Lies and misinformation of the deniers

We are already finding out the cost of inaction 2011:
Hurricane Irene, $7 Billion / 45 deaths
Upper Midwest Flooding, Summer, $2 Billion / 5 deaths
Mississippi River flooding, Spring-Summer $2 - $4 Billion / 2deaths
Southern Plains/Southwest Drought, Heatwave, & Wildfires, Spring-Summer $9 Billion
Midwest/Southeast Tornadoes, May 22-27, 2011 $8 Billion / 177 deaths
Southeast/Ohio Valley/Midwest Tornadoes, April 25-30, $9 Billion 322 deaths
Midwest/Southeast Tornadoes, April 14-16, 2011 $2 Billion / 38 deaths
Southeast/Midwest Tornadoes, April 8-11, 2011 $2.2 Billion
Midwest/Southeast Tornadoes, April 4-5, 2011 $2.8 Billion / 9 deaths
Groundhog Day Blizzard, Jan 29-Feb 3, $1.8 Billion / 36 deaths
That's $38.8 Billion and 630 deaths in just the first 8 months of 2011 in the US alone.Even if only 10% ( I have seen the percentage as high as 65%) is attributable to climate change, add in the rest of the world and the cost of inaction is not cheap and will only get worse. And then there is the hidden costs:

 

<<<Mod edit: Insult removed>>>

I have a problem with people who express bigotted views, and then try to backpeddle away from their original comments.

I don't need evidence to present my argument. No amount of proof will convince the AGW nut cases around the world they are wrong.

I never said that man cannot do some thing that nature can do. I only said your argument that anything that nature can do, man can also do, is false.

By your logic, you are not qualified to argue the point in this blog then. Where is your experience with climate models? Where is your degree in Climatology? Where is your peer reviewed articles?

Here is why:

 

I think this comment just demonstrates that you have no idea how science works.

YEs - when there are new ideas out there they are on the fringe - but when the weight of evidence begins to support the new theory, then the consensus among scientists in general will support the theory.

you might try reading something like Thomas Kuhn's The structure of Scientific Revolutions to get an understanding of how science works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

It is old - but it does give a pretty good overview of how these things develop.

WRT anthropogenic influence on climate change - the theory has been around for a long time (over 100 years), however it took a long time for it to be widely accepted in the scientific community. When I first started looking at this issue over thirty years ago it wasn't talked about that widely among most mainstream scientists.

now it is discussed and accepted in virtually every area of science - because people in fields as diverse as agriculture, epidemiology, entymology, oceanography and zoology are seeing direct evidence in support of it.


the only people with a "science" background who ever seem to question it are engineers - and even among these it is more likely to be those working in fields related to the fossil fuel industry who question its veracity.

needless to say, they have very little understanding of life and physical science disciplines, and can not be relied upon for a qualified opinion on the issue.

seriously kid, don't rely on propagandists for information about scientific subjects.

and learn some manners.

look at your own responses.

when discussing science - you do. There are plenty of scientists who would only be too happy if you could present some evidence that AGW is not real.

no - you need to present material that is on a par with those other posters cite.

if you are not up to discussing this, then there are plenty of other topics to discuss.

 

small bikkies compared to what is happening in some other parts of the world.

 

I think you didn't read the previous exchange which demonstrates that you do not know what you are talking about.

It is important that you remember it is AGW THEORY. You too need to follow the dictionary instructions in the previous post with regards to the word "consensus".

And you might want to save you smug arrogant condescending suggestions for someone who is stupid enough to care what you think.

I see, so you know every scientist in the world then. And all the ones you know agree, so it must be true. Or you hang out with the same ding bat lefties that agree with your political world views so that is why you only see one view.

I'm not a kid, and you need to to learn some manners cause your still talking in that smug arrogant condescending language.

None of my responses contained religious bigotry.

And I provided a list of 700 scientists and you smug arrogent people want to pretend it doesn't exist. I have played this game before. I present evidence, and y'all pretend I didn't. We have to agree to disagree, but then, that is why you Chicken Little types can even agree that there are people who are scientists who disagree with your conventional wisdom.

 

Presented without comment...

 

If you are not gonna comment, then why even cut in to the thread and quote me out of context? Is it because you are clueless and do not comprehend the arguments being presented? Try reading the previous posts to get a grip on what is going on, then grow a pair before you butt in.

 

you might want to advertise your poor understanding of the issue to people who are at a similarly low level.

actually .. I read - including correspondence that promotes current research.

but I also DO know a lot more people in a range of scientific disciplines than you are ever likely to.

don't behave like a recalcitrant schoolboy and you won't be spoken to like one.

the chicken little types are the ones who think that life as we know it will cease to exist if we use our brains and address the problem.

which scientists who have studied this or a related area - disagree?

did you see the post re the independent research vindicating the findings of Jones and others?

 

You might want to advertise your poor understanding of the issue to people who are at a similarly low level.

You read? I find that hard to believe. Let's see if you can read this:

Well apparently Dr. Wolf is not among them.

Don't behave like a recalcitrant school girl and you won't be spoken to like one.

You don't know who Chicken Little is do you?

I just named one above.

No, but I'll go back and review.

 

I can argue the point because I have shown that the IPCC includes solar forcing in its models. Whereas your argument was

You assumed ; I showed you the the facts. No one but the deniers state that the IPCC models do not include solar forcing.
Of course one quote and a reference to 3 papers ((Cubasch et al., 1997; Broccoli et al., 2003; Meehl et al., 2004)) disproves his statement and is one example of the lies being perpetuated by Inhofe and his cabal of deniers.

What does that have to do with the false information, ie no solar influence in the IPCC models, on your link?

 

Exactly! US stats were the first I found so that is what I posted. Add the economic losses for the rest of the world and money spent on alternative energy and mitigation becomes small compared to future losses with no mitigation.

 

My point was that you disagree with him, and he is more of an expert than you.

Nothing. I didn't say it did. I just stated a well accepted fact.

 

I was saying that your statement:

Tells me that you do not know what you are talking about because of course it matters how much of that gas is in the atmosphere, and it matters how much of it is in the atmosphere via natural occurance. That is the crux of your argument for global warming, that we are putting too much of CO2 in the atmosphere. For you to argue now that it doesn't matter how much of it is in the atmosphere undermines your own position. And that is why you do not know what you are talking about.

 

so true - did you see my thread re companies on this issue?

and the insurance industry is looking very seriously at the consequences of non action as well.

 

This might be of interest:

http://www.climateandinsurance.org/

 

You do not know me so your statement is an assumption.

A fact that is this irrelevant to the discussion.

Try reading the whole post "It is the contribution of each GHG to warming that is important" is the important part. In case I was unclear, let me clarify it for you: If you have equal amounts of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere, methane and CO2 do not produce the same mount of warming. It was in reply to your statement

So the percentage of a GHG in the atmosphere is not important because you can have less of a gas, such as methane but its effects could be more than CO2. The correct way to compare the effects of the GHGs on the temperature is to use a gas's Global Warming Potential (GWP). You can look it up if your interested.

see above

 

All that blather in a failed attempt to backpeddle away from you previous statement:

Again, it does matter how much CO2 is in the atmoshere if you are arguing that we are putting too much CO2 into the atmoshere!

 

yes, its interesting.

the Insurance council of australia supported an ETS - they recognise that we have a serious problem.

and if you look at the fact that many industry leaders are coming on board, it is pretty clear that patriot news and his friends will be dragged kicking and screaming into reality at some point in the future.

 

As the weather becomes more extreme, governments are going to have to deal with climate change. Especially when they see how much inaction will cost us.
Realclimate just put up a discussion on last year's Moscow heat wave. Abstract of the PNAS paper.

Unfortunately, some will never be living in reality. IIRC, RPA still does not accept that CFCs affect the ozone. And I do not even want to mention the evolution "debate".

 

So you finally got it that assumptions are not the same as facts! And you finally realize that Inhofe site is full of lies! Congrats.

 

You are making some kind of assumption about facts, what exactly that is I don't know. You fail to make any sense once you have lost an argument.

The Senate Minority Report (Inhofe) is not full of lies, I never said it was, so do not make assumptions or infer that I have said something that I have not. I merely presented the report because it demonstrates that there are many scientists that disagree with anthropogenic global warming conspiracies theories. If you want to pick off all 700 or so scientists one at a time and discredit them, call them all liars, bang away. But to simply imply that we agree that the entire report is "full of lies" is disingenuous. Your debating skills need improvement.

 

Wow. Seven hundred scientists? Sure sounds impressive.

Until you realize that 80% don't have a single peer-reviewed paper published on climate. And another 4% actually support the AGW consensus. That leaves you with about 110 real climate scientists on the list.

Those deniers sure can exaggerate, yup. You know, if you guys actually had a case, you wouldn't need to exaggerate.

Link.

 

PN has a very loose understanding of what science is.

he appears to think a mechanical engineer working in mining is as qualified to comment on climate change as a climatologist.

 

It is not a requirement to be a climate scientist to have an opinion on the global warming conspiracy theories. For instance, you could be a computer programer who disagrees with the computer models being used, or a statistician who disagrees with the math being used in those models or in other calculations that are made. You can be a physicist who understands the complexity of the Earth's weather systems, or an astronomer who understands the dynamics of the Earth rotation, or a solar scientist who knows the effect of the sun on the Earth, or geologist or volcanologist who understands plate techtonics and volcanos ect ect.

You seem to have a misunderstanding that you need to have a degree in something to be a scientist. Da Vinci didn't have a degree. I know plenty of dump people with a sheepskin on their wall, and plenty of smart people who didn't finish college (Steve Jobs).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

A certain amount of skepticism should be maintained, moreover a overwhelming amount of evidence should be verified before a definitive conclusion made. The global warming conspiracy theorists have only computer models and no real provable facts to rely upon.

 

sure.

so does your doctor have a medical degree - or do you visit your local mechanic for medical advice?

re the second part bolded .... you are only displayiing that you are too lazy to check your facts.

posters here have provided numerous links to information on this.