4406 Shares

Could the non-believers in AGW make an argument without talking about Gore, Hansen or the "hockey stick?"?

Could the non-believers in AGW make an argument without talking about Gore, Hansen or the "hockey stick?"? Topic: science research report
July 19, 2019 / By Freddie
Question: It seems to me that there is a mountain of evidence, and especially basic science, behind the idea of anthropogenic global warming, but deniers think the only thing going for it is Gore, Hansen and the "hockey stick." Why are they so obsessed with these three things? Instead of going after these, why don't they instead present arguments using physics of the invalidity of global warming? Couldn't they show that the greenhouse effect is not real, or that carbon dioxide is not really a greenhouse gas? Better yet, why don't they show measurements that carbon dioxide is not increasing? There is ample evidence for warming: increasing global temperatures, earlier onset of spring, decreased arctic sea ice, retreat of mountain glaciers, all amply documented in the IPCC reports Randall I'm sorry if I don't understand your baseball metaphors. I try to ignore the Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers and Cubs whenever I get the chance, so I don't know how Big Papi, Curt Schilling or a bloody sock have anything to do with the Red Sox in 2004. I do remember Schilling being an excellent pitcher for the Diamondbacks though.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Could the non-believers in AGW make an argument without talking about Gore, Hansen or the "hockey stick?"?

Darleen Darleen | 3 days ago
Well we've got one more here you didn't mention - the tropical troposphere. Unfortunately for the deniers, this has been shown not to be an issue. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc... http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/14/ye... Much like the hockey stick was confirmed as being essentially correct. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc... Much like Hansen's predictions have been proven highly accurate. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/ And they've also got the oscillations like the PDO, which have no long-term effect on global temperatures precisely because they are cyclical oscillations! http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvHLCXCgiczX._YuSBwqHDjty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20081016081549AAhwalz&show=7#profile-info-f64a2a4ada0fcb1ea5303362c0bca8efaa But I mean as you note, what else are they going to argue about? The greenhouse effect? Well, some of them are. But most of them won't stoop quite that far into denial. The science just isn't on their side, so they have to resort to ad hominem attacks. Gore is the easiest target because he's not a scientist. Hansen is an easy target because he's no longer satisfied just doing research, he's made it clear he wants political action. Anyone who makes political comments becomes an easy target for ad hominem attacks. We'll just ignore that he's been at the forefront of climate science research for 3 decades. Then there's the hockey stick, which again is no more than an ad hominem attack indirectly at Mann and really, all climate scientists. Deniers don't even understand what was wrong about the hockey stick. They think it was some kind of massive fraud perpetrated by a bunch of climate scientists cooking the numbers. They never say what was supposedly wrong with the hockey stick, they just say 'hockey stick!' and think they've made some brilliant point. It all boils down to ignoring and dismissing the science and instead engaging in ad hominem attacks. I can't even remember the last time a denier raised a legitimate scientific question or argument.
👍 214 | 👎 3
Did you like the answer? Could the non-believers in AGW make an argument without talking about Gore, Hansen or the "hockey stick?"? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: science research report


Darleen Originally Answered: Believing in something doesn't make it real. Can believers understand this logical argument?
I can understand this, but at the same time, what about people who do not believe something that is real; the holocaust for example. Does it make the object or event not real because someone believes it doesn't exist or didn't happen? Reality truly is in the mind of each individual. People have claimed to have seen ghosts, yet others do not believe they are real. People have claimed to have heard the voice of God, and others believe they are disillusioned. In the example you cited, can one ever prove, to your satisfaction, that the lion is not real? IMO belief is in the mind of each person. It is established after the fact or event has occurred - not before. Belief doesn't drive the event, the event establishes a belief. You saw a lion in the next room, therefore you believe it exists. Otherwise, if belief establishes the event, it would be more along the lines of the mind creating an action or event before it occurs, i.e. since I believe a lion exists in the next room, it will become real. Belief is established only after the mind has synthesized some sort of information and in the mind of that person, it is convinced something is true - or not true. Anyway, that's my take on the question, which by the way, is a very thought-provoking question.

Breanna Breanna
Because the hockey stick presented by Mann and made the world wide symbol of AGW by Hansen and Gore and is still the only existing item supposing to prove the existence AGW myth. I personally since the time the thing was first posted have looked through some 5,000 pages or more of supposedly background support documentation for this very graphic chart. And none of it disproves 4,000 years of documentation that this chart and the supporting documentation have attempted to do a total rewrite of the worlds history eliminating most of the major climate causes of virtually all major historical events since the building of the pyramids. We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. - Daniel Moynihan Until the AGW promoters can prove their case while not changing history we skeptics will continue to ask for proof. It has been 10 years now we have asked for proof of some kind and it has been refused and every single independent research scientist that has attempted to validate the hockey stick graph from scratch has instead come around to the skeptical position and this is also why the general public that have done even casual investigation of the AGW position has come to appreciate the skeptical position and put their support behind the statement, PROVE IT! You will never be able to prove it and through the hard work of a couple of very good Canadian skeptics we now know how the hockey stick data was altered and the graph faked to show what Mann and Hansen wanted not what was really happening.
👍 90 | 👎 -6

Aletha Aletha
As I have told you previously and supplied relevant data all of you are neglecting that the period between 1300 and 1850 were abnormally cold which is why this period was termed the little ice age and it was caused by low sunspot activity through 4 solar minimums, the Wolf, the Sporer, the Maunder and finally the relatively mild Dalton that led into our current climate optimum. The very fact that the earth was coming out of a long-term series of solar minimums and because of this the average temperatures of that period were well below global normal. So you believers are blaming the warming of the planet on a mild moderator gas that 99% of the time has not affect on the temperature of the world. The only time Co2 affects the temperature in any effective way is on a clear cloud free night when humidity is exceptionally low, then its presence will restrict temperature drop slightly to moderate potential freezing. It is not an absorber of radiant heat and is not a very effective reflector either compared to water vapor. Another mistake the believers constantly make is doubling its mathematical effect in their models when its quantity doubles. It does not work that way its effect does not work that way. You need to square or cube the quantity to increase its effect 1.5 times. It has about the diminishing returns effect as insulation for your house does, to double the insulating effect you need to install 4 to 8 times the amount of insulation. So the believers have the problem of misstating what the global average prime temperature really is and going by the data from the Holocene, Roman, and medieval climate optimums were up to 4c hotter than 1998 was and it sure does not currently look like we are going to get there. In fact because the history of that last 1,000 years has had 4 solar minimums that killed millions through starvation and wars for temperate lands how do we not fear that we might be dropping into another of these freezing minimums like you keep telling me we are supposed to have been in for the last 50 years. But also remember we had to conjoining high sunspot periods preceding the current one and NASA itself called 1998 a solar storm year like few every previously recorded.
👍 88 | 👎 -15

Tubal-Cain Tubal-Cain
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that hasn't driven climate in the past or hasn't convincingly be demonstrated to IMO. Why are alarmists so obsessed with CO2? Is it because it can be blamed on humans and specifically the United States and industry in general? Assuming there are no buffers to the atmosphere regarding temperature and that increased temperature won't have any other consequences (and discounting that other human emissions that lower temperature), adding CO2 to the atmosphere should increase the temperature. Does this mean that recent warming is due to CO2 concentration increases? Of course not. The climate doesn't work in simple and linear ways. We have been warming for 300 years, and it is not likely to be the result of CO2. If it is, then I am assuming that would mean that lack of CO2 caused the Maunder Minimum (Little Ice Age)? You can't look at CO2, correctly state it is a greenhouse gas, conclude man emits CO2 a greenhouse gas, and therefore humans are causing the warming. You cannot conclude with present knowledge of climate the degree of warming that is due to human emissions of CO2. You could conclude that it might be or even should be contributing to warming. Why is that alarmists never talk about the moderating effects of greenhouse gases on climate? CO2 may very well have been increasing in concentration anyway without human help. I certainly believe most of the additional CO2 at least in the last increase of 100 ppmV to its present approximate 400 ppmV is due to human emissions. I think it is fair to assume that humans may be responsible for 100 ppmV of the CO2 in the current atmospere. I don't mean to sound like I want extra CO2 in the air. It can't be desirable to pump CO2 in massive quantities into the atmosphere. It should be avoided when practical. It is good to increase fuel efficiency. I am all for alternatives when viable. I just can't support drastic cuts, or over reaction which does not make a reasonable evaluation of cost and benefit.
👍 86 | 👎 -24

Reynard Reynard
I'm not sure if you are also referring to skeptics in this question, but I always leave those things out of my arguments. I also don't talk about CO2 anymore when one of my questions in regards to it was removed. So I just stick to things such as the PDO, AMO, NAO and what's possibly happening with sunspot cycle 24. If what's happening with these things occur at the same time my conclusion that we will see a long cooling trend and even the possibility of another little ice age or worse will be correct. And no amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, if in deed it does promote warming, will offset that cooling trend.
👍 84 | 👎 -33

Reynard Originally Answered: Do you believe that Michael Mann (the 'Hockey-Stick' guy) should be investigated from outside the University?
Scientists are disgraced by the acceptance of this misbehavior. They should prevent things like this from happening through peer review and professional restraint. However, they have succeeded in destroying their own credibility. We can't depend on the "scientific community" for facts or truth. They have become corrupted and will do anything they are paid to do. It's a new branch of prostitution.

If you have your own answer to the question science research report, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.