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

Hell, try to nail them down with any real science, and they act like they are suddenly retarded.

What caused the MWP? What caused that to end and the planet enter the LIA? What caused that to end? Since during the last interglacial we had no Arctic Ice Cap at all and there was a tropical climate as far north as Central Alaska. Why should the climate be any different this time?

Or even more interesting, why do none of the "models" seem to reflect some real life events that we have seen? Mount Pinatubo? Montserrat? Mount Tavurvur? Multiple eruptions in New Guinea and Indonesia? As well as the US, Iceland, Chile, Russia, and other nations? Not even the 1990-1991 Kuwait Oil Field Fires (which the models were all predicting would cause a "Global Nuclear Winter"?

I find it hilarious that they scream we must "accept the models", yet the models themselves never seem to predict the effects of these events.



You know, if all of these models are to be believed, we should be able to look at the predictions made in the past, then see how they deviated because of the effects of massive events such as these. But funny, in looking through them they seem to be the exact same before as they are after. Even after dumps of "greenhouse gasses" equivalent to what humans emit in decades in a single event had absolutely no impact on the climate at all.

Hell, they can not even agree if the effect of volcanoes is making things better or worse. "Carbon dioxide is making things warmer, but that is countered by the carbon sulfide, which makes things cooler! Therefore there is no change!" Weird, we know that is not true, but whatever.

Literally, they are chasing the data and trying to make up things that sound "scientific" to force things to fit.

 

True. The Sun's energy output is not a perfect constant by any means.

It can be debated, but I see no reason to believe that human activity is causing Earth to warm in any perceptible manner.

 

Made up number. Appeal to Popularity Fallacy. Science is not a group of people.

 

It is not possible to take measurements of the past. Proxies are not data, and are not used in science (direct measurements are required).

Summarily dismissed.

 

Not true.

The Romans and Aztecs both used coal. And until the Industrial Revolution, all cultures were using massive amounts of wood. To a degree that entire countries were deforested. When talking about "CO2", there is no difference between carbon sequestered in the ground, or sequestered in a tree. It is all sequestered carbon, and when burned is released.

And this is nothing new. The famous "London Smog" has been a problem since the 12th century. King Edward I of England even put a ban on the use of coal because of how bad the air had gotten on London, with torture or death the punishment for the use of it rather than wood.

Once again, your lack of any real grasp of history or science is telling.

 

What that term really means is "Scientists that agree with us". Obviously the beliefs and opinions of any that do not agree with them do not matter at all and are to be ignored.

 

They are only good for general approximations. They tend to cover huge eras of time, and are so "nearsighted" that they give almost no real details other than at a local level for a period covering a decade or more.

Case in point, we can get a general idea of what the climate was like during the K-T event. Hell, the thing left a line visible globally from 4 to 20 cm thick! We can dig below it and see the general climate (BTW, no ice poles at all), and look above it to see what the climate was like afterwards. But only in the most general terms, and only for the area the deposits were left in.

But that is the problem, in that they are local. During the Little Ice Age, we had both drought and brackish water moving upstream in North America, at the same time Glaciers were advancing again in Europe.

And to give an idea how lacking such "evidence" is, we know the K-T event was a global event. Yet, why can we not find evidence for it everywhere? Well, we know why, because depending on local geological conditions there are often gaps of millions or even tens of millions of years in the strata.

Case in point, I now live in Oregon. Which like most of California have no records of the K-T event in the rock strata. Tens of millions of years are simply not there.

 

I find persuasive the argument of Nir Shaviv that 20th century warming was roughly evenly caused by solar and human activity.

 

A "denier" to him is anyone who isn't a warmizombie and otherwise doesn't adhere to his particular sect of the Global Warming faith. Since you are a "climate skeptic", a different sect of the faith, he calls you a "denier" as well, since you don't believe that "the warming" is "unprecedented" "catastrophic" "life-ending" and whatever else.

You would be absolutely correct.

It is not possible to have an intelligent discussion with a warmizombie like him. All warmizombies are very fundamentalist in their Global Warming faith, so much that even people who agree with them that the Earth is warming (but not in any sort of catastrophic manner) are just as heretical as "deniers" like myself who are much more agnostic with regard to the Earth warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature. --- I remain agnostic because it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy (because there are not enough thermometers and we can't adhere to the rules of statistical mathematics in any practical manner).

 

No, he's not. He's actually rather rational. This is just projection on your part.

Holy links dismissed on sight. Holy links are not valid arguments.

 

It is a word that he slings towards anyone who is not a believer within his particular sect of the Global Warming faith. You and Mushroom belong to a separate sect, thus you both are "deniers" all the same as I am.

 

Correct. He can't. His religious fundamentalism in the Global Warming faith gets in the way of his doing so. You are a threat to his faith.

Good catch! He has formed a paradox, as follows:
[1] Deniers claim that there is no warming.
[2] Deniers claim that there is warming (but not caused by humans).

He needs to clear his paradox in order to argue rationally.

His fundamentalism blinds him from basic logic.

Yup. He has a history of doing this. It is a "fit of rage", resulting from someone questioning (iow, not blindly believing in) his faith.

I call this "presenting holy links". It is what someone does when one is incapable or otherwise unwilling to think for oneself. It is intellectual laziness. I tend to dismiss such links on sight.

Indeed. I'll just add that he IS a religious fanatic. His position is based solely on faith (not on science), to the contrary of what he claims.

Bingo, and he IS a religious fanatic.

 

I noticed that, but that's all that I noticed because I did not even bother to open them.

Unfortunately, that sect of the Global Warming faith is impossible to reason with, due to how fundamentalist they are. They get really mad at me whenever I blast holes in their proposed mechanisms for so called "greenhouse gases". They most commonly deny the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law.

You are from a different sect of the faith. You believe that warming is occurring, but you differ in your belief that it isn't "catastrophic". I, on the other hand, don't belong to the faith at all.

Bingo. You, like I, are considered heretical.

Bingo, and I'm willing to bet very few.

Hopefully I'm not too bad to talk to then... But then again, I am not a fundamentalist with regard to my Christian beliefs. It is a faith that I hold, but I don't attempt to prove it like Will does with regard to "catastrophic" Global Warming.

Bingo. Personally, I remain agnostic on the issue. Earth very well could only be 6,000 years old for all I know... but it could also be billions of years old as well. The Bible doesn't make any claim to how old the Earth is, and I don't claim to know anything about past unobserved events such as the age of the Earth.

Bingo.

Bingo.

Bingo.

 

I use the term "rational thinker".

 

Well, the OP is actually about what the choices for policy are from the viewpoint of lawmakers, the choice being, essentially doing nothing or doing something. From what I can tell, the deniers argue for doing nothing. You say 'denier' is a propaganda term, but how can that be true when there are deniers? Now, they might be wrong, or right, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist, and that is the only thing being claimed here, not the complexity of your issue which appears to assert putting simple choices to a complex problem is problematic.

Of course, climate is complex, but a policy maker does not have the luxury of studying climate science for 8 years. The question is, should lawmakers do something, and if so, what, or should they do nothing? I tried, however simplistic it may seem, to reduce it to it's essential concepts, and decide which path is the better path, and I say policy makers should do something, that that is the wiser path.

 

Can't discuss a response to something that hasn't been defined. What IS "climate change"? How can an unquantifiable thing "change"?

Scientists from the world over also agree that "climate change" is a meaningless buzzword. --- You are just appealing to popularity and attempting to discuss an undefined term.

Many people on this board ARE better informed than so called "climatologists".

 

Projection.

 

No, it is not. It is fallacious reasoning.

No. It comes when one claims that [insert argument here] is correct because [insert authority here] says so.

 

Indeed, and that's very important to stress. Warmizombies love to apply something that is very localized to the entirety of Earth (or any other area much larger than the localized area).

 

From the OP:

"So, the question is, who is right? one thing is certain, one side is wrong, and the other side is right."

This is false. Because the science remains in dispute (propaganda claims of "consensus" notwithstanding) there can be no assurance that either "side" is right.

 

The industrial age included a huge increase in fossil fuel use.

The energy required by manufacturing, iron, steel, concrete, etc. was (is) far greater that the energy needs of the societies you mention.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10

 

Well, first of all that is nonsense. We have been well advised.

More importantly, who do YOU listen to concerning climate science?

The thing is, all the scientists here and around the world studying aspects of climate change are in agreement that Earth is warming and the reason is anthropogenic.

So I DO want to know who it is that YOU are listening to.

 

Look at the cite I posted on our representatives and who deny climate change.

They align with the Republican party.

That's just a fact.

 

Please name the sources of your climate information.

 

No, that's not the deal.

The deal is that purposefully ignoring those with years of training and experience is a recipe for failure. It is how to make a bad decision in any walk of life.

There are plenty of people who have serious credentials in the sciences related to climate.

So, what I want to know is who YOU listen to, and consider to be more reliable than the vast majority of qualified scientists around the world, who agree that Earth is warming due to human causes.