1
$\begingroup$

Here is my logic (thus not opinion) if the anthropogenic global heating AGH deniers actually do not have any rational climate science basis for rejecting anthropogenic global heating then everyone should understand that their position is baseless.

It would seem that consistent failure by global heating deniers to provide a rational basis for their rejection of climate science would form sufficient evidence that no such rational basis exists.

I am diligently striving to use logical analysis to cut to the heart of the truth about global heating in such a way that all true skeptics (not those hired to lie) will immediately see the light of the truth.

I make this post so that all global heating deniers will be provided an opportunity to present their side.

If such a rational basis exists, then it can be provided. If it cannot be provided then no such rational basis exists. If no such rational basis for rejecting climate science exists then the matter of: anthropogenic global heating (AGH) is concluded in closure.

3C ± 1.5C for every doubling of CO2 plus the following 100 PPM spike in global CO2 since 1950 really seem to explain the temperature increase.

If we apply climate sensitivity analysis to the current level of atmospheric CO2 we find that this increase of CO2 predicts a temperature equilibrium of +1.65C: 3 * log2(410 / 280) = 1.65C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

enter image description here

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don’t think any intelligent and informed person has any real doubt. But when money gets involved they may pretend to doubt the science and data, and some people probably have a legitimate psychological denial of the matter. $\endgroup$ – Gordon Oct 31 '19 at 22:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Gordon Since we really need to form a sufficient quorum of public support relatively quickly and we could do this if we won over all of the actual skeptics I have focused on approaches to utterly discredit AGH deniers as succinctly as possible. When we ask them for their rational basis for denying AGH and they come up empty it becomes much more obvious which position is based on deception and subterfuge. $\endgroup$ – polcott Oct 31 '19 at 23:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your strategy is wrong here. You shouldn't expect much more that a lacklustre skeptical response asking this question in a broadly non-skeptical community, which would prove nothing. You need to ask them on their territory. Be prepared that they may just view AGW as Russell's teapot, and not up to them to disprove. $\endgroup$ – Deditos Oct 31 '19 at 23:11
  • $\begingroup$ @Deditos It is up to them to provide a rational basis for their decision to reject a mountain of scientific evidence. I am doing this on Facebook and I am getting responses that are Youtube videos of Youtube celebrities. $\endgroup$ – polcott Oct 31 '19 at 23:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @polcott Ah, I think you've expressed your position pretty clearly now. It sounds like you see most people as sort of logical rationalists, so we only need to present solid pro-AGW and anti-denialist arguments to convince the middle-ground. But that doesn't address the role that values play in people forming their opinions. Long term change in AGW opinions requires values change, which isn't well addressed by just confronting people with facts. (For similar reasons, I'll be ducking out now.) $\endgroup$ – Deditos Nov 2 '19 at 15:37
0
$\begingroup$

If the issue is assessed on other grounds than science ones there can be rational reasons to reject climate science. e.g. if it is being assessed with respect to how addressing versus not addressing AGW impacts costs, competitiveness and profitability of specific business enterprises then rejecting climate science and encouraging other business operators as well as governments, courts and regulators to reject it, to avoid compliance costs of addressing it appears rational. The advice given by lawyers to people and companies facing lawsuits to admit no responsibility and seek to undermine the plaintiff's arguments, including questioning the veracity of expert witnesses is not irrational. Unethical perhaps, but it is not irrational.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ When I say rational, I mean consistent with the truth about anthropogenic global heating, AGH and thus do not mean deception based on greed. $\endgroup$ – polcott Oct 31 '19 at 23:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @polcott - a bit flippant but I'm not sure your question can be answered in terms of Earth Science. $\endgroup$ – Ken Fabian Nov 1 '19 at 10:19
  • $\begingroup$ Yes it might be construed as flippant on the basis of what you said without the underlying assumptions that I did not say. According to my own projections merely extrapolating the current CO2 increase and its temperature effects 200 years into the future we get 5200 PPM of CO2 which causes 12C of global heating, change of climate more than all of the mass extinction events. So I was interpreting what you said is a bunch of business men decided that preventing the extinction of the species is not worth the money. $\endgroup$ – polcott Nov 1 '19 at 23:00
-6
$\begingroup$

Just because someone says that man made CO2 emissions are not the sole cause of climate warming does not mean they are rejecting climate science. On the contrary, it is those who claim it is the sole cause who are rejecting science. Prof.Malte Janson of the University of Chicago, quoted in the journal Nature Geoscience, is among those who say man made CO2 is not the sole cause of climate warming, but his academic status will probable deter the climate fanatics from labelling him an heretic and climate change denier.

Jensen's team have found that increase or decrease of sea ice in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica plays an important part in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. When there is an increase in sea ice, the ocean beneath the ice can no longer release CO2 into the atmosphere, and that, in addition to the ice reflecting solar radiation back into space, causes cooling. When the sea ice retreats, the opposite effect occurs: CO2 is released and there is also less reflectivity, so the world warms up. This helps explain why the Milankovitch cycles are not an infallible guide as to when ice ages will occur.

Between 1979 and 2014, ice cover in the Southern Ocean increased, and had this trend continued, then according to Prof.Jansen it might have eventually led to the start of a mini ice age or worse, but from 2014 to the present time the ice has been retreating. No one is sure what will happen next, whether the ice will continue to retreat or resume its advance. According to the researchers, the Younger Dryas climate event of about 12,800 years ago may have been caused by a sea ice advance of this sort. It is also a possible cause of the 400 year Little Ice Age from roughly AD 1400 to AD 1800. The point I am making is that many so-called climate change deniers are in fact nothing of the sort, they are just less fanatical than those who have made climate change their religion.

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ No leading institutions studying climate and providing reports and advice to science communities, governments and public say CO2 is the only factor in current global climate change. Climate science has sought to identify every significant factor - and identified CO2 as the most significant. Taking such reports and advice seriously is not fanaticism, nor religion. I may be a new contributor but I don't think that kind of rhetoric is appropriate in answers here. $\endgroup$ – Ken Fabian Oct 31 '19 at 23:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ skepticalscience.com/wigley-santer-2012-attribution.html $\endgroup$ – polcott Nov 1 '19 at 0:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-012-1585-8 $\endgroup$ – polcott Nov 1 '19 at 0:04
  • $\begingroup$ Why is Prof. Jansen's research not scientific? Perhaps you should write to the University of Chicago and tell him so. You might even convert him to your religion,though I doubt it. $\endgroup$ – Michael Walsby Nov 1 '19 at 9:15

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.