Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

It means that they deny that Earth is warming and that humans are the significant cause.

 

Well the temperature has been rising for 25,000 years. Do you really think that was caused by cavemen?

Maybe they rode around on sport utility mammoths.

 

You should read NASA, NOAA or some other source of science.

Short form: Since the major increase in use of fossil fuel that came with the advent of manufacturing, temperatures have been rising at a significantly faster rate. Because of the way humans have been living on Earth (location, agriculture types, etc.) that rise will be incredibly expensive in wealth and lives.

 

Sorry, but no one denies the Earth has warmed. Whether humans are "the" significant cause is a question of fact that can be debated.

 

why did they have accurate measurement of year-to-year temperature 10,000 years ago?

If they're freaking out and manipulating you are they doing it with a fact or are they doing it with the ability to manipulate you?

correlation does not equal causation.

Will it? Prove it.

 

When ~90% of scientist in the field recognize human contribution as the deciding influence there isn't a justification for debating.

 

Geologists and others have studied ice cores and their layers of volcanism and other effects.

They also extract air samples from these cores - air that existed in deep history.

 

and you followed their work and possess a degree in environmental science? Or are you just believing what people you agree with tell you?

There is no consensus on this.

See above?

 

“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”

― Albert Einstein

 

At least we can laugh.
Comedy Gold: How To Cope With Your "Climate Anxiety"
April 25, 2022/ Francis Menton

• 
  Every day you read how the “climate crisis” is real, and rapidly getting worse. Humans burning fossil fuels to support out-of-control consumerism have brought the earth to the brink of disaster. Droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, and plagues of every sort are proliferating.
  
  
• Of course, you are feeling all the natural human reactions: fear, dread, not to mention overwhelming guilt at your own role in causing the crisis through the grave sin of enjoying your life. In short, you have entered the state known to the experts as “climate anxiety.”
  
  
• The New York Times, as usual, was way out front on this issue. But, as that Times headline concedes, “stewing and ignoring the problem” won’t ease your excruciating angst. You’re looking for real solutions here. You want to “do something.”
  
  
• Fortunately for you, a whole new mini-profession of psychologists has sprung up to advise you.
  

READ MORE

 

We've gone through that before.

Those denying that Earth is warming due to human activity have had no ideas that have withstood the testing of science.

 

Au contraire.
Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei
Svensmark, H., Enghoff, M. B., Shaviv, N. J. & Svensmark, J., 2017, In: Nature Communications. 8, 1, 9 p., 2199.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Atmospheric ionization and cloud radiative forcing
Svensmark, H., Svensmark, J., Enghoff, M. B. & Shaviv, N. J., 2021, In: Scientific Reports. 11, 13 p., 19668.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

 

The fact that a paper has passed a journal review does NOT mean that any significant number of climate related scientists believe the paper invalidates anthropogenic warming of Earth.

 

Neither paper claims to invalidate anything. Both papers suggest the exclusive focus of AGW advocates on anthropogenic warming is misplaced.

 

The problem with that is that there absolutely is NOT an exclusive focus on AGW.

Solar and other sources of heat absolutely ARE studied and are included.

Anything else would be ridiculous. For example, there is variability in solar heating, so ALL measures of heat trends on Earth are affected by that.

You need to do a better job of culling those you listen to. Accepting sources because you think they support your preconceived ideas is not a valid approach to being informed by science.

 

Nir Shaviv has shown that orthodox AGW climate science radically undervalues the solar contribution to climate. I have posted his work several times. I'm not the one with blinders.

 

You post what you think supports you.

You ignore what the vast majority of climate related scientists are saying.

You can't do that and then claim you have no blinders.

 

I follow the evidence.
My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion
"Three minutes is not a lot of time, so let me be brief. I’ll start with something that might shock you. There is no evidence that CO2 has a large effect on climate. The two arguments used by the IPCC to so called “prove” that humans are the main cause of global warming, and which implies that climate sensitivity is high, are that: a) 20th century warming is unprecedented, and b) there is nothing else to explain the warming.

These arguments are faulty. Why you ask?

We know from the climate-gate e-mails that the hockey stick was an example of shady science. The medieval warm period and little ice ages were in fact global and real. And, although the IPCC will not admit so, we know that the sun has a large effect on climate, and on the 20th century warming in particular.



In the first slide we see one of the most important graphs that the IPCC is simply ignoring. Published already in 2008, you can see a very clear correlation between sea level change rate from tide gauges, and solar activity. This proves beyond any doubt that the sun has a large effect on climate. But it is ignored.

To see what it implies, we should look at figure 2.



This is the contribution to the radiative forcing from different components, as summarized in the IPCC AR5. As you can see, it is claimed that the solar contribution is minute (tiny gray bar). In reality, we can use the oceans to quantify the solar forcing, and see that it was probably larger than the CO2 contribution (large light brown bar).

Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals.

The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture.

I should also add that science is not a democracy. The majority is not necessarily right! You should also be careful and make the distinction between evidence for warming and evidence for warming by humans. There is in fact no evidence for the latter. Last, people may frighten you with secondary climate effects associated with global warming, on the sea level, cryosphere, droughts floods or economic effects. However, if the underlying climate model is fundamentally wrong, all the ensuing predictions are irrelevant.

The fear of global warming, and with it the denouncement of any other voice, is now part of our Zeitgeist. However instead of blindly flowing with the flow, we should stop for a minute and think before we waste so much of our precious public resources. Maybe we will find out the that the emperor has new clothes. . . ."

 

This still presumes that scientists don't know these facts.

And, it presumes that mitigation efforts can not be cost effective, but instead will "WASTE SO MUCH OF OUR PRECIOUS PUBLIC RESOURCES".

There is no evidence of EITHER of those.

 

The evidence has been presented, but studiously ignored.

 

It has finally become a burden too heavy to defend flawed climate models.

Hooray! Some Scientists Honestly Reporting That Climate Models Run “Too Hot”
CLIMATE MODELS MAY 9, 2022

 

The alarmists lose this round.
New Study: Half The 2000-2019 Global Ocean Warming Has Been From Internal Fluxes, Not Surface Forcing
By Kenneth Richard on 12. May 2022

Share this...
Since 2000 there has been a natural reduction in net air-sea fluxes at the same time there has been rapid warming in the Indian Ocean. This affirms anthropogenic surface forcing cannot explain the recent warming in at least half the global ocean.
The Indian Ocean covers approximately 20% of the ocean surface, but this basin accounts for one-half of the overall warming in the global ocean’s top 700 meters from 2000 to 2019 (McMonigal et al., 2022). The Atlantic and Pacific Ocean sectors have accumulated much less heat content in the last two decades. . . .


Image Source: McMonigal et al., 2022
And if natural processes in ocean heat transport can explain warming in the Indian Ocean, it is not a stretch to assume the same explanation can be applied for warming trends in the rest of the global ocean too.

 

That is a lie. In fact, it is a contradiction that you will find very few believe.

You will actually find very few that deny the planet is warming. However, how can one be a "denier" if we admit the planet is warming, and humans are not the primary cause?

Seems to me that your claim is bullshit. It is something you and others make up and use to try and make you sound more authoritative. When in reality it is two contradicting lies.

This is one big reason I find any attempt to have an actual debate with climate alarmists so frustrating. You all feel perfectly fine with attacking others, lying, and spreading mistruths all you want.

 

You're delusional:

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/climate-deniers-117th-congress/

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UvHJvI9UCaZ6Db1Wvcc656lR6alaFHkhmzgJ8B6p4gE/edit?pli=1#gid=0

 

You are avoiding the point. The argument is that the planet has warmed and human activity is not the primary cause. Because your links make a propaganda point rather than a scientific point, they ignore that. The word "denier" is propaganda.