Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Wild Cobra]

GHG warm the ocean in addition to direct solar ir, dim.

You claimed soot accounted for all the arctic melt. You also said their models ignored soot's input.

That is your whole schtick: barely understand a concept and then pretend that is the only thing that matters. All or nothing stupidity from the resident idiot.

Why are you such a ing idiot?

GHG warming of the oceans is insignificant compared to solar. Most of CO2 radiates back off the surface or simply converts most it's remaining heat content to vaporization.

Saying soot melts the ice "more than" CO2 does not make the claim CO2 doesn't melt any.

You claiming I am an idiot is totally laughable!

[Wild Cobra]

In the interest of intellectual honesty:

The chart above must be viewed in the context of premium growth.

And number of people buing said insurance.

It's under an 8% annual growth rate as a trend. I see nothing to suggest climate as a factor.

[RandomGuy]

Oh shame on scientists for thinking facts and reason matter.

That entire post is cringeworthy and I could give a longer response later (though it will just be ignored and then another similar post will be copy pasted)... But it's ridiculous to demand an economic model and then follow that sentence with a statement that economic models are worthless and won't convince you of anything. And lol at squeezing in a religious objection to climate change

Yeah, I saw that. Adams is, though, less about taking a specific stand and more about offering critique of messaging.

What Adams missed, however, is that ID is almost exclusively a fig leaf for Christian religious dogma.

[RandomGuy]

And number of people buing said insurance.

It's under an 8% annual growth rate as a trend. I see nothing to suggest climate as a factor.

Hard to separate the two. "nothing" though is a bit of a quick absolutist dismissal, and not something a good data wonk would ever say.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, I should have said nothing to suggest AGW is a factor.

Climate definitely is as most of those peaks were during times of climate disasters.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why are you such a ing idiot?

GHG warming of the oceans is insignificant compared to solar. Most of CO2 radiates back off the surface or simply converts most it's remaining heat content to vaporization.

Saying soot melts the ice "more than" CO2 does not make the claim CO2 doesn't melt any.

You claiming I am an idiot is totally laughable!

You were running around telling us that the models did not consider soot. Then MiG showed you that they did and where. You then repeated yourself anyway. When they later revised the soot figures and it changed the forcing values minimally you acted like you had accomplished something.

That was you taking someone somewhere telling you that the soot figures were problematic and you interpreting it into "they don't consider it at all" with your pea brain.

Similarly, you said that the ocean currents could account for the earth's warming completely. You then posted fluid dynamic maps of the currents and waved your hands a lot. I've read your harebrained schemes about IR penetration with the ocean surface over at science.com and we on that EZ-bake oven science over there too.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, I should have said nothing to suggest AGW is a factor.

Climate definitely is as most of those peaks were during times of climate disasters.

You wrote exactly that, dim.

[spurraider21]

"If you told me one specific model was good, that might sound convincing. But if climate scientists have multiple models, and they all point in the same general direction, something sounds fishy. If climate science is relatively "settled," would't we all use the same models and assumptions?"

just, lol. no, if you have multiple models and they're scattered all over the place as far as results go, then THAT would be when the science clearly isn't settled and the community hasn't been able to narrow things down. when you have several different models that point to the same conclusion using different methods and analysis, that's precisely when the conclusion becomes convincing. and that's #1 on this list ... holy

[spurraider21]

#2 compares the laws of physics to economic forecasting models

[spurraider21]

#3 asks for a percent attribution, to which there are several peer reviewed papers discussing just that. then mentions "i saw an article today with no links. not credible." oh well good for you!

here's a bunch of studies that go into attribution. the first is probably what the "article" he read was referencing, as it mentions that natural causes would lead to cooling, and therefore the human contribution exceeds 100%

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/c...&filetype=.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...F%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3966.1
https://link.springer.com/article/10...382-012-1585-8
https://link.springer.com/article/10...382-016-3079-6

this is all so easily accessible... if there was an actual, genuine curiosity behind any of the questions raised, you'd have to actively avoid the information. instead the author is tryin to play a gotcha game and fails miserably at it

[spurraider21]

5. Skeptics produce charts of the earth’s temperature going up and down for ages before humans were industrialized. If you can’t explain-away that chart, I can’t hear anything else you say. I believe the climate alarmists are talking about the rate of increase, not the actual temperatures. But why do I never see their chart overlayed on the skeptics’ chart so we can see the difference? That seems like the obvious thing to do. In fact, climate alarmists should throw out everything but that one chart.

no. skeptics don't produce these charts. scientists produced these charts. and if it wasn't for the past history, scientists wouldn't have a leg to stand on. the temperature has changed in the past. the important question there is "what caused those past changes"... if your answer is, among other things, like solar variability, albedo, earth's wobble... CO2, then by us adding CO2, we are recreating the conditions that had caused previous climate changes.

[Wild Cobra]

You were running around telling us that the models did not consider soot. Then MiG showed you that they did and where. You then repeated yourself anyway. When they later revised the soot figures and it changed the forcing values minimally you acted like you had accomplished something.

That was you taking someone somewhere telling you that the soot figures were problematic and you interpreting it into "they don't consider it at all" with your pea brain.

Similarly, you said that the ocean currents could account for the earth's warming completely. You then posted fluid dynamic maps of the currents and waved your hands a lot. I've read your harebrained schemes about IR penetration with the ocean surface over at science.com and we on that EZ-bake oven science over there too.

They do not "properly" consider soot or solar.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They do not "properly" consider soot or solar.

And the "proper way" according to you was soot not CO2. For example:

Everything I have studied about global warming tells me it is primarily driven by various sun activities. The only man-made warming that can be agreed on in the scientific community is China's burning of coal in the quan ies and lack of cleanliness that they do it by. Soot is depositing on the northern ice and melting from the extra heat the black absorbs. With less reflective ice and more absorbing ocean water, the earth is keeping more energy from the sun! This is most probably why the ocean is warming!

CO2 has absolutely no effect on adding to troposphere heat. It increases heat at a lower al ude, but all historical satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere remain unchanged. It can attribute to more severe weather in theory.

Never see the alarmists tell us about the troposphere’s temperature, now do we? If CO2 causing global warming was real, we would see it in troposphere temperature readings. But no…. The alarmists like to use thermometers, which are influenced by urban growth.

or

How does that article help when the author lies about cause and effect?


I can buy the three degrees, but not due to CO2. It is from a by-product of producing CO2 during electrical generation called black carbon. The coal burning plants in China are depositing soot on the ice, collecting heat from the sun, and melting the ice. The arctic ocean now warms because the water is absorbing more than 90% of the suns radiation instead of reflecting more than 90% of it.

Also note, warmer sea water can absorb less CO2. It releases it. If the 3 degrees was a global average, that would equate to about an additional 84 ppm of CO2 globally.

I had forgotten about the ocean as a soda stupidity.

Here's you claiming that only you thought of it:

There's a relatively new article in The Deniers series that speaks of the Black Carbon I have mentioned before. This is the first time I have seen anyone else besides me publically announce such a thing. I found the information from NASA, but they play the political game and stay silent about it.

More and I chose the second paragraph for irony.

Be specific. We do have a carbon problem. It's called soot, or black carbon. Asia is causing this soot to fall over the arctic ice cap, increasing the melt rate substantially. CO2 is not a problem for man kind until at least the 3% point (30,000 ppm). It will likely cause problems for more sensitive life like birds before that, but we will never see such levels.

Notice that alarmists will pick a starting period of low temperature to today's relative high. This shows highs to highs, and lows to lows, correlating to under 0.2 C increase over your coveted 100 years. Now here's a kicker... Solar irradiance in now about 0.1% long term average higher now (after 1950) than 1900 and earlier. That 0.1% increase may seem insignificant, but considering how cold the earth would be with no solar radiation, it amounts to over 0.2 C just by the increase in solar irradiation. Matches up pretty good to the 0.18 C trend when all averages are taken into account.

You're full of , dim. You should try and explain things like you used to. It was so much more fun. The ocean is like a giant soda!

[DarrinS]

no. skeptics don't produce these charts. scientists produced these charts.

You make it sound as if there are no scientists who are skeptics.

[spurraider21]

You make it sound as if there are no scientists who are skeptics.

was referring to the scientific community at large, not necessarily every individual scientist. and he sounds as if non-skeptics ignore paleoclimatology

like hey wise guys, ya ever consider past climates? i'll bet ya didnt. it's a dishonest position.

[Chris]

crowder

Stolen but I agree "Okay, first things first. Crowder isn't trying to argue science in his video. He's arguing against leftist ideology with regards to climate change. The point isn't to debunk climate change. The point is to debunk the constant left-wing talking points that bombard the country on a regular basis.

I don't understand your attempted debunking of myth 1. You have to realize that you're arguing exactly what he is. We know the world isn't flat because of "truth", but how is truth developed? WITH EVIDENCE. You're arguing the same thing.

Point 2 appears valid, factually, but I think you're moving the goalposts just a tad. The argument with climate change is that it is a global phenomenon endangering humanity. How is it a global phenomenon if the southern ice sheet is gaining mass? It appears hemispherical looking at your facts, which undermines quite a bit of the theories normally posed about climate science. Do they not have carbon emissions in the southern hemisphere? Crowder is wrong to only look south, but again, the overall theme is to debunk leftist myths, not science. This last sentence is what you're missing in points 3 and 4 too. He's not here to debunk climate change. He's here to debunk leftists, which includes politicians saying the planet was freezing and environmentalists decrying that Florida will be completely underwater by 2020.

And finally, those points you demand he disprove at the end were not his points, those were yours. And if you listened to him properly, those points in the beginning are how the left defines climate deniers, not the points he would be trying to debunk with the video. You know, there are reasons people build strawmen, they're easy to debate. Anybody can go pick apart and redefine a video to serve his own ends. If you really want to respond, why not reach out to Louder with Crowder. Share your evidence and hear him out. See he'll put you on to debate, because a response video is purposely avoiding that conversation."

I'm assuming you posted this video to discredit Crowder? I'm not arguing on Crowder's behalf for this conversation and this video is unrelated to my scientist video...

another old video slamming Crowder. Apparently this guy is making a living off sniffing Crowder's jock He has a nice radio voice with a British accent so he must be telling the truth about everything.

[spurraider21]

Stolen but I agree "Okay, first things first. Crowder isn't trying to argue science in his video. He's arguing against leftist ideology with regards to climate change. The point isn't to debunk climate change. The point is to debunk the constant left-wing talking points that bombard the country on a regular basis.

that's a fair point. like i said, at least in the context of this thread, and for many, the discussion is general, the the argument from some that global warming isn't even happening at all

I don't understand your attempted debunking of myth 1. You have to realize that you're arguing exactly what he is. We know the world isn't flat because of "truth", but how is truth developed? WITH EVIDENCE. You're arguing the same thing.

yes that was nitpicky, but he ultimately agreed with crowder that science isn't based on consensus, so there isn't really a controversy here

Point 2 appears valid, factually, but I think you're moving the goalposts just a tad. The argument with climate change is that it is a global phenomenon endangering humanity. How is it a global phenomenon if the southern ice sheet is gaining mass? It appears hemispherical looking at your facts, which undermines quite a bit of the theories normally posed about climate science. Do they not have carbon emissions in the southern hemisphere? Crowder is wrong to only look south, but again, the overall theme is to debunk leftist myths, not science. This last sentence is what you're missing in points 3 and 4 too. He's not here to debunk climate change. He's here to debunk leftists, which includes politicians saying the planet was freezing and environmentalists decrying that Florida will be completely underwater by 2020.

it's valid because global warming is just that... global. you have to take into consideration the entire earth as a whole. if some places are getting colder, but most places are getting warmer, that's still indicative of global warming. when there are two ice caps, and one of them is gaining some ice, and the other one is losing way more ice, it's indicative of an overall warming. crowder literally ignores one of the two major ice sheets when he attempts to debunk the "myth that the ice sheets are melting."

And finally, those points you demand he disprove at the end were not his points, those were yours. And if you listened to him properly, those points in the beginning are how the left defines climate deniers, not the points he would be trying to debunk with the video. You know, there are reasons people build strawmen, they're easy to debate. Anybody can go pick apart and redefine a video to serve his own ends. If you really want to respond, why not reach out to Louder with Crowder. Share your evidence and hear him out. See he'll put you on to debate, because a response video is purposely avoiding that conversation."

well first of all, he addresses the scientific claims, not the political ones. so he doesn't argue strawmen when he talks about polar bear numbers, ice sheets, global cooling, etc.

secondly, the maker of the videos HAS reached out to crowder (as shown in the two other videos below that you may or may not have watched)

I'm assuming you posted this video to discredit Crowder? I'm not arguing on Crowder's behalf for this conversation and this video is unrelated to my scientist video...

true in part. i use these videos to show that crowder is not credible when it comes to the scientific discussion on climate change. the waters are too deep for him. it's not to say everything crowder ever says is wrong. it shows that he's incredibly uninformed on the issues of climate change

another old video slamming Crowder. Apparently this guy is making a living off sniffing Crowder's jock He has a nice radio voice with a British accent so he must be telling the truth about everything.

these aren't old videos ... all three of these have come out in the last year. two of them came out in a 1 week span. his channel has over 130 videos over the course of 10 years, about 40 of which are about climate change. 3 of them, all in the last year, have discussed crowder videos.

and no, i dont think he tells the truth because he has a british accent. i think he tells the truth because every time he makes a claim of fact, he cites to a source such as a scientific paper or journal which he both references in the video and links to in his video descriptions

and in videos where his mistakes have been called out or pointed out, he has gone back after the fact and posted corrections

[Chris]

and no, i dont think he tells the truth because he has a british accent. i think he tells the truth because every time he makes a claim of fact, he cites to a source such as a scientific paper or journal which he both references in the video and links to in his video descriptions

and in videos where his mistakes have been called out or pointed out, he has gone back after the fact and posted corrections[/SIZE]

I agree he is quite tenacious, and good with his sources. He appears to create a safe space in the comments section sometimes by deleting comments and blocking users. Other than that he does good work, and I appreciate what he has to say.

[spurraider21]

I agree he is quite tenacious, and good with his sources. He appears to create a safe space in the comments section sometimes by deleting comments and blocking users. Other than that he does good work, and I appreciate what he has to say.

where do you get the impression he censors comments? just looked through the ones i posted here and see comments bashing his videos...

i know you like saying safe space as a buzzword, but where is that apparent on his channel?

[Chris]

where do you get the impression he censors comments? just looked through the ones i posted here and see comments bashing his videos...

i know you like saying safe space as a buzzword, but where is that apparent on his channel?

He mentions it saying "hey guys I deleted so and so in the comments". Scrolling through them- the ones that are disagreements are buried at the bottom with a lot of fluff comments at the top that call him everything but Jesus.

[spurraider21]

He mentions it saying "hey guys I deleted so and so in the comments". Scrolling through them- the ones that are disagreements are buried at the bottom with a lot of fluff comments at the top that call him everything but Jesus.

i'm sure any youtube channel with a following will have fluffers. that's not indicative of a safe space or censorship

i only saw him mention one deleted comment where he told the guy to repost his comment without disabling replies. he told the guy to repost his comment so there can be discussion, the exact opposite of censorship

[RandomGuy]

Actually, I should have said nothing to suggest AGW is a factor.

Climate definitely is as most of those peaks were during times of climate disasters.

You said you saw "nothing". How exactly did you reach that conclusion?

Be as specific as possible about how you reached that conclusion, so I can check for myself to see if that method works.

[spurraider21]

[TSA]

"my advisors and I"

Come on Neil you are better than that.

[Wild Cobra]

"my advisors and I"

Come on Neil you are better than that.

Is he?

I think not!!!