Talk:Global warming denialism/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <10>, <9>, <11>

, (new)(back)

cut from article

I have cut the following debate point from the article as it more properly belongs here:

• Cut begins.

According to AGW theory, first order warming (warming caused directly by CO2) is very small. The bulk of warming is caused by feedback effects from first order warming. Current climate models assume that this feedback is positive (it feeds on itself) to varying degrees, but the evidence for this is flimsy. Yes, there are some examples of positive feedback, such as ice albedo and seafloor methane, but most natural systems are dominated by negative (attenuating) feedback. Positive feedback systems are unstable; they tend to "run away" and not come back. What evidence suggests that climate is driven by positive feedback effects on net?

• Cut ends.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 05:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as a terribly good point. For one, the biggest positive feedback effect is the increase in ocean evaporation, which isn't even mentioned. For another, different effects often operate at different scales. If I push someone out of an airplane, they will initially be in free-fall, but eventually reach terminal velocity. The negative feedback of air resistance does stop them from falling any faster after a certain point, but not before they've reached a drastically different downward velocity from the one they had sitting in the aircraft due to those moments of free-fall. --Quantheory (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, all that, plus climatologists know about positive and negative feedback. It's not like this is something that is not taken into account by the people working on the science of climate change (and no, they don't "assume" magnitudes for various effects; they are pretty strongly focused on getting those right, actually). --Quantheory (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not sure I understand it. "First order warming" is not defined in the article which makes the point difficult to follow. The final question is hard to understand from the way it is formed and such a question has no place in an article anyway.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes sense in the context of 1990's era objections to climate models. It's just a) way out of date, and b) hard to understand when nothing else in the article presents that context. Also a correction: I said "ocean evaporation" out of bad habit, but as I understand it now the water vapor effect is really about less vapor condensing from the atmosphere, not more vapor evaporating from the oceans.

Somewhat OT: I was an intern at NCAR and got to go to a national conference on climate modeling at one point. I was kind of blown away. After that, the smears on climatology were kind of hilariously bad. Especially after talking to a Randroid Republican there who was amazed that anthropogenic GW was not considered a settled issue outside of climatology (clearly just saying that for the funding and to promote socialism). --Quantheory (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

US Republicans

"It is worth noting that Christine O’Donnell defeated Mike Castle in the Republican primary. Until that point, according to the Guardian, Mike Castle was the only Republican candidate who was not a global warming denier. Let me repeat that- only one Republican candidate was not a global warming denier" 18:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. As an American, all I can respond with is "duh".. It's like, you may as well tell me he thinks the sky is blue. And angels are in the clouds. Quaru^{lighting - You can't explain that!} 19:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Decreasing plant growth?

I read the line:"Decreasing plant growth. Higher temperatures will make plants lose more water and make photosynthesis less efficient, giving plants less calories to grow and feed the rest of the planet." - you shure? Maybe there's going to be a change in the prevailing kinds of plants but I very much doubt that the total amount is going to diminish. Actually, according to the professor who taught a course in environmental physics I had a year ago, the total amount of organic matter is constantly increasing in spite of the clearing of tropical forests and so on, the main reasons for this probably being the fertilisation through I think about 40 kg nitrogen per hectare that are the result of pollution and the increasing mean temperature. While I don't know where he got that data from, I am inclined to trust his knowledge. Therefore I ask the question: Is there any proof for the decrease of plant growth?

Cheers,

Robert 77.1.34.179 (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the article really say that, that badly? Hmm, must go look... ħuman 03:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it, since it is crap. The greenhouse effect could easily lead to increased humidity and rainfall. The most lush places on Earth straddle the equator, for crying out loud (also the most desolate...). ħuman 03:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

British Mensa and Climate Denial

I received my latest copy of British Mensa magazine yesterday and discovered that four whole pages had been taken up with denialist letters responding to an article on AGW published in a previous addition. I had some problems with the original article which tool the "debate is over" line, but I was amazed at the PRATTs being dragged out in the counter arguments. I was wondering about OCR-ing the relevant pages and either emailing it to "Real Climate" for comment or posting it here. Would there be any legal problem with the latter, is anyone interested if I do? Old Fashioned Architect 12:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that RealClimate will be interested in it, unless there is something really original in the letters. I think that Mensa's magazine doesn't have much impact outside the narrow circle of people who read it. Have they covered the moon landings recently? :)--ZooGuard (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the moon landings letters before - I presume that was in the US magazine. The contrarian streak has been going in Mensa for a while now. The editor of "SpaceSig" (special interest group within Mensa) claimed a great victory when he sent a long screed expressing his doubts about AGW to Sir Patrick Moore and got a vague reply back saying something like "you might be right". I am planning to write a letter to the magazine, but I would like to be sure of my facts before I do, which is why I thought I might throw the matter open to general discussion. Old Fashioned Architect 15:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, Sir PM is a bit of a "denier" himself. :) You can try asking for help teh Stoat and/or his commenters. (He's UK based.) You can also try and see if the claims in the letters haven't been already covered by Skeptical Science.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I was reading the highly recommendable "Why People Believe Weird Things" recently, and the post prompted me to go back to this point:

• "Tellingly, over the years I have given a number of lectures to Mensa groups around the country and have been struck by the number of weird beliefs such exceptionally smart people hold, including and especially ESP. At one conference there was much discussion about whether Mensa members also had higher Psi-Qs (Psychic Quotient) than regular people!"

Which suggests that membership of Mensa is no antidote to weird beliefs.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we see it a lot and it's quite obvious when you think about it. If you're part of a high IQ society you'd expect yourself to think and believe differently to "others". Which is fair enough, I suppose. But then you have other people joining it who think "oh, these intelligent people must know better than me, they're intelligent so they must be right!" and it propagates. It's certainly not an immunity, indeed it could make you more susceptible to believing bullshit (says the person who has sort of done the same thing but fallen on the other side of the line regarding AGW, vaccines and creationism...). If you get too convinced of your own ability to be right, and I think high IQ societies and similar environments increase your risk of this, you start falling for things. Or maybe they are right. I don't know. ^pathetic 16:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall see what "The Stoat" says. Old Fashioned Architect 17:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Mmmm. I wonder how many Mensa members would believe in a young earth? Or be evolution deniers? Or believe in astrology? That is to say I wonder if they are more likely to fall for a specific kind of weirdness? For instance the post above mentions ESP.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Distinguish between denial and skepticism.

This article is good until the section "What's so bad about global warming?" In other words it's good until it gets done with the science and starts on the conjecture.

The assertions in "Anthropogenic climate change" are (mostly) solid, testable, refutable, scientific facts (note how they have citations). Compare these with the assertions in "What's so bad about global warming?", which are pure, untestable conjecture (note how none of them has a citation).

And then the article merrily and inventively characterises any and all detractors of these conjectures "denialists".

This is a shame, because it represents a regression in scientific argument that threatens to invite quasi-religious lines of reasoning and rebuttal back into serious debate.

It's ironic that it's an evangelist who says of climate change that he's "suggesting we have a sort of an eco-evangelical hysteria going on" -- takes one to know one?

If you are one of the orthodoxy-evangelists, please, take a hard look at your own position and note the hypocrisy.^{— Unsigned, by: 41.185.137.19 / talk / contribs}

Actually the majority are referenced on the main article:Effects of global warming. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)