Taxonomy of Global Warming Denial

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Probably, due to population increase, combustible fuel usage increase (per person) and deforestation.

So even if it is increasing, do you believe it is impacting the climate with a warming trend?

 

[Hieronymus]

So even if it is increasing, do you believe it is impacting the climate with a warming trend?

I don't know.
The fear porn around it makes it suspicious.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I don't know.
The fear porn around it makes it suspicious.

Then you would fall in Option 3 of the taxonomy.

It looks like you and JacksBratt are both Option 3 in the taxonomy.

Although at least you are honest in your admission of ignorance about the effects of CO2 on the climate and the warming trend.

Would you care to learn a little bit about it so that you are better informed? I promise no fear porn

 

[Hieronymus]

Then you would fall in Option 3 of the taxonomy.

No, i just don't know who (if anybody) is portraying the truth of global warming.

It looks like you and JacksBratt are both Option 3 in the taxonomy.

I didn't vote.

Although at least you are honest in your admission of ignorance about the effects of CO2 on the climate and the warming trend.

Aha, so when i don't agree with you, i'm ignorant?
I'm not allowed to say what that makes you.

Would you care to learn a little bit about it so that you are better informed?

Why don't you just ask the question if and why (not) i'm informed at all?

I promise no fear porn

You bring nauseating things of another kind, it seems...

 

[JacksBratt]

That would be option three.

Actually..........no. Not option 3. Option 3 says there is no evidence of climate warming. This is different.

There may be warming and cooling trends. I'm saying, and always have, that CO2 concentrations of 0.038% or even 0.040% of our atmosphere are so minuscule that they could not possibly affect the immense atmospheric size and the size of the global surface area of water.

It shows the complete and utter ignorance and blind following of the civilized world to believe that 0.002% more of a gas in our atmosphere could alter the effect of our sun's energy and the absolutely massive volume of water on the surface of this planet. Especially to the extent that it is going to endanger the melting of our ice caps, which, by the way, are also water....


What would the weight of 0.002% of our atmosphere weigh as a percent of the weight of the surface water on this planet. Not to mention that water draws heat 25 times faster from any source than air?

Yes, humans may have increased their amount of CO2 emissions. Yes we should be careful about what we put in the atmosphere, ground and water as pollutants. Yes we should reduce, reuse and recycle. Yes we should have clean burning cars..... but don't tell me that I am melting the ice caps with an additional 0.002% of CO2 into our atmosphere.

I believe that the greatest increase in CO2 into the atmosphere is the fact that warmer oceans hold less gasses. Heat the water and gases are emitted. The oceans, rising even a degree would disperse more CO2 than many would believe.


No, I don't believe that mankind is causing a catastrophic global warming that is going to alter the state of the climate of the planet unless something drastic is done.

I do believe that in a decade or less this is all going to go away and the hive mind and puppet governments will have milked this for all they can and the new people in power will have some new catastrophic reason to panic and unite all the countries in the world to save this earth from a terminal case of an infection of humans.

 

[JacksBratt]

I don't believe that if you took all the CO2 in the atmosphere and heated this until it is red hot, could do even the slightest damage to a small lake of ice.

It's preposterous.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Actually..........no. Not option 3. Option 3 says there is no evidence of climate warming. This is different.

So do you believe that there has been an overall global warming trend since the 1850s? (Yes or No)

I am not going to address the rest of your post until I am sure which level of the taxonomy you fall into. Currently, you seem to be between Option 3 and Option 4. Once I can figure out where you are, then we can have a meaningful discussion

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

No, i just don't know who (if anybody) is portraying the truth of global warming.

Okay, so you don't know whether Option 3 is true or not. Because of this, you can't move on to Option 4 until you've dealt with Option 3. So perhaps you aren't firmly in Option 3, but you're in that grey area of undecidedness of the truth or falsity of Option 3.

I didn't vote.

That doesn't mean you don't fall into one of the above categories. Obviously any categorization will have some limitations, but as I said, from what you've said, I think you're somewhere around Option 3.

Aha, so when i don't agree with you, i'm ignorant?

No no no. Admission of ignorance is a good trait. The fact that you said "I don't know" is awesome!

For example, I'm ignorant of how to build and service a motorcycle. If there is anyone here who works with motorcycles, I would gladly let them explain some of it to me from their understanding. I am ignorant of a lot of things...hundreds of things...thousands...millions. If someone asked me my opinion on when a motorcycle needs servicing, I would shrug and say, "I don't know."

It's not a bad thing. Sorry if it came off as offensive.

 

[JacksBratt]

So do you believe that there has been an overall global warming trend since the 1850s? (Yes or No)

I am not going to address the rest of your post until I am sure which level of the taxonomy you fall into. Currently, you seem to be between Option 3 and Option 4. Once I can figure out where you are, then we can have a meaningful discussion

Since you believe that this CO2 is man made, causing unavoidable drastic catastrophic detrimental affects to global weather, and that, somehow, we are going to stop the fluctuation in global temperatures....by driving electric cars and trading carbon credits with other countries along with other governmental intervention ..... we will not be able to have a meaningful discussion.

On this subject I should say.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Since you believe that this CO2 is man made, causing unavoidable drastic catastrophic detrimental affects to global weather, and that, somehow, we are going to stop the fluctuation in global temperatures....by driving electric cars and trading carbon credits with other countries along with other governmental intervention ..... we will not be able to have a meaningful discussion.

On this subject I should say.

I do not believe many of the things you just stated. I do not necessarily believe that the effects will be catastrophic. Nor do I believe that we are going to stop natural fluctuations in global temperatures. Nor do I think driving electric cars will solve the problem. Nor do I think carbon credits are a good idea.


Do you believe that there has been an overall global warming trend since the 1850s? (Yes or No)

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm saying, and always have, that CO2 concentrations of 0.038% or even 0.040% of our atmosphere are so minuscule that they could not possibly affect the immense atmospheric size and the size of the global surface area of water.

That is what you are saying, but climate scientists have shown otherwise. If you have good reason to believe the effect of CO2 is small, then somebody needs to write up the analysis and convince those who understand the atmosphere that you are right. Coming here and trying to convinced the amateurs that your understanding of the atmosphere is correct is not the way to win out for your side. That is not how science works. Publish your discovery in a peer-reviewed journal. Write up a case that is convincing to informed experts.

It shows the complete and utter ignorance and blind following of the civilized world to believe that 0.002% more of a gas in our atmosphere could alter the effect of our sun's energy and the absolutely massive volume of water on the surface of this planet. Especially to the extent that it is going to endanger the melting of our ice caps, which, by the way, are also water....

Except it is not the blind followers who are driving this. It is climate scientists who understand the physics, and overwhelmingly see that this is a problem.

The sun radiates about 1366 watts per meter squared average to the earth. But the earth had not been heating up, because the earth has been radiating about 1366 watts per meter squared back into space. There was a net radiance of zero watts. The small increase in CO2 has decreased the outgoing radiance to about 1364 watts per meter squared. The imbalance gives a net effect to heat up the earth at 2 watts per meter squared. As the earth gets hotter, it will radiate more energy, with the outgoing radiance proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. Eventually it reaches a temperature where the incoming and outgoing radiations balance.

CO2 is not effecting the sun's incoming energy. It is slightly decreasing the rate at which heat is radiated back into space.

I believe that the greatest increase in CO2 into the atmosphere is the fact that warmer oceans hold less gasses. Heat the water and gases are emitted. The oceans, rising even a degree would disperse more CO2 than many would believe.

We can tell by isotope analysis where the extra carbon is coming from. The carbon in the oceans has a different atomic weight compared to the carbon in fossil fuels.We have samples of the atmosphere from a hundred years ago and from today. Guess what. There is now more carbon in the air, and the carbon that was added matches the isotopes found in fossil fuels. It does not match the carbon found in the ocean. Hence, we can be confident the carbon increase came from burning fossil fuels.

 

[JacksBratt]

Except it is not the blind followers who are driving this. It is climate scientists who understand the physics, and overwhelmingly see that this is a problem.

Not all of the climate scientists are driving this. That is a false statement. You make statements like this and everyone automatically thinks it's the truth. I am not blind to these falsehoods.

To say all the scientists are pro CAGW is false. To say all the pro CAGW scientists are climate scientists and all the scientists that deny it are of a different discipline, is also false.

The pro CAGW are Only the ones that are allowed to speak without being slammed or are backed by the hive mind and puppet governments.

 

[USincognito]

As Hieronymus stated, CO2 is not a pollutant but a life support for plant life. The C (or Carbon) ends up as plant matter and the O2 is expelled, which is life support for all animals.

Oh wow. I didn't know that until just this minute when I read your post. Clearly this changes everything and AGW is a hoax.

 

[Hieronymus]

Oh wow. I didn't know that until just this minute when I read your post. Clearly this changes everything and AGW is a hoax.

Yep, just like evolution.
It's called indoctrination.
This is what they do to keep the sheeple in line with their agendas.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Not all of the climate scientists are driving this. That is a false statement.

If it is a false statement, then why did you state it? Because it is you who made up the thing about all climate scientists, not me. You make up this thing about all scientists, refute it, and pretend it applies to me.

What I said was,

Except it is not the blind followers who are driving this. It is climate scientists who understand the physics, and overwhelmingly see that this is a problem.
​

You notice I don't have the word "all" in there. You inserted it yourself, then blast me for including the word "all"!!!!! Oh for crying out loud!

The problem for you is that the vast majority of recent peer-reviewed climate articles that take a position on climate change warn that it is happening and that it is probably caused by humans. This vast amount of research supporting that position is something you should not be ignoring.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yep, just like evolution.
It's called indoctrination.
This is what they do to keep the sheeple in line with their agendas.

You were responding to sarcasm. I am quite certain USincognito did not convert to a climate change denier by being told that CO2 is used by plants.

Have you ever read scholarly peer-reviewed journals? It is hard to see how somebody could say these articles are all just a clever hoax, with everybody making up lies and falling in line to perpetuate the hoax. If you really think this is what is happening, a day in a research library might change your perspective.

 

[USincognito]

Yep, just like evolution.
It's called indoctrination.
This is what they do to keep the sheeple in line with their agendas.

 

[JacksBratt]

If it is a false statement, then why did you state it? Because it is you who made up the thing about all climate scientists, not me. You make up this thing about all scientists, refute it, and pretend it applies to me.

What I said was,

Except it is not the blind followers who are driving this. It is climate scientists who understand the physics, and overwhelmingly see that this is a problem.
​

You notice I don't have the word "all" in there. You inserted it yourself, then blast me for including the word "all"!!!!! Oh for crying out loud!

When you write something like "It is climate scientists who understand the physics, and overwhelmingly see that this is a problem." it is easy to mistake it to read that it is, in fact "climate scientists" only, that see this is a problem.

Can you not read your statement to be taken as such? Especially when it is preceded by "it is not the blind followers"

If not, well, I did. So, my apologies for my error.

The problem for you is that the vast majority of recent peer-reviewed climate articles that take a position on climate change warn that it is happening and that it is probably caused by humans. This vast amount of research supporting that position is something you should not be ignoring.

This is not a problem for me. I find it rather predictable that the hive mind would produce such a following and, as a result, a whole line of papers stating such a theory, which would then get positive reviews from their peers.

It is equally predictable that the papers that contradict the whole man made panic would then get poor reviews from this crowd.

I have never believed that truth is dictated by the numbers of people who believe it. The number of "scientists" who are pushing this panic is of no concern of mine. It is only the motivation for me to bring to light that there is another side to this story that needs to be heard. One that I tend to believe and want others to stop expecting a majority to rule on truth. I need more scientists to have the courage to state the truth whether it is following the common belief or going against the grain.

Of course we produce CO2 in our modern life style and more than we did in the past. I just don't believe it is a panic worthy issue and I strongly believe that the earth's climate is a much more robust system.

In the end, I most strongly believe that God is in control anyway.

As a result I see this whole issue as negligible. Just another issue where men have the arrogance to believe they actually have control over something of this magnitude and will manipulate the public in a way to get their greedy little paws on more money.

In ten years or so, most will have forgotten, technology will keep progressing, the rich will get richer and control the minions with their ploys and puppets all the while God's plan will unfold.

Then, right on cue, there will be a new panic for the world to face. Guaranteed.

 

[USincognito]

I just don't believe it is a panic worthy issue and I strongly believe that the earth's climate is a much more robust system.

Your beliefs do not trump the evidence.

 

[doubtingmerle]

When you write something like "It is climate scientists who understand the physics, and overwhelmingly see that this is a problem." it is easy to mistake it to read that it is, in fact "climate scientists" only, that see this is a problem.

Oh gee, first you insert the word "all" into my sentence, now you insert the word "only". Please quit inserting words into my writings and then arguing against the words you insert. Please respond to what I write without inserting words that drastically change the meaning.

The problem for you is that there is vast array of facts in scholarly peer-reviewed journals that support the view that humans are changing the climate.

I find it rather predictable that the hive mind would produce such a following and, as a result, a whole line of papers stating such a theory, which would then get positive reviews from their peers.

And the hive mind would produce a great array of facts? The vast array of papers arguing for climate change each describe new methods, experiments, analysis, and facts supporting their conclusion. The problem for you is all these facts.

It is equally predictable that the papers that contradict the whole man made panic would then get poor reviews from this crowd.

Ah, there are quality papers that support your view that peer-review won't allow? Please post a link to a paper worthy of being published in a scholarly peer-reviewed journal that supports your views. Show me a real paper, not a fictitious claim of a paper.

I have never believed that truth is dictated by the numbers of people who believe it. The number of "scientists" who are pushing this panic is of no concern of mine.

Science is not determined by a vote. It is determined by facts. The problem for you is the vast array of facts published in scholarly peer-reviewed journals.

It is only the motivation for me to bring to light that there is another side to this story that needs to be heard. One that I tend to believe

Ah, so that changes things? You tend to believe something different than what the peer-reviewed journals published.

Sorry, I don't find "tend to believe" as an argument that trumps scholarly peer-reviewed journals.

I need more scientists to have the courage to state the truth whether it is following the common belief or going against the grain.

That's what science is all about. The way to fame in science is to publish a novel view that is supported by strong evidence that is a major change in a field of science. If you can do this, please show us the paper that will do it.

Of course we produce CO2 in our modern life style and more than we did in the past. I just don't believe it is a panic worthy issue and I strongly believe that the earth's climate is a much more robust system.

It is hard to see how you can describe things like Kyoto as panic. It is more like countries saying that maybe kinda sorta they will set goals for the future that they sorta might possibly consider. That hardly sounds like panic.

In the end, I most strongly believe that God is in control anyway.

As a result I see this whole issue as negligible.

I see. And if the weather forecasters say a major hurricane is headed for the beach you are on, you figure God is in control and ignore the warning also? Since God is in control, are all warnings a waste of breath?