Deniers, do you deny the greenhouse effect?

Question

or do you admit that it plays a role in global warming?

do you admit that the 30% increase in CO2, 50% increase in CH4, 18% increase in NOx, and infinite % increase in alkyl halides over the last 100 years is caused by human activity?

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/thomas.wolosz/global_warming.htm

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

a skeptic is someone who thinks humans may be the primary cause, i'm mean deniers.

skeptics leave open the possibility

best answer will be offered to deniers only, but feel free to post your thoughts.

1940 - 1970 was most likely due to increased aerosols and solar dimming polution as well as other factors.

"The starosphere stopped cooling 12 years ago" seems to be complete nonsense (IR satellite imaging):

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2004/ann/st-global-jan-dec-pg.gif

seems like deniers rely too heavily on propaganda web sites.

As far as the hockey stick:
there does not seem to be anything about it that would be considered a lie, However, this particular study has been selected by AGW proponents over other studies that do not show such a dramatic increase, here is a graph showing the results of 11 different studies the "hockey stick" is the medium blue shaded line and is not terribly different from the others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Answer 1

No of course I don’t deny the greenhouse effect. We wouldn’t be here discussing it if it didn’t exist.

I also accept that the amount of CO2 (and other man-made GHGs) in the atmosphere has risen over the last 100 years or so. And I even accept that CO2 is a GHG, so we should expect the world to warm a bit as a result of that rise.

So why am I a sceptic? For many reasons.

Most importantly, I do not believe that the effects of CO2 on temperature have been accurately modelled. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that CO2 has little influence on temperature: the well known 800+ year lag between changes in temperature and CO2 in the ice core data, the 1940s to 1970s cooling, the current lack of warming, and the fact that the stratosphere stopped cooling 12 years ago. All these things make me wonder exactly how much of an effect CO2 can be having.

If the science is such a “done deal”, why do some people feel the need to exaggerate the data or, even worse, lie about it? These days, believers simply dismiss the infamous Mann, et al, “Hockey-stick” graph as irrelevant, but we were lied to! And the peer-reviews *supported* that lie. Call me old fashioned if you like, but I believe honesty is important, especially in science, and when someone is found to have lied, I tend not to trust them.

More recently we’ve had Hansen’s testimony to the House of Representatives which was so full of his personal opinion that it could more accurately be called propaganda rather than science.

Again, it’s simply more exaggerated rhetoric; we’re effectively being lied to. There seems to be a feeling that it’s okay to lie about Global Warming, because it’s *such* an important issue. Rubbish! Lying is what politicians do, not scientists, which leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the Global Warming debate is political.

Add to that other issues such as: who made the decision that we should stop climate change, because this is the best temperature the world has ever had? Do the predictions take future changes in society into account? For example, fossil fuels will run out sooner or later and we may come up with new technology that will make them obsolete – remember, France gets 80% of its electricity from a power source that was unknown a century ago. Why do Alarmists make inflated claims of rising sea levels causing flooding, without ever acknowledging the almost certainty that we might just do something about it, rather than sitting there watching the water roll in shouting “Run for the hills!”, etc, etc.

Again, it amounts to lies. We are constantly told the worse case scenarios without any mention of the fact that many of the alleged problems could be coped with, let alone the inconvenient truth that some changes would actually benefit us.

We face many problems in the world that are killing millions right now, which we could fix. My favourite example is that two million children die each year due to a lack of clean drinking water. Do you honestly believe that global warming is so important that we should continue to let two million children a year die – every year – on the off-change that you’re right?

I don’t think so. Let’s fix the problems we have *now* before we start worrying about something that *might* be a problem, *sometime* in the future.

As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.

Answer 2

I don't believe in man-made GW because of people like you. You ask questions like "when did you stop beating your wife?" instead of considering the very logical flaws pointed out by the so-called "deniers." Meteorologists and climatologists can't tell me what the weather will be like in 2 days much less 50 years because our weather and climate are so complex that no one can even come close to understanding it and accurately modeling it. Unfortunately, a majority of said meteorologists and climatologists (if you believe the propaganda) are blinded by their own ignorance.

The simple fact is that contrary to the alleged consensus, AGW has NOT been proven. Several members of YA will beg to differ, but if it had been proven, why would the leading political force behind AGW alarmism say that man has "likely" (60%) caused GW? They have now changed that to "very likely" (90%). If someone could prove man has caused GW, then the IPCC wouldn't quibble with "likely" and "very likely."

Answer 3

I think greenhouse effect is an inaccurate description of what is happening.

Greenhouse warming is a convective phenomena.

CO2 warming is a radiative phenomena.

Entirely different mechanisms.

That quibble aside, I have always accepted the CO2 is a molecule that plays a role on global warming.

Answer 4

Bravozulu. The total recent temperature change is about 0.7 degree. It has seriously damaged the Arctic ice cap and the Arctic ecology.

If we get to 2-3 degrees there will be an economic and human disaster as coastal areas flood and agriculture is damaged. We're heading there pretty fast:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/new_Fig.A.lrg.gif

And it will take decades to slow global warming down. We need to start now.

5_for_fighting - The IPCC scientists said "virtually certain". The US and China forced that to be cut back to very likely. Nothing in science is ever 100% sure.

Answer 5

It amount to about .5 degrees assuming that it is not moderated by some climate mechanism. Is that really worth the hysteria it causes in some.

CO2 also makes plants grow better. Why are longer growing seasons and warmer nights such a horrible thing to ponder. What do you think is the half-life of CH4. It is about 8 years if my memory is accurate. Carbon dioxide is also removed by the carbon cycle.

Answer 6

The greenhouse process is a very simple theory. We live in a temperature domain in which water exists in three states, four, if you count clouds. And water vapor is responsible for much more of the greenhouse process than the IPCC indicates.

Answer 7

I think you're following the same route I took some time ago in which it was established (all be it with a small sample size) that most skeptics agree there is a natural greenhouse effect and that we are producing greenhouse gases. Unfortunately they weren't able to explain how it could be that naturally occurring greenhouse gases keep the planet at a habitable temperature but anthropogenic ones have no effect on temperature.

Answer 8

it's all b.s.

keep twisting the numbers so you get the outcome you want.

you enivronMENTALists have been predicting the end of the world since the late 60's.

i'm still waiting for ONE prediction to come true.

of course, eventually you'll get 1 right.
pick a number between 1 and 10.

i can get the number within 10 guesses.
i just keep guessing.

Answer 9

I'll leave the possibility open as there is no proof that it isn't man made. However I'm betting that it's the Sun, and in 3 years the climate is going to be far cooler.

Answer 10

do you mean "deniers" or "skeptics"? two different things. skeptics are so for a variety of reasons. a denier simply doesn't believe something no matter how much evidence is put forth.