling, renewable sources of energy are all good things and we should invest in them?

I don't know how we get China aligned. We do need to look in the mirror on where we are dumping our toxic waste around the world.

 

[bobjustbob]

Bob most of those without cars don't have them because they don't want them or need them. Have you been there? I have. Everyone rides bicycles and takes public transportation (another benefit they get which is amazingly safe clean and efficient!) And yes, their income is MUCH higher than the income here in EVERY aspect. I have a friend who owns a restaurant in Copenhagen and he pays his servers $21 hourly PLUS they get tips. He drives a Maserati and has 2 homes as well as a working farm. He was born and raised there by middle class parents, not wealthy. He is hardly poor and yes here he may be worth more than he is living there but he's doing fine.

And again, what do you think the ratio is here in the states of happy to stressed/miserable? Ok so you love your car, as do I. But is that your line in the sand? You just need to realize they have a very different culture where cars for one aren't the necessity that they are here in the US. I'll take happy any day.

Yes, I will draw the line in the sand. Don't mention Denmark again as the happiest place on Earth as that is reserved to Disneyland.

 

[kindlycurmudgeon]

Talk about a loaded question!


But yeah.... who actually denies climate? The change and what the root cause is? That's another matter entirely. I believe it changes. I believe these changes to be mostly driven by things outside of human control. Best we can do is localized distortion (think parking lots).

I'm a skeptic when it comes to climate change. I saw a Titanic meme from "I fucking love swearing about science" today and got to thinking.... Alarmists keep telling us how it's dire, but the more apt analogy is the pirate ship at the mini golf course. Yes, they've made an interesting narrative. Too bad reality isn't backing up these claims and it's well known that they've been doctoring numbers.

Now - ecology? I think we've learned some important lessons about how to manage our waste and how to prevent and, if necessary, contain accidents over the last couple centuries. As horrible as deepwater horizon was, it paled in comparison to some of the tanker spills over the years. Add to that some pretty impressive technology being developed to better clean the spills and we're on to something. But when it comes to what to do about it - look at China and tell me who's going to go over there and break them the news and compel them to act.

 

[MustBeGood]

More problems with water distributions for California. Super major low snow melt from the Sierra Mountains to refill the aquifers. Global warming and breakout your checkbook California residents. Plus increase produce cost for the rest of America.

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/colu...cle_e9bd33be-d81b-11e4-8a22-e727ea85d51b.html

Or California can do like Saudi Arabia and finally start building water desalination plants near LA and SD.

 

[sean miguel]

More problems with water distributions for California. Super major low snow melt from the Sierra Mountains to refill the aquifers. Global warming and breakout your checkbook California residents. Plus increase produce cost for the rest of America.

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/colu...cle_e9bd33be-d81b-11e4-8a22-e727ea85d51b.html

Or California can do like Saudi Arabia and finally start building water desalination plants near LA and SD.

Electricity cost (reverse osmosis isn't an Energy Star rated process) is the prohibitive factor. I guess it's cheaper for Cali to import water.

 

[MustBeGood]

Electricity cost (reverse osmosis isn't an Energy Star rated process) is the prohibitive factor. I guess it's cheaper for Cali to import water.

Energy cost however rebounded after the Enron scandal. LA gets a 1/4 of their electricity from the Hoover Dam.

 

[xfire]

Electricity cost (reverse osmosis isn't an Energy Star rated process) is the prohibitive factor. I guess it's cheaper for Cali to import water.

Solar is the answer for the high energy costs related to water purification/desalination etc. The tap water where I live is funky, too much sulfur in the ground water, I use a solar powered water distiller to churn out enough per day for personal consumption purposes.

 

[mikexmoran]

Solar is the answer for the high energy costs related to water purification/desalination etc. The tap water where I live is funky, too much sulfur in the ground water, I use a solar powered water distiller to churn out enough per day for personal consumption purposes.

Interesting.

I use a Whirpool under the sink filter, but our tap isn't all that bad.

 

[MMMariah]

I just want to understand the refusal to acknowledge the most rudimentary FACTS here....if you lay 2 cotton shirts in the sun side-by-side...one black one white which one is hotter an hour later? I think anyone who has ever been in the fucking sun can answer that question for you.

So if you put a layer of black soot (from our pollution) on the polar ice caps and on Greenland that is supposed to be reflective (white ice) do you deny that it will be UNNATURALLY warmed and melt? Do you deny that this is bad for the water levels and ocean temperatures? 5 years ago you mouth breathers were denying that the climate was changing...now you can't deny it anymore so you admit it, you just deny man is causing it to happen much faster than it's supposed to. What will your next position change be? That man is indeed making it happen faster but its because not enough people are Christians and we need to drill for more oil in the ocean because spilling oil cools everything down? Seriously....what will the next direction change be?

 

[GodsEmbryo]

For all the people saying it isn't man made or there's no direct proof:

undeniable proof that climate change is man made

The science:

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

Authors: D. R. Feldman, W. D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn, E. J. Mlawer & T. R. Shippert

Abstract: The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing1, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m−2 (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

Explained by the authors of the Berkeley Lab on their website:

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface

Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations

Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.

The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.

The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.

The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010. Radiative forcing is a measure of how much the planet’s energy balance is perturbed by atmospheric changes. Positive radiative forcing occurs when the Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space. It can be measured at the Earth’s surface or high in the atmosphere. In this research, the scientists focused on the surface.

They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modeling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world.

"We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation," says Daniel Feldman, a scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the Nature paper.

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect,” Feldman adds.

He conducted the research with fellow Berkeley Lab scientists Bill Collins and Margaret Torn, as well as Jonathan Gero of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Timothy Shippert of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Eli Mlawer of Atmospheric and Environmental Research.

The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility. These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface. They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2.

Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor. The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2.

“We measured radiation in the form of infrared energy. Then we controlled for other factors that would impact our measurements, such as a weather system moving through the area,” says Feldman.

The result is two time-series from two very different locations. Each series spans from 2000 to the end of 2010, and includes 3300 measurements from Alaska and 8300 measurements from Oklahoma obtained on a near-daily basis.

Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.

Based on an analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s CarbonTracker system, the scientists linked this upswing in CO2-attributed radiative forcing to fossil fuel emissions and fires.

The measurements also enabled the scientists to detect, for the first time, the influence of photosynthesis on the balance of energy at the surface. They found that CO2-attributed radiative forcing dipped in the spring as flourishing photosynthetic activity pulled more of the greenhouse gas from the air.

The scientists used the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a DOE Office of Science User Facility located at Berkeley Lab, to conduct some of the research.

The research was supported by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.

Source: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

An article in San Francisco Chronicle explaining it even simpler:

Berkeley study directly IDs climate change culprit
By David Perlman Updated 9:43 pm, Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Scientists training their instruments on the skies have caught the world’s major greenhouse gas right in the act of warming the planet, researchers reported Wednesday, providing the first direct evidence that human activity is dangerously altering the environment. The instruments captured more than a decade of rising surface temperatures, changes that were directly triggered by the atmosphere’s increasing burden of carbon dioxide, a team of scientists from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and UC Berkeley reported. That gas, whose main source is emissions from burning fossil fuels, has long been the principal culprit in global warming investigations by the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists. Its rising levels in the atmosphere have been the basis for increasingly strong warnings about global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, known as the IPCC.

'A technological coup’

"We have known for decades that there must be an effect, but getting a direct measurement and isolating the carbon dioxide component are a technological coup," Christopher B. Field, a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University who has led two major IPCC reports, said in an e-mail.
The Berkeley scientists’ study, he said, provides concrete evidence for the first time of carbon dioxide’s effect on global warming. In November, the U.N. panel issued its fifth and most alarming report on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. It warned that global ice caps are melting, Arctic sea ice is diminishing, droughts, heat waves and storms are intensifying, coral reefs are dying, and many creatures on land and in the sea are migrating toward the poles.

Documenting warming

Daniel R. Feldman, a senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, along with other physicists and engineers at the lab and at UC Berkeley, reported Wednesday in the journal Nature on their findings about "radiative forcing" — the process through which carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can block the Earth from reflecting the sun’s radiant energy and actually warm the atmosphere.
The scientists used an array of extremely precise instruments that the U.S. Department of Energy has installed at its climate research facilities near Barrow, Alaska, and Lamont, Okla., to document how the warming works.
In effect, their instruments measured the amount of infrared heat radiation coming down to the Earth’s surface from the sun, and the amount of heat radiation the Earth emits back up. And when the Berkeley scientists examined their data from 2000 to 2010, they found that some of the heat from Earth was being blocked by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and were able to calculate how much of that blocked heat was warming the planet.

Tough to visualize

The result of the warming, expressed in mathematical and engineering terms, appears tiny and difficult to visualize: It amounted to two-tenths of a watt per square meter of surface per decade. But the Earth’s surface covers a lot of square meters — 510 million square kilometers, in fact, and two-tenths of a watt over 10 years can mean a lot of heat for global warming. The IPCC’s November report calculates that the Earth’s entire surface has already warmed by 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit since 1882.

The Berkeley scientists measured the direct effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and after excluding all the other greenhouse gases and water vapor as sources, they reported that levels of the gas had increased in the atmosphere by 22 parts per million between 2000 and 2010. The effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s heat balance have long been understood by climate scientists, who have calculated them in their theories of climate change. But this is the first time the balance has been confirmed by laboratory instruments, according to Feldman and his colleagues.

"Our findings provide direct confirmation of the IPCC’s findings," Feldman said in an interview. Although he did not discuss the political controversy generated by climate-change deniers, he added, “We can hope now that people everywhere will be convinced that the IPCC’s reports have been correct."
Ken Caldeira, a physicist, climate change expert and also a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford who was not connected to the Feldman group’s research, said of their calculations that "the underlying physics is robust and was never in question." He said the effect of carbon dioxide on global temperatures that the group measured so thoroughly "was not questioned by climate scientists."

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/science/artic...engthens-human-link-6101054.php#photo-7576632

 

[MMMariah]

Are you seriously citing Berkeley and San Francisco sources to try and make a point to the meat-head deniers? They think San Francisco is nothing but naked buff gay men butt fucking in the streets and Berkeley as nothing more than a bunch of pot-smoking hippies. They don't believe people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Bill Nye or any of the other known scientists why would they even read your post? I KNOW they don't watch the videos I posted PROVING that its real. Trust me, until Sean Hannity and Rush start saying its real, it will never be real to them.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

[...] why would they even read your post? [...]

I know that, it's not the first time I'm in a discussion about climate change. I'm proving a point I made in a previous post: what people refer to as skepticism is actually denial.

Climate change denial differs from scientific skepticism. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the debate in the scientific community is over. The word 'consensus' in general means reaching an agreement between people that don't agree, like in politics for example. In science 'consensus' means that there is nothing more to debate since all of the scientists agree, and there are no more credible scientific skeptics challenging the scientific theory behind it. The only place where there IS debate is amongst people OUTSIDE of the scientific community. Why? Because of this doubt sown by pseudoscience, and political and economical interests. Nothing new, disinformation campaigns happened before (tobacco compagnies and the health of smoking, oil companies and lead in petrol...) and will always happen. Unfortunately a lot of people just establish their opinion on what they watch in the news or media, or read a blog and that's exactly where this doubt is sown. They accept it and won't dig deeper or read about it.

Hence why there is always these same questions over and over and over again: "But there is no undeniable evidence", "But there is no consensus and what does even this 98-2% consensus mean", "But I don't believe it's man made", "But there have been climate change before"...

And hence why you get a reply like that from Red XXX linking an article by Christopher Booker, a man convicted for falsifying news, having several law suits for writing false claims and making up news, denying any link between second hand smoking and cancer, denying evolution, denying any link between asbestos and cancer based on the expertise of a doctor who was convicted for pretending to be an expert on the matter, claiming that global warming isn't true because "the sea ice in 2008 expanded again between September and January" failing to realise that's what obsiously happens in wintertime, and having a price named after him for stupidty.

Yet these are the sources and journalists that people rely on for their so called skepticism.

Although all of these questions and opinions are easily debunked it will not change these people's mind. As long as there is this cloud of doubt they feel comfortable in their belief and they will always spout another question or opinion they can find in this cloud of doubt. They won't dig deaper and read or question their own belief. But whenever you challenge someone to explain why he/she is so convinced it's not man made (preferably with some real science behind it)... they won't take the bate. Whenever I give them the science... they won't take the bate.

Yet in my opinion it's the only way to open people's eyes. I'm not having a debate to convince anyone, they can do it for themselves. I'm showing them how this "cloud of doubt" is influenced by politics and an industry on one hand, and the science that proves man made climate change is happening on the other hand. If they choose to be a puppet of disinformation and don't care to read or do their own research it's their choice, I can't force people.