Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility

Post Reply New Topic

This has been fairly widely accepted that increased CO2 leads to increased temperatures and that increased temperatures in turn lead to higher CO2 levels.
This is similar to what methane can do. In all actuality, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. With global warming, there will be thawing permafrost (which releases trapped methane) and increased methane release from the seabeds, which will in turn increase temperatures much more rapidly than CO2 ever could.

Some interesting bits from an abstract on this subject (I read the full a while back, but can only find the abstract right now):
They estimate at least 1,400 Gt of Carbon is locked as methane under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5-10% of that area is at risk of release currently. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the atmosphere 12X.

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/ ... -01526.pdf

From http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/3/035014/:

Walrus, scientists can use the methods but there is no proof that the methods are entirely accurate. There are flaws in the methods, as I've pointed out in previous posts. Yes, there are merits but there are flaws. Unless someone can provide first-hand account of what happened 100,000 years ago (which they can't), it's pure theory/conjecture. Yes, there are tree rings, ice cores, coral growth and sediments. Humans can only interpret data that they know of. Computer simulations are only as good as the people who put in the data, and that data cannot account for everything. We cannot say with any certainty what living conditions were like at any point of time where humans did not exist and live to tell about it.

What are the temperature records based upon? Methods that have shown to have flaws.

We like to piece things together like puzzles, but the image on a puzzle is only a picture, which is only a representation of something else--not the thing itself. And some things can be Photoshopped And not only that, but 98% of the puzzle pieces are missing LOL

As to the issue of evolution--well, creature evolve, yes. We have fossils and have excavated human remains. There is proof of something else that existed but human interpretation creates the story, and oftentimes stories get revised when more evidence is unearthed, so to speak. There are people who scream (mostly crazy environmentalists) that some animals are going extinct and it is a disaster, while in other scientific articles I read in similar proportions of new fascinating species that have been discovered. Unfortunately I did not keep a log of such articles, or else I would provide them to you Humans cannot be everywhere, monitoring everything all the time.

Case in point, how can the true effect of volcanoes be taken into account accurately if many have not even been discovered until recently, with more yet to be discovered:
http://news.msn.com/science-technology/ ... ific-ocean
http://www.livescience.com/15006-underw ... ctica.html

In the case of global warming, there is a gigantic political agenda behind it. I would be interested to see the actual numbers but I'd venture to guess that more government money is being thrown into this fiasco than researching a cure for cancer (although I could be wrong).

Last edited by mikassyna on 14 Nov 2013, 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In science, a theory is not the same thing as a guess. So you lose credibility there.

Yes, it's a political issue, because it's going to take politics to address it. But the overwhelming profits are on the side of denialism, and it pays to fund climate (and science) ignorance.

My error. Then I should have used "hypothesis." I used the term "theory" in conversational sense.
http://ncse.com/evolution/education/def ... tific-work

Disagreeing with a scientific conclusion does not equate to ignorance. Nor does agreeing with a majority opinion equate to intelligence.

I have read no smoking gun proof that humans are causing global warming. If I had read some undisputable proof, I would in fact be arguing on its side.

It seems to me you from your comment above, that you probably would think I'm a conservative, Republican or Tea Partier. Does it surprise you that I'm not? I also find the sociological and political aspect of this dynamic fascinating.

Excellent article! (if you go to the link for the abstract, there is also a link to show the full article).
This study only evaluates permafrost thaw and its possible contribution of methane to further warming. It does not take into account submarine methane clathrate hydrate concentrations (which are much larger). I personally don't think that some sort of cataclysmic release imminent (and few climate scientists do), but I do see it as possible. Since methane is vastly more effective at increasing global temperature, I think it something that should be addressed. Focusing only on man-made CO2 emissions seems awfully risky to me.
Just to put it in perspective, agriculture (primarily cattle) is the source of an estimated 14 percent of all greenhouse gases being produced. Most of that is methane, which is 23X more powerful than CO2. Current projections for permafrost methane release is much smaller than that, but do not take into account the long term risk of a permanent dethawing of the antarctic (which is only applicable if the absolute worst case scenario climate scientists are right).

It never ceases to amaze me what people can rationalize their way around.

The climate data is there. There is no way to interpret it other than that we are experiencing man-made global warming.

If you are inclined to panic about nothing, that is true.

I feel no emotion about it.

An interesting article from September about efforts to hide the lack of temperature increases from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html:

I don't know, don't care. I'm just talking about the political forces, driven by profit, that intentionally mislead the public and promote ignorance. Science rarely works by having indisputable proof. But the evidence is there, and it's overwhelmingly compelling.

I would love to agree, but alas I can't.

None of the current models can account for either the Medieval Warming Period or the "Little Ice Age" 1300-1715

ruveyn

Since your using colourful language instead of your brains, I shall return in kind.

The original OP statement said "Cliamate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility".
I pointed to a STUDY, not some jibberish writtin my a nut-job, that said that climate deniers do, in fact have more scientific knowlage than those who willfully accept, like yourself.

A whopping 13% of all third world deaths are because of manmade environmental issues not related to CO2. Which is more important--baby seals who won't notice if the temperature increases by two degrees or actual people in the third world?