Talk:Global warming denialism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon denialism.svg

This Denialism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <10>, <9>, <11>

Could somebody smarter than me please...[edit]

respond to the "global warming relies on computer models" argument? TheSocktor (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you specify what the argument claims?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Past temps are based on the instrumental record and paleoclimate data, not computer simulations. The models used to predict future warming do fit past climate, and the past predictions have generally been conservative when compared to current trends. See here for more info. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I meant for the article.TheSocktor (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, the mods are fast![edit]

I edited in a link to wattsupwiththat about five hours ago, and it has already been deleted! I am amazed at how fast censorship moves nowadays!— Unsigned, by: 142.161.61.68 / talk / contribs

Censorship? Nonsense, as we already have an entire article dedicated to the hilarious loser behind wattsupwiththat. Go read it, BoN. Typhoon (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Updates to this article[edit]

Longtime reader/lurker here. This article is good but is increasingly out of date with the latest in AGW denialism. Much hay is currently being made of the lack of statistically significant warming since roughly 2005 and model failure to account for it (though most denialists have both failed to note that the current temperature record is still within the error bars). RealClimate I believe noted that this was due to poor temperature records, lower-than-expected solar output, and something else that I do not remember. It's worth a note on this site as it is now a staple of denialist rhetoric.

It would also be good to add two strong arguments to the wiki that I've seen insufficiently treated elsewhere. The first is to address denialists' fetishistic focus on global average temperatures and other aggregated data rather than regional data, for which delta T_avg annual temps over fixed timescales can be shown in heat maps. However, this is a minor point in comparison to the other suggestion I want to make.

The second suggestion I have is to put something on the AGW denialism page that notes that no climate model that does not include climate feedbacks from anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide and other GHGs can adequately explain the historical climate record. I like this point as it both makes a positive demand of AGW denialists (rather than rebutting them and letting them fall back on another absurd defense) and vividly illustrates why it isn't a valid scientific theory with any explanatory power. Criticizing a theory, evidence, or conclusion is one thing, but completely overturning the scientific theory that GHGs, which are defined as those persistent atmospheric chemicals that strongly absorb radiation in the IR spectrum, produce positive climate feedbacks requires a countervailing theory that both explains prior observation and makes verifiable predictions. The lack of a countercase that passes the hindcasting test but does not predict AGW and/or temperature feedbacks from atmospheric GHGs is a strong point against AGW denial.

Keep fighting the good fight. - 47.22.152.130 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If only there were some way for a person who was interested in the subject and had useful knowledge to add it to the article themselves. Too bad everything on a wiki is basically cast in stone because of how hard it is to make changes. I guess we're stuck with what we've got. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I figured since I don't have the time to contribute maybe someone else could. The evidentiary standards on this wiki would mean it would take time I don't really have. -47.22.152.130 (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I like rationalism but I don't like the "take" on this global warming debate. To me it reminds me more of a religion than a scientific theory. Labeling those who don't believe you "deniers"? The almost fanatical way AGW supporters defend their theory? Where is the mea culpa for the mess that was "An Inconvenient Truth"? So many scientific errors. So many bad predictions. Yet "the science is settled"? I'm sorry but as an atheist and hater of dogma I cannot support the AGM movement as it is now set up. Get rid of the shrill, confrontational, alarmist tone, and I will be more than happy to listen to reasoned debate. I say the same for the anti-AGW crowd, but they seem more mellow. Sure are a lot of stupid people out there (including billionaires, meteorologists, physicists, and others - don't these people have kids they care about and business empires they care about?) who don't seem convinced about all this kerfuffle. Like I said, I have an inherent bias against someone who tells me to "repent for the end is near". Take a chill pill, relax, and let's talk. Don't try to make me a true believer. I would think RationalWiki would have a less-strident, less-religious-smacking, less dogmatic tone. Disappointed. (btw...add Penn and Teller to your list of "deniers". They have called this AGW crisis ... BULLS**T).

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but remember that this site was started to debunk conservative BS. Since Climate Change denialism falls under conservative BS, this must be an important part of this site. 96.50.233.155 (talk)
Actually, it was started to refute BS period. There is plenty of refutation of BS across the political spectrum on this site. Bongolian (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Footnotes[edit]

Denial is to be expected, but what about countries like the Maldives?[edit]

Denial is all well and good, as long as it has no consequences. But look up the Wikipedia article about the Maldives. Also think about the Netherlands, which is already below sea level. Think about New York, which stands to be flooded if the ocean level rises just a couple of centimeters. How can anyone be so cold hearted and stupid that they either deny or worse, see warming as a fine thing, if warming means better barbecue conditions from where they are sitting - temporarily out of reach. But the consequences will be felt by those convivial barbecuers too - they are just too bloody stupid. (And, yes, that thing about barbecue is a quotation by memory from one very jolly American.) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to make the point clearer. In a small society one is likely to have experts as colleagues. I have had a number of discussions with world class geophysicists and a former colleague of mine is both an expert and considerably more intelligent than I am. I tend to take the experts' word for it, but this guy along with all others simply says, yes, global warming is a fact, the only thing to be disputed is to which degree it is man-made and to which is a natural fluctuation. That man-made warming is a fact, is not a matter of dispute - only to which degree. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd say the man-made factor is somewhere above 90%. And we ain't seen nothing yet in terms of consequences of warming. There will be storms and floods that we can't even think of now. And they will occur almost every year in some corner of this fine earth Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
There will always be skeptics on every issue. Germs, the moon landing, tobacco and DDT killing people, and the round earth are "facts". I suppose "co2 causes ozone depletion" will continue to be disputed forever, long after the seas have risen and we've all tuned to dust.108.6.165.87 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Who the heck says that CO2 causes ozone depletion like CFC's? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
CFCs also have a greenhouse effect, but CO2 has no measurable effect on the Ozone layer. I know, because we learned the mechanism of Ozone depletion in school Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)