What is the definition of a "global warming" denier?

What do you mean by resolution?




​

 

How detailed your data.

Monthly Resolution


Annual Resolution


Decadial Resolution


Cneturial Resolution


Your resolution is the average over that time frame. Most long term proxies ice cores, sediments, etc. compact over time the further back you go the lower the resolution. Ice cores are very high resolution on the very top layers but the deeper you go the lower the resolution as the ice is more compacted and you cant make comparisons with modern temperature data because of vastly different resolution.

 

so the warmers can make it rain whenever they want? Wow interesting the control over momma nature. I'd like to see it. Hey, all you observer deniers, can you make it rain when you want with Co2?

 

Trees fell before humans came along too. I guess that means humans never cause trees to fall.

 

If you lock yourself in an air-tight room with an engine running, you're going to die of asphyxiation. Does it really matter to you whether the room is a degree hotter or colder at the time of your death?

Every generation we consume more, produce more pollution and pave over more green areas. That pattern can only last for so long before you produce more toxins than the ecosystem can offset and we are toxifying our atmosphere. That's why smog (which was a term unheard of a century ago) is now so commonplace it's largely ignored.

Whether you believe the world is warming or not makes no difference to the fact that we are toxifying our ecosystem, and that this toxification is something we need to reverse.

 

What is the definition of a "global warming" denier?

Someone who has to put quote marks around the term Global Warming

 

You would first have to define unnatural before you can make claims like that. I also find it interesting that claims like this are made without any information to back it up.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf

 

An intelligent person would say, "Hey, variations in climate could be devastating to economies and lives - maybe we should make serious and prolonged studies and find out
if human actions are contributing to change."

Idiots would stomp their feet and gnash their teeth and say, "There is no way humans can have any effect on climate so there no use in even looking into it."

End of story.

 

The whole debate is how much, not if. The alarmist view originally presented was all and when it was apparent that wasn't true, all sorts of explanations have popped up. What is unfortunate is that media report after report blame almost all weather related incidents on global warming which is absurd, especially since many of the predictions have not panned out at all. All sorts of dire what ifs are presented without any basis in fact that are just mental masturbation.

 

Earths human population since they first existed, depending what you wish to call humans, has been a fraction of ONE BILLION while today for reasons your condemning, it now supports EIGHT BILLION. The growth accelerating in the past 230 years, which coincidentally goes along with the growth of human freedoms. The earth has froze into an ice ball twice and warmed many times over, before humans existed and just because we are here now, will not make once ounce of difference. In fact unknown factors, such as a meteor outbreak of sorts, somehow the moon is drawn off its present course, or the sun starts its burn out process, will change what lives or dies on the planet, a whole lot faster, than anything humans drive or how they live.

http://blog.dssresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/world_population_1050_to_2050.jpg

 

Seriously is the question how much are human actions contributing. Are you aware of any testing to prove one way or the other? What is it you expect? Me, I expect an experiment, and do you know that today, one has not been presented. It's fascinating to me how that hasn't been done. So you do as I do and complain and let's see the experiment that says what humans can do. Ok?

 

Okay - outline the design for this 'experiment'

Meanwhile



Where is all that CO2 coming from?

 

Yes
I am also astonished that the legions of skeptical agw scientists have not already done this study
Or at least designed the experiment
It seems simple enough and would shut uo all the agw folks
And are you telling me that the energy companies do not have the money to fund this?

 

Kinda like the argument that you are going to die sooner or later anyway
So no point going to see a doctor

 

So are there any other points of view other than extreme alarmists or extreme denialist?
We gotta pick one or the other!?

 

Maybe it's more like thinking your going to die someday, but NOT sick, so why not blow your savings while still alive. I understand some people's concern about how well American's are living and feel it's at the expense of others, but that's exactly the opposite of the truth. Our life styles have actually improved life styles to societies around the world. Not to take all the credit, before the US the British Empire had much the same influence around the world, yet as we are now, were condemned.

Like it or not, there are over 7 Billion people on planet earth, most living in Asia (4.3B), all wanting to advance their own lifestyles. Do you honestly think, the leaders in innovation, the ones that know how to improve standards, should be held back so a few people getting funds to socialize Americans via the false premise of AGW, will fold on that progress???

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/World-Population-1800-2100.svg

 

It is a bit hilarious to read your concern regarding the impact of carbon mitigation n poor people of the world.
So, if we exempted the poor nations from dealing with this issue then you would be ok?
Of course not... Because mostly the people in this country just do not much care about the poor.... Not very much care about poor in this country,,,, and near total disregard for poor people elsewhere.... Not judging you, or us,.,. Just a fact... And it is imo insincere pretense when we promote a policy as if we are kept awake at night because of concern for the poor of the world

Of the workds poor.... Many live in china. And china is starting to address carbon mitigation. Which inducats two imortant things, First,,,, they think it is a problem.,. Including for their poor. And second they think addressi g the problem is not going destroy the future economic opportunities for their poor

As far as american lifestyles
I have no problem with living a good life, a life more abubdant than most of the rest of the world
The question of agw is not how our lifestyle impacts the workds poor today
It is the risk involved in how our choices today MAY impact future generations

And as i posted in another thread
We do not face a binary choice where we must either destroy the economy to address carbon mitigation or do nothing in order to have a healthy economy

 

the so-call scientists who are real educated fools.

people still remember the year 2000 bug.

 

Government is heavily subsidizing green projects. What is interesting is that corporations that have energy intensive divisions, like iron or aluminum or basically anything else that will be hit by carbon taxes will just spin off the division to a stand alone company. Then politicians will be stuck between a rock and a hard place since the carbon taxes will kill the businesses and politicians will have to decide to subsidize them more or lose more industry to overseas countries and the resultant loss of jobs and tax base.