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

As far as I am concerned, no one that many claim are Global Warming Deniers actually deny the Climate is Changing. What they do deny is that humans are the biggest cause of the climate changing. And, that stopping or decreasing the use of fossil fuels can have anything but a minimal effect on climate change. Scientifically and historically, the climate has continually cooled and warmed thousands of years before humans came into existence and thousands of years before humans began using fossil fuels.

You say the majority of Climate scientists agree that it is humans and the use of fossil fuels that is causing what they now call "climate change". But, that is not the truth as there are 1000's of Scientists and other Organizations that totally disagree with the findings of the "worlds so-called climatologists". (who by the way have a huge monetary position in their findings).

At any rate, there are few "global warming/climate change deniers" as mostly the liberals claim. What there is are deniers that we humans can make changes that will offer anything but possible minimal changes in the ongoing climate change, whether it be warming as some believe or cooling as others believe. Don't be sheeple, study the past. Those of us with biology and other science degrees have difficulty relying on simple statement without actual fact.

 

I don't know if the so called climate is warming or cooling and frankly, I don't give a darn. Mother Earth is going to do what Mother Earths wants to do regardless of what man wants her to do or not. She has her cycles like a woman has her periods. Just try to keep her as clean as possible and stop cutting down the rain forests and the trees and stop replacing farm land with asphalt and concrete and we will be alright. When it is mankinds time to go, he will go.

 

Currently a 'denier' is anyone that does not bow down to the current political orthodoxy.

 

Find one serious person who says climate NEVER changes? Its the reaction to disagreeing with MAN-MADE global warming, that's hilarious. Its the same tactic used against people who voted against Obama.

Don't believe in man made global warming....you're STUPID!!!

Didn't vote for Obama....you're RACIST!!!

Don't believe in man made global warming..."Oh my god you don't think climate changes....you so stooopiiiiiid!!!"

 

Of course global warming is nothing but a conspiracy. But more than a bunch of self-serving greedy scientists are in on it. The conspiracy includes evil-minded trees, and glaciers, and thermometers, and such. But we know that there are literally thousands of qualified experts and organizations who know better, and we can even name two of them, if we dig through right-wing web sites long enough...

 

Sorry, but believe that man is the biggest cause of Climate Change(remember they stopped calling it Global Warming because they couldn't prove that), you are uneducated and misinformed. Won't use the term Stupid, because I don't think you know any better.

The majority of Scientists believe that even if we stopped all fossil fuel use, worldwide(something we have no control over), our efforts would only minimally .01 degrees change the earths temperature over the next decade. Earthquakes, Volcanic eruptions, solar flares and the tilt of the earth are much bigger factors on our climate and where the factors that altered our climate over the last 1000's of years. New York was at one time covered by a glacier and it is believed it will be once again in the future. I believe the climate is shifting at this time. I also believe we are still in a pre-glacial cycle as historical data shows. I also believe, individuals that haven't studied science or have a degree in science should not make such broad comments without providing factual support for what they say. Unfortunately, for all of us there is little fact to site. Only scientific hypothesis. The definition of scientific hypothesis is a scientific "guess", for you that have no science background. Regardless of the number studies and computer analyses, it is all a guess and no factual information is available to base our beliefs on.

 

That's the point. You're still stupid though for denying it=) Man IS the leading cause of climate change according to the MSM who speaks for all Liberals. Of course not a single scientist knows how much man is truly effecting things. 10% or .000002% who the heck really knows? But don't you dare disagree!!! =)

 

A global warming denier is the same as a global cooling denier was 40ish years ago...

 

The trees show cooling since 1960 genius. Hence the divergence problem. Perhaps trees dont show anything.

 

Except that trees are moving up from the south to colonize the tundra, and moving up the slopes of mountains.

 

"Eleven of the 15 northern species appear to have shifted more than 12 miles (20 kilometers), on average, from their historic ranges."

12 miles??? Whoopee do. Have you ever taken a stats class. You cant attribute a 12 mile move to global warming. At 12 miles temperature differences are statistically 0.

 

Seriously? Then perhaps you can explain why heads exploded all over the blogopsphere last month when a new study came out showing that the hiatus didn't really happen. I guess those deniers really, really, don't believe it's happening, huh?

Yeah, those people are deniers too.

But never this fast. It takes humans to do that.

There are about 10,000 active climate scientists worldwide, and about 300 of them are skeptics. You do the math.

And there is not one single scientific organization in the world that denies climate change or the human role in it. The last holdout was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which changed their position in 2007.

Good point. Let's study the past! Here's some past to study:



Here's some more past to study:



Here's some more past to study:



If that's too far in the past, how about the last 135 years?



So, what did you learn by studying the past?

 

Republicans stopped calling it global warming because Frank Luntz told the Republicans that "global warming" was too scary.

Citation, please.

Citation, please, for even one scientific paper that indicates earthquakes have even the slightest affect on climate.
Citation, please, for even one scientific paper that indicates volcanoes produce anywhere near the CO2 that humans do.
Citation, please, for even one scientific paper that indicates that solar flares have any long-term affect on climate.
Citation, please, for even one scientific paper that quantifies the effect of orbital forcing over the past 1000 years as even of the same order of magnitude as the 2 W/m² of anthropogenic CO2.

Put up or shut up.

Oh I get it. Because climate change can occur naturally, that proves that the current warming cannot possibly be man made.
Just like lightning causes forest fires, therefore human beings can't cause forest fires. Or, since some people die of cancer, therefore, there is no such thing as murder.

Brilliant logic from Denierstan.

Does that include you? Because I'd sure like to see your factual support.

That isn't even remotely the definition of hypothesis. It sure sounds to me like if you ever studied science, you've forgotten most of it.

There's nothing like a closed mind to end the debate. Now that your mind is made up, why should I even bother acquainting you with the facts of which you are ignorant?

 

“The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the greatest liars: the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.” ~ H.L. Mencken

 

Still peddling your own frankenstein graphs as something real huh?

News to everyone. These graphs aren't real. They are crap that PD spliced together from different studies with admittedly different resolutions.

 

Gee, since you can't dispute even one single datum in any of these graphs, why don't you try insults instead? I hear that's very convincing.

Wake me up when you have any actual, you know, evidence. Until then you're just making stuff up.

 

I dont need to disprove anything. Your graphs are so bad they aren't even wrong. You cant make any comparison of low resolution ice cores with modern temperature records. Its apples and oranges. There is a difference between something that is wrong and something that is a fraud. Your graphs are a fraud.

To quote Dr. Mann

"researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum…

Often, as in the comparisons we show on this site, the instrumental record (which extends to present) is shown along with the reconstructions, and clearly distinguished from them (e.g. highlighted in red as here). – See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/#comment-345"

Even the most alarmist of scientists admits that your graphs are a fraud.

 

Oh right. That ol' 1.2 ppmv sigma is so small you can't even see it when it's converted to a logarithmic scale. Low-resolution? Denier FAIL.
You know, windy, you wouldn't look so stupid if you actually read the references I provide.

And you're either just plain lying, or you don't know the meaning of the words you use. Still waiting for just one incorrect datum ... still waiting ... still waiting ... still waiting ...

Gee, Mann didn't use the word "fraud". You're lying again.

 

There are things considered fraud, like Debater's CO2 graph where the undeclared graft of Mauna Loa is tacked onto another record but leaves out 83 years between the end of one graph and the beginning of Mauna Loa.

Here is a graph of CO2 records where you can see the actual measurements but the study by Callender only used certain points. You can see there are wide variations that are never published. There are problems also with Dome C readings which are considered to be low.





Average atmospheric CO2 concentrations measured in the 19th and 20th centuries. Encircled are the values used by Callendar. Redrawn after Fonselius et al. 1956. Bottom area enlarged, detail RHS.

 

The fraud isn't in the data its in the presentation of the data. You present spliced data with vastly different resolutions as if they are one and representative of each other. There in lies the fraud.



Just an example. Your graph attempts to mislead by making those less informed think that all points of your grap are equal. But we both know that is not he case.

"Fraud

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."


You present data in such a way as to deceive by concealing the importance of the differing resolution of you splices, this is done intentionally.

 

Thank you for admitting that the data is correct. But since all the data has the same resolution -- 20 years -- you're also lying again.

It is indeed the case.

And since all the data is presented at the same resolution, you're just plain wrong. Awaiting your apology.

 

Oh god didn't we go over this dog and pony show of your before. Its not a 20 year resolution. If you had found a way to get ice core resolution of 20 years you would be fricking famous. Just because you graphed it in 20 year increments doesn't make it a 20 year resolution. The science is physically incapable of rendering 20 year resolution. You know this. That is why your graph is a fraud. Its a deliberate deceit.


I also love your new signature. It proves how much of a massive hypocrite you are.

It took me less than am minute to find a post of you ranting about how stupid creationists are
http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...tion-global-warming-camps-same-people-50.html

Oh but now the Pope agrees with your agenda so he's cool. Absolute hypocrisy. You should be ashamed. Not that you are capable of shame.

edit:

Found another one

edit:

And another

http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...tion-global-warming-camps-same-people-36.html

edit:

The just keep comming

Why would anyone believe a world you say much less your fraud graphs?

 

GISP2 ice core Holocene resolution: 13 years. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pa...gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

DML ice core resolution: 13 years.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/maud/edml-co2-2005.txt

DE08 ice core resolution: 4 years.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_co2.txt

DE08-2 ice core resolution: 13 years.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law2006.txt

Looks like I'm fricking famous. Bow Down To Me, oh humble non-famous person!

Gee, that sentence really looks stupid now, doesn't it?

Lacking all evidence, Windy again deploys the only weapon he's got: the personal insult. Utterly brilliant. You must be the smartest guy in Denierstan.

But the Pope isn't a creationist. He accepts evolution wholeheartedly. So you lose again, cupcake.

Because they're honest. And you yourself have agreed that the data is real.

 

Exactly......

 

More lies. This time by changing context. We both know that the topic is ice cores that go back thousands of years not the surface cores which have higher resolution. Furthermore you confuse the data with resolution. Second, data points in the GISP2 does not mean that is the resolution. There is a great deal of smearing as resolution overlaps points. Each point is actually a running average.The true resolution of the GISP2 is 10^3-10^5 depending on how deep the core.

Grootes, P.M., and M. Stuiver. 1997. Oxygen 18/16 variability in Greenland snow and ice with 10^3 to 10^5-year time resolution. Journal of Geophysical Research