What will the next stage of global warming denial be?

Question

The first state of denial was that it's not happening. Most all "skeptics" have dropped that, because of data.

The guy who takes pictures of surface stations has a bad problem. He can't show any difference in the data between undeniably well located stations, and arguably bad ones. The data shows exactly the opposite, that the differently situated stations say the same thing. He's like a tourist, going around giving a boring slide show.

In the satellite data, ACRIM versus PMOD is an unimportant discussion, unless your analysis picks two arbitrary points on a continuous curve and draws a straight line through them, ignoring the rest of the data. In science, that's just not acceptable.

The next stage was that it isn't mostly caused by us. The problem with that, is that the contribution from man made greenhouse gases is now so strong, you can't explain the data any other way. Respectable skeptics like Lindzen and Christy have moved on.

The current stage is that a magic negative feedback will arise and save us. The ever increasing rate of temperature increase and resulting rapid shrinking of the Arctic ice cap will do that one in soon.

So what will the next stage be?

grzbr1 - I'm not quite sure what I did to annoy you (and I'd like to know), but it's clear I have. The progression of denial from this stage to that is real, and important. Each time the data has shot down one position, the deniers just move on to another. My question is way more data based than most. And I ask at most 1-2 questions a week. It's hardly a big deal.

Tomcat - My point is that the only person who claims ACRIM shifts the ground is Wilson, who does it by picking the two points. Otherwise, it's just a tweak.

Both Lindzen and Christy may disagree with the IPCC, but they no longer claim global warming is mostly caused naturally. Lindzen's focus is clearly on negative feedbacks these days. Christy is less clear, but seems to be simply asserting that "we don't know how bad it will be".

Ron C - Watts (a "broadcast journalist) has pictures, only. Thousands of climatologists have the data that proves him wrong.

Study after study shows there is no difference in the data between the stations he says are questionable and ones that are indisputably well situated.

Parker, D.E., Large-Scale Warming is not Urban, Nature 432, 290

Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found THOMAS C. PETERSON, J. Cimate, 2003

Brohan, P., Kennedy, J., Harris, I., Tett, S.F.B. and Jones, P.D., 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res. 111, D12106

etc, etc.

Answer 1

The third stage of denial

3. "Global warming is good for us"

Fourth stage:

4. "We can't do anything significant about it anyway, so let's not do anything."

Last stage:

"Okay, we were wrong about everything else, but just trust us this time."

Answer 2

Bob, the next stage will be victory. The science has swung to the side of the skeptics showing that global warming will not be catastrophic.

Your assessment of Anthony Watts photographing weather stations is completely off target. So far, he and his team have photographed 1/3 of US stations and only 15% met the minimum standards. The remaining 85% show a significant warm bias. After a temperature reconstruction using only good quality stations, the record temp years in the U.S were 1934, followed by 1921, then 1998 and 2006. So if temperatures were warmer in the past than now, where is the warming you are worried about?

Your assessment of Lindzen and Christy is also wrong. Lindzen and Christy are both outspoken in their view that global warming will not be catastrophic. Christy was featured in the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle." And Lindzen's "Infrared Iris Effect" hypothesis has now been observed by Roy Spencer in the tropics.

Add to this the recent peer-reviewed paper by Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Laboratory showing that climate sensitivity is much less than previously estimated and you can see how the science has turned against the view that global warming will be catastrophic.

It is kind of funny that the Bush Administration has embraced global warming just as the science has proven it wrong.

Answer 3

It's worth mentioning that alarmists also said that CO2 and AGW were killing coral reefs a few times, but every time they did a long term study, they found that the reefs made a "surprising comeback." And, while CO2 does seem to damage shellfish (or so says your source. I failed to see very many numbers and actual statistics in your source. Makes you wonder how the results really came out, eh?), you're an evolutionist, aren't you? So, according to your belief, the shellfish will evolve to accomodate the rising amounts of CO2.

Answer 4

US National Academy of Science and United Nations ;Geo - 4 Report just recently released a general consensus that the proof will be when the Ice Sheets in Greenland melt and the global sea levels rise by 7 metres.

Answer 5

If you are going to rant Bob at least you should try to tell the truth.

<<<
The ACRIM gap occurred during a time of increasing and maximum magnetic activity during solar cycle 22. The positive correlation between solar magnetic activity and TSI is compatible with the positive slope of the NIMBUS7/ERB results during this period.
>>>

That does not sound like picking two points, maybe you should get your information from a somewhere besides a blog.

If you have some evidence that indicates Lindzen and Christy moved on, present it.

<<<<
Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes. "I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol," Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007
>>>>

By the fact that Christy was on 20/20 criticizing the IPCC I would not say he has moved on.


You are going to end up owing me that cold beer real soon.

EDIT Bob:

And as far as the ACRIM composite goes you are using consensus as a measure of the validity of scientific evidence, it does not mean you are correct. I have not seen anything associated with two points being picked that represent the ACRIM composite. There are numerous PHD's working on the ACRIM composite, it is not the work of a single individual. You are just in denial.

http://www.acrim.com/staff.htm

.
.


.
.
.

Answer 6

Wonder why there are no "skeptics" about the speed of light? That can be proved by anyone with ability.

The reason why there are "skeptics" about "global warming" is because you are telling people you can predict the future, and you can't. You have no clue if in 5 years if it will be warmer or cooler than it is today. You can't say if the climate temps will be trending up or down. Anything you say is just a guess.

And saying that 99% of scientist believe doesn't make it true. First it's doubtful that 99% is even close, unless you omit those who don't agree with you. Second, a majority of scientist believed a lot of things that were proven false in time.

The FCCC defined "global warming" as man made. Using that defination, global warming isn't happening. It just got hard splitting hairs with the true believers.

Global warming is a subjective science. This is why when ever global warming is described qualifiers like "probably", "may", "could", "scientist think", "believe", ect... have to be used before the predictions.

The scientist don't help their cause either. One day you'll read that the oceans are getting saltier, the next week you'll read they are getting less saltier. Or global warming causes more hurricanes, and global warming causes fewer hurricanes. This list is endless.

Hell, some people even believe that if a CEO of Wal-Mart says it's true, then it must be real! After all, look how much they will make in profits if everyone changes their lights to CF bulbs!

Answer 7

Not only is there little difference between PMOD and ACRIM, but the difference doesn't matter anyway. Even the Scafetta & West study which used questionable assumptions and had 20-30% uncertainty could still only account for 35% of the recent warming with the ACRIM TSI. According to the RealClimate analysis of their paper, more realistic assumptions would have only yielded a 10% contribution with the ACRIM TSI.

Other analyses have come to the same conclusion - that the solar contribution to the current warming is no more than 10%.

Svensmark's GCR theory has been quite thoroughly disproven for the modern warming by several different studies, as well.

I think the stage of denial which attributes the current warming to the sun is all but over. I don't think the negative feedback saving grace theory will last very long, because it's a rather absurd argument.

I think the next stage will involve denial of the rate of warming, rather than its source. I think denialists will claim that we have plenty of time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (or that we don't need to reduce them at all). This fits into Bush's 'volunteerism' approach where we simply allow the free market to dictate carbon emissions. As more and more evidence shows that the rate of warming is exceeding the IPCC's worst scenario projections, that stage of denial will fall by the wayside as well.

Answer 8

Because I can. Data is a waste of time, nobody accepts the others data . On top of that nobody has all the input they need . Rather not hang out with the panic stricken humanity haters willing to grovel at the feet of Algore while he yuchs it up and laughs at ya when you aint lookin.

Answer 9

New research just out 3/4 of people make up 75% of the population. I wonder if anyone will refute my observation.

Answer 10

Bob, the deniers are correct for once: you're ranting and fishing for people to agree with you. Both sides of this CFP (cluster f#$@ production) need to read the Community Guidelines.

And Yahoo needs to bite the bullet and have moderators until the intention of the product is understood, especially now that Wiki has developed a competing product. They are gonna lose a lot of business and advertising revenue if they don't fix it soon.

Nothing personal about it Bob, I say the same thing to anyone in the same situation; read the Community Guidelines.

Answer 11

Scepticism is fading as far as I can see. With Bush gone and the oil companies now moving to a greenwash tactic they are lacking leaders.

The 'debate' on answers is not really that relevant, for the sceptics part I presume it is fed mainly by the axe grinding media. With the passing of the current Whitehouse administration I expect the axe grinders will move on as the political vacume is filled with action, axe grinders like talking on subjects which are a political vacume because it is a soft target.

I do not see Gore as a political leader on environmental issues, he lost that credibility by his choice of ticket in his presidential run. He has done a fine job of basic education.

As for what specific 'arguments' they use, I guess it die down a bit and we will be left with a few conspiracy theorists and trolls.