Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for denier

Comments matching the search denier:

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Eclectic at 04:14 AM on 26 April, 2024

It would be interesting to see an intensive study of the overlap in mentality of Climate-Deniers and Anti-Vaxxers and Flat-Earthers. All three groups show a rigid delusional thinking, which has (thus far) proved to be impervious to rational discussion/education.

But delusions & other irrationality of thinking woud be a hard topic to study well ~ and possibly it would be somewhat unethical to spend the effort & money in studying such intransigent minds.

# Note : The prominent psychologist, Prof. Daniel Kahneman (author of "Thinking, Fast and Slow") is known for his studies of the "kinks" in the human mind. His death at age 90, was announced last month.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

transposer85 at 20:53 PM on 25 April, 2024

One Planet Only Forever @27

I am with you on this issue. I am currently trying to present such points in the best way to inspire deniers to change on a channel where somebody posted this film which garnered some positive resonance. As an environmentalist, vegan activist who studied ecology and human ecology in which, in 1992 we delved into the idea of man-made climate change at a time where it was generally seen as a laughing stock, I wanted to chime in with some relevant points:

The channel I am referring to is actually more Covid centred. I find myself in the fairly unusual position of being very pro consensus science in the field of environment, whereas I find medical science is riddled with corruption, mistruths and effective lobbyism which came to a head with Covid together with coercion at a level where it is entirely rational to assume plausibility of at least some conspiratorial aspects. Plenty of evidence is there.

I am mentioning this partly because you touched on the topic but more importantly because I believe it is important to understand the psychology of climate deniers in a more nuanced manner, i.e. in more depth. Unfortunately, as far as I understand it, many people with legitimate concerns regarding Covid measures, associated discrimination and other significant costs to society, got drawn in to certain (predictably) politically motivated groups and for whatever reason, emotional triggers, legitimate lack of trust in the system for some aspects, lack of time for the reviewing the details (big one) etc, have just fallen for climate denial propaganda.

This is at least one part of the spectrum of the climate denial "group" which theoretically could be won back to rationality and trust in the areas of science where trust is actually deserved.

It may be that more emotional people are attracted to these traps. The more we can refine our understanding of the psychology of transformation, the better chance we have of inspiring rationality and deserved trust. Unfortunately, simply facts normally doesn't do it very well. So we have to get creative as scientific mindsets who are characteristically not so emotional on average. It's very important for people to sense they have been heard and taken seriously, even if we strongly disagree with their perceptions and belief systems.

In short we need to apply kindness and compassion even when we feel like throwing that out of the window and slamming people for being ignorant et cetera. An invitation to follow the money could be useful, like you pointed to. Funding and wages in science it's a very variable thing depending upon the type of science. Environmental science is probably on average at the lowest end a financial return, compared with "science" that largely comes straight out of industries, wishing to make profits on their products.

I'm not going to hammer out my evidence for the C topic because my comment will most likely be deleted. I am new here so don't know how this works yet but if you really are interested I will (somewhat begrudgingly) spend even more of my free time to lay it out in a private message ;) otherwise we may have to just agree to disagree.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

jimsteele at 06:07 AM on 3 April, 2024

A Netherlands journalist, Maarten Keulemans, tried to denigrate Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth in about 50 tweets using much of the same arguments posted to here on SkepticalScience. I successfully debunked all of his arguments in 16 tweets (originally I intended 20) listed below, and so I was just honored with being interviewed for a Dutch TV segment regards how the Climate the Movie promotes vital scientific debate. Too often alarmists try to suppress debate with weak arguments or denigrating the opposition as deniers. However I doubt alarmists can refute any of my arguments, but I will gladly entertain your arguments.

1 Denigrating the Climate Reconstruction graph by Ljungqvist https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771929435366940908…

2 Keulemans' Medieval Warm Period lie https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771933673488789868…

3 Contamination of Instrumental by Urbanization https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771939656504062260…

4 The Best USA temperature Statistic! https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771947116631580724…

5 Ocean Warming Facts https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771957182407536940…

6 US Heat Waves https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771963700951527487…

7 It is the Sun Stupid! https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771977013576024282…

8 Alarmists know better than Nobel Prize Winners ! https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771987039631921454…

9 Wildfires: Liar Liar Keulemans' Pants on Fire https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1772000151596572844…

10 The Dangers of CO2 Sequestration and CO2 Starvation https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1772016867265380795

11 Models Running Hot! Keulemans Disgraceful attack on the most honest Dr John Christy! https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1772081300884852829…

12 Keulemans’ Blustering Hurricane Fears
https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1772319957042479298

13. Dishonestly Defining Natural Climate Factors
https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1773395443864736058

14. Denying Antarctica’s Lack of Warming
https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1773473481637957758

15. Misinformation on CO2’s Role in Warming Interglacials during our Ice Age.
https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1773777313924297210

16. Science journalists vs grifting propagandists – Antarctica
https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1774428539858907444

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Two Dog at 04:55 AM on 29 March, 2024

"One Planet Only Forever" - I get the point about "having some merit" but couldn't the "deniers" make the same case? i.e. that there are uncertainties in the man-made climate change narrative. One uncertainty that confuses me is why was there no global warming from about 1940-1970? Presumably CO2 was increasing over that period.

John Mason - not sure I understand the point. Over history there has been many cooling and warming factors that are observed by the temperature record but largely unexplained. How do we know this current warming is not, at least in part, one such warming period?

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Eclectic at 17:29 PM on 28 March, 2024

John Mason @30 : Quite right !

"Denier" is as good a term as any, for the deniers /climate deniers /science deniers. The term has been around for decades, and everyone knows who & what is meant by it. Yes, the Deniers themselves know full well that it accurately applies to them ~ even though they bristle (and distract) about the "denier" label. For the Lady doth protest too much , when she keeps insisting desperately that she is a "realist" or "skeptic".

Possibly the poster Two-Dogs has not given any actual thought to the old hand-wavy claim that there might be some undiscovered mysterious physical cause responsible for the recent rapid global warming.

That's where I find that the self-styled "skeptics" run into the problem of (what I call) the Two Sides of the Coin. Indeed, I have never had any decent answer from any denier /provocateur /troll /sealion whatsoever.

And the problem is this :- since the known anthropogenic causes of rapid warming are neatly explaining the global warming ~ then, if the modern warming were largely caused by mysterious forces unknown to today's science . . . then it follows that there must exist another unknown mysterious factor, a cooling factor, which precisely (and increasingly) is counteracting the ongoing warming effect of higher GreenHouse Gasses in the atmosphere.

Mr W. Occam must have very raised eyebrows indeed, at the suggestion of at least two new mysterious explanations !

Quite the puzzle. Perhaps, maybe, Two-Dogs can give the answer.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

John Mason at 03:39 AM on 28 March, 2024

Re #26 (Two Dog):

Skeptical Science was founded in 2007. By that point, 'climate change denial' and 'climate change deniers' were long-established terms. So in a sense they are 'grandfathered' - meaning that they are terms in wide use that everyone understands. We see this in mineralogy, for example the main ore of lead, galena, was named by Pliny the Elder around AD79. It does not accord with post-1959 mineral naming convention, but because its use is ubiquitous, the name is retained. It is a grandfathered mineral name.

I'm not sure when the denial terminology was developed or who introduced it, but I know it had been around long before SkS.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Doug Bostrom at 03:27 AM on 28 March, 2024

There's a lot of "inside baseball" language in play involved with meta-climate discussion, Two Dog.

"Climate change denial" seems to have become shorthand for "climate science denial" and "climate change denial." Both phenomena have rich factual basis.

There is still to this day a shrinking population of folks who don't believe Earth's climate and climate-mediated systems are changing at what current and paleoclimate data indicate are unusually rapid rates. This would be "climate change denial" as labeled on the tin.

Meanwhile another population are focused on what is still slightly more fertile ground, that of calling into question the scientific community's (geophysicists in this domain, specifically) competence of understanding the controlling processes of Earth's climate. This is "climate science denial.'

While often uttered in a context of emotional heat and frustration, "climate change denial" and "climate science denial" are not fundamentally emotive but rather are descriptive language attached to facts.

Both species of denial face what will prove an insurmountable common challenge: consilience. By example, biologists are observing phenonena that would demand answers from geophysicists focused on Earth's climate systems. As it happens, geophysicists already had substantially useful explanations for what biologists are seeing in the natural world. This is retail level consilience. One of the purposes of our weekly climate-related academic research listing is to help people to see consilience on anthropogenic climate change, understand the overall perspective of experts having connection to matters influenced by climate— which includes numerous disciplines not directly connected with geophysics.

if one follows climate research output and its present concerns, it's plain to see we're quite far past the "huge unknowns" stage with respect to the geophysics of climate. The accidental perception of "huge unknowns" in climate geophysics is a mark of the success of climate science deniers in the public square. It's a product of what we might clinically term "synthetic ignorance," a feeling of not knowing what we actually know perfectly well enough, thanks to calculated practice in public messaging.

Is every stripe on every graph we see 100% about us? No. Certainly the climate change we see today is influenced by "natural variation," on the time scale we're concerned with a matter of dithering around a mean. However, numerous and broad secular trends we're seeing not only in direct geophysical attributes of climate but myriad other features having climate as a major controlling variable find reliable explanation and predictive power in one naturally evolved feature of Earth, namely the planet's human population and culture— and how we've powered ourselves by liberation of energy from fossil fuels. We can hypothesize elaborate mechanisms for system-wide changes of the type we're seeing but scientific parsimony asks "why invent where no invention is necessary?" The dominant rationale for such invention seems to lie outsiide of scientific practice.

As to greening, greening enthusiasts should note that this phenomenon is accompanied by loss of albedo for a variety of reasons. Loss of albedo is not something we need at this juncture. It's also notable that for "climate change deniers" of all stripes, greening is a powerful contradiction of the basis of preferred beliefs.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

LaPichardo73 at 13:47 PM on 26 March, 2024

I just want to th you for the great job of debunking and putting together such a great and helpful post just two days after this "documentary " was released. As usual, the denier crowd is talking about the movie being "shadowbanned" and "censored". I didn't ask for it and found it in my video suggestions on YouTube.

I endured the whole thing and could detect lots of details by myself, but your research helps me a lot... and I discovered this site. Thanks again!

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

nigelj at 04:55 AM on 25 March, 2024

Nick Palmer says "It's becoming increasingly clear that virtually all of the 'engine' behind 'denialim is the Machiavellian manoeuvring of highly motivated political ideologues who believe their cause is so overwhelmingly important that it justifies the use of mass deception and the naked propaganda that is in this film."

Love this statement. So accurate. It concisely sums up the whole thing.

At the level of the general public denialism is probably a bit more broadly based, including people with vested interests in the fossil fules industry, or just worried about costs, and others with a more ideological or political agenda. Or a combination. Just based on my anecdotal impression and reading studies by various people but the pattern is very clear.

As to Margaret Thatcher, not my favourite politician, but not totally bad either. She had a chemistry degree. She undestands science and accepted anthropogenic global warming. Probably also a bit opportunistic promoting nuclear power but at least she accepted the science. The idea it was all to impoverish poor people is in the realms of tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

Certainly I have read many comments by deniers where they cant help reveal their political ideologies, and its frequently small government, libertarian freedom loving (taken to an extreme), or very conservative, or sometimes hard left concern trolling (mitigation will hurt poor people). Sometimes the right use the same argument that mitigation will hurt poor people, but I would suggest they couldnt care less and just use any ammunition they can get.

According to psychological studies people who value security as a priority tend to vote left, those who value freedom (of action) as the main priority tend to vote right. However these tendencies exist on a spectrum and most people value both. The freedom loving libertarian ideologues are way out at the extreeme to the point its a bit pathological and where they resent all laws except very minimal and basic criminal and property law. You cannot run a society like that. It doesnt work. An example:

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

nico_macdonald at 23:19 PM on 24 March, 2024

A ‘mishmash of populist conspiratorial themes’; the BBC ‘only recently stopped giving deniers equal exposure’; ‘tired old cliches’; an ‘80-minute assault on reality’. Methinks you protest too much!

If you can make a case against Climate The Movie using evidence and science, why resort to such language?

As your comments policy notes, “using labels like 'alarmist' and 'denier' as derogatory terms are usually skating on thin ice’.

Other planets are warming

One Planet Only Forever at 13:52 PM on 7 February, 2024

I recommend a minor update to the first sentence of last paragraph of "Further Details".

"For lots of useful information about Pluto and the other dwarf planets, NASA has a useful resource on its website, including a link to Pluto: Facts."

And some interesting Pluto: Facts are quoted below:

Pluto's 248-year-long, oval-shaped orbit can take it as far as 49.3 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun, and as close as 30 AU. (One AU is the mean distance between Earth and the Sun: about 93 million miles or 150 million kilometers.)

From 1979 to 1999, Pluto was near perihelion, when it is closest to the Sun. During this time, Pluto was actually closer to the Sun than Neptune.

When Pluto is close to the Sun, its surface ices sublimate (changing directly from solid to gas) and rise to temporarily form a thin atmosphere.

So, maybe Pluto would appear to warm rapidly during that orbit event ... but that would explain things in ways that climate science deniers, and the related delayers of harm reduction, would resist learning from.

It's only a few degrees

michael sweet at 00:42 AM on 19 January, 2024

Retired guy at 10:

Arhennius predicted in 1896 (that is 1896, not a typo) that warming would be greater at night than during the day, greater in winter than summer and greater at high latitudes. Perhaps the scientists do not emphasize this point since it has been discussed so long by those who pay attention.

This sounds like another attempt by deniers to grasp at straws to try to minimize the problem. I have seen a lot of articles that say that high temperatures at night make it much harder for people to live in hot areas because there is no time to recover from the daily heat. Likewise many plants in temperate areas require night time cold to produce fruit (think apples, peaches, cherries, grapes and nuts). Of course sea level rise will be greater since Greenland and the Antarctic will melt faster when they are warmer.

The deniers have nothing so they make up stuff to argue about.

It's only a few degrees

John Mason at 23:43 PM on 18 January, 2024

#10, Retiredguy

A link to any such argument would be useful, if you would be so kind. But see the responses to Jasper above. They should at least partially answer your question. Denier logic is always badly flawed but we need more details of the argument to point out why.

It's only a few degrees

retiredguy at 23:02 PM on 18 January, 2024

I'm reading climate skeptic/deniers claim that because winter, nightime and high latitude temps have increased more than summer, daytime and lower latitudes, that the negative impacts of global warming are being exaggerated by climate 'alarmists', and that furthermore, the IPCC and climate scientists are intentionally not highlighting this. Can you comment ?

I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

Eclectic at 15:35 PM on 29 December, 2023

Rob H @9 :

Not the same guy, is my bet. Tho' cannot be absolutely sure.

I will still put in a good word for "JC" [John Cadogan] and I've seen quite a number of his videos over the years.

His humorous style is . . . as Americans would say . . . Down To Earth. Definitely not recommended for your maiden aunt ~ nor for your local EV dealer. May be he will be less anti-EV in future years, as costs & battery range & battery safety take giant strides for the better. But for the present, he can make a good case for avoiding EV's until the charging availability improves greatly. Review situation in 15 years !

And if you can put up with all the chaff, you will find a goodly amount of wheat mixed in. # Unique style ~ an acquired taste.

IIRC, Cadogan (an engineer) was initially somewhat in the AGW-denier camp ~ but in more recent years he seems to have swung over to the mainstream science camp. And he does advocate EV's for their beneficial effect on city air quality & human health. (And even now, he is often scathing about Volkswagen corporate deception with their past diesels.}

CO2 limits will harm the economy

PollutionMonster at 08:59 AM on 16 December, 2023

One Planet Only Forever @121

I am still reading your post and sources. I recommend a book by Jason Stanley. How fascism works explains how the Merchants of doubt borrow fascist strategies to spread disinformation and fearmonger. Combine this with the communist technique of the fire-hose of falsehoods and no wonder they are such a formidable adversary.

I also heard on NPR that we need to "phase out fossil fuels anything else is a distraction." From arguing with deniers a carbon tax is a snake pit argument like AGW deaths with too many ways to be derailed. Thank you for talking to me. :)

A New 66 Million-Year History of Carbon Dioxide Offers Little Comfort for Today

Evan at 01:07 AM on 13 December, 2023

Some say that current CO2 emissions have no effect on future warming (global warming, climate change deniers).

Some say that past CO2 emissions have no effect on future warming (no-warming in the pipeline climate modelers).

This study suggests that maybe we are not in as much control of the environment as these other two groups of people would like to think.

CO2 limits will harm the economy

PollutionMonster at 16:15 PM on 8 December, 2023

One Planet Only Forever @118

I bought and read the book 9.9% you mentioned. I am still fact checking and checking the references. What is distrubing about the book is the power of a few, magnified minority to influence both media and poltics with their vast wealth and power.

If I understand correctly, via dark money denier think tanks and lobbyists can have a massive impact discretly. Kind of a scary thought when disinformation campaigns magnified minority combined with politics can have major impacts, whether it be the Merchants of Doubt for Tobbaco, Disinformation Dozen anti-vaxx, and now the Toxic Ten for climate change.

Have you read about the ccdh Toxic Ten?

At a glance - Evidence for global warming

Eclectic at 18:09 PM on 1 December, 2023

Paul Pukite @10 :

No, no, no . . . no such disrespect for you, Paul Pukite.

On the Denialist video mentioned @6 above, the "Paul" mentioned was a certain Paul Burgess, the author of that guff [his channel label being "Climate Realism with Paul Burgess"]. Most readers here will see large red flags, when terms like Climate Realism . . . CAGW . . . Galileo . . . quotations from Feynman etc,etc . . . are placed prominently.

It was just an amusing co-incidence of first names. Sorry for the alarm. I should have resisted the temptation to omit the Burgess !

Paul Pukite, I have seen your name often in the comments columns of sober & respectable online climate threads. It seemed very unlikely that Burgess would be your alter ego.

Paul Burgess is a name I do not recall seeing at WUWT. Nor do I recall seeing any videos by him (nor any alluded to) . . . and I did not bother to see more than a few seconds of his video ~ since life is too short to spend watching video explications by climate deniers / Flat Earth exponents / anti-vaxxers / perpetual-motion machine inventors / and suchlike.

But comments columns from the Usual Denialist Suspects . . . can be skimmed very quickly, while keepiing an eye out for gems !

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

michael sweet at 02:44 AM on 30 November, 2023

AB19:

Both the midieval warming period and the Roman period you mention were local warming events and not global events. The current warming is global. The Globe cooled from about 8,000 years ago until about 200 years ago, when the industrial period of burning a lot of fossil fuels started.

temperature last 12,000 years

source There is an arrow that indicates 2016, since then the temperature has risen about 0.3 C. The temperature is currently about 1.3 C above the zero point. There is no significant rise to support your claims.

When you have the basic facts incorrect your conclusions are also incorrect. You appear to be sadly misinformed. I recommend that you try reading more scientific web sites and less denier information. SkS is a good place to start.

Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back

Nick Palmer at 12:23 PM on 26 November, 2023

What NigelJ said is very valid. My own perspective on such matters as percption of climate science is that probably most 'sides' - from doomist through alarmist to 'IPCC' accepting to 'sceptic' to denier - now currently distort the science and the varied consequences of assorted policies to suit their favoured take - often very strongly influenced by their personal politics. All sides use the very same techniques of cherry picking, quote mining, over-promoted 'experts', out-dated articles etc to make their cases. The actual peer reviewed science tends to get lost in the noise

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

Just Dean at 07:27 AM on 20 November, 2023

Almost all Nobel Laureates and National Academy of Sciences members have different different views than the handful of outliers that get a lot of outsized attention.

In 2015 and 2016, 76 Nobel Laureates signed the Mainau Declaration on Climate Change with an urgent warning about the consequences of climate change.

I have scoured the internet looking for NAS members who appear to be climate change skeptics, contrarians or deniers. I have found 7 living members, two of which are Nobel Laureates, Ivar Giaever and Robert Laughlin. The other five are Claude Alegre, John Dewey, William Happer, Richard Linzen and Steven Koonin. As of 2022 there were 2493 NAS members. These seven are all over 70 and represent 0.3%. If I'm off by a factor of 3, they will still represent less than 1%.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

TWFA at 02:47 AM on 27 October, 2023

I seem to recall that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did not have any peer reviewed papers on computer science when as teenagers they charted the future of computing and communications and folks invested millions into their unproved, non peer reviewed theories.

I think it is healthy to get outside observation and critique from folks with good minds that may not be "set". One does not have to be a specialist or have studied the field all his life to ask why if none of the current models can accurately reproduce what has happened over the last century why should we have faith in their predictions for the next?

And "faith" is what it is all about, because nobody can "prove" the future while in the present, but we can hopefully understand the present with results from the past... if we choose to pay attention to them, and that applies to far more than climate science.

When folks accuse others of being "deniers" it means they themselves must be "believers", neither can prove their case with facts, neither can prove something will or will not happen in the future until the future arrives, meaning until then we are talking about religion and not science. "Show me a video of God and I will believe" vs "How could all of this come to be without Him?" If 99% of alleged scientists agree on something either it is no longer science or they are not scientists, it is either religion or they are evangelists.

As a non-peer reviewed entrepreneur, renaissance man and pilot flying ABOVE clouds I have always marveled at the weather, the incredible energy conversion and transmission capacity of phase change and latent heat, for decades before Clauser came along I have been screaming about cloud reflectivity because I have seen it first hand... all that light beneath me is going back to space. 70% of the Earth's surface is water, from which clouds will form, temperature goes up, more clouds form, more reflection, less insolation.

It's not rocket science, or even computer science, put a pot of water on the stove, no matter how high the heat the water temperature never gets above boiling. If what Al Gore said at Davos this year were true, that the oceans are boiling, presumably not just where magma is erupting, it would have defied the laws of physics and thermodynamics, it would be impossible to capture and retain such heat with the 100% cloud cover we certainly would have.

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

Likeitwarm at 04:18 AM on 30 September, 2023

1600. Rob Honeycutt et al
I'll wear that name proudly!
I'm just looking for the most plausible reasons for climate change.
I have found a number of theories. You will call them all quackery because they are not your theory.

I like Peter Ward's. Scroll down the page you sent me and read Peter's responses to his challengers. He makes a lot of sense. His challengers did not prove him wrong, only disagreed with him.
What I find wrong with your version of the science is that you say the small amount(less than 8% of all IR from the surface) re-radiated IR from a colder part of the atmosphere causes warming of the surface per Trenberth chart. That cannot happen. Your radiated photons from all emitting gases carry wave length and amplitude dependent on temperature emitted from. Not enough energy to heat the surface there. Per Ward 2015 colder IR is reflected by warmer object, not destroyed.
Magically, your chart shows the down welling radiation is greater, almost double, than what the sun supplies. Satellites see 255k for the temperature that is radiated from about 5-6 km altitude, not from the surface. The surface is warmer, not from the GHE, but from gravity doing work on the atmosphere causing adiabatic heating. This is why near surface temperatures are ~33c warmer than Planck equations predict. That makes sense unlike the GHE raising the temperature that much.
There is no experiment showing co2 warms the atmosphere.
There is no measurement showing human emissions of co2 cause the recent warming.
All you have is a correlation that doesn't prove anything.
The extra UV-B radiation reaching the surface warms the ocean and the warmer ocean emits more co2 per Ward 2015 makes sense and he does have a correlation with ozone levels and temperatures. Read his paper I linked to.

I know you like labels, but get the label right.
It's "CO2 causes climate change science denier" not "climate science denier".

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

Rob Honeycutt at 23:51 PM on 28 September, 2023

Likeitwarm... The difference here is this: Given enough evidence and strong research, any of us could be convinced there is something other than CO2 responsible for warming the planet in the modern era. You, on the other hand, will never accept the overwhelmingly research that currently exists regardless of how convincing it is.

Being truly skeptical means being convincible. Thus, I would term you a climate science denier. And that is the very premise of how this website was named.

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

Bob Loblaw at 22:58 PM on 28 September, 2023

Ah, yes. Likeitwarm brings out the strawmen of "AGW theory", "where's your proof?", etc. And now, he's using Friends of Science as a source. As Eclectic says, these sources are simply delusional about the science.

The last link provided by Likeitwarm is a paper published in Energy and Environment. As quoted on this Desmog page about the journal, E&E is "a journal that climate change deniers go to when their papers have been rejected by mainstream peer-reviewed publications."

The holes in the papers Likeitwarm has linked to are so large you could drive a Mack truck through them. They have been debunked many, many times in the past.

As for Likeitwarm's posting history here at SkS, he has pretended to have an open mind about the science, but his last couple of posts have made it clear that he has participated here with his mind made up, and that he only accepts information that fits his desired conclusion.

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

Bob Loblaw at 11:43 AM on 28 September, 2023

LIkewarm @ 1594:

Oh, my Jennifer Marohasy is a completely unreliable source. The article it links to starts with this paragraph (leaving the grammatical errors intact):

Central to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the assumption that the Earth and every one of its subsystems behaviors as if they were blackbodies, that is their “emissivity” potential is calculated as 1.0.

This is absolutely, completely wrong. No such assumption is made. The reference provide is to a book (?) about "slaying the sky dragon". The Sky Dragon believers are about as nutty as it gets.

You then post links to principia-scientific.com, which has strong ties to the Sky Dragon believers and is about as reliable as the Flat Earth Society.. It is a collection of deniers - not a useful source of anything remotely scientific. You can read more about the organization here.

You then delve into the standard "it's a plot" that characterizes the conspiratorial thinking that saturates the common denier mentality.

You claim to "...find a lot, 1000s or more, of scientists that disagree with AGW." But what you are presenting here is just more of long-debunked crap.

There is no polite way to put it. You are believing sources that are obscenely wrong about climate science.

We're coming out of the Little Ice Age

John Hartz at 05:01 AM on 17 September, 2023

Recommended supplemental article:

What climate change deniers get totally wrong about the Little Ice Age

What does a regional period of mid-millennial cooling have to do with today's climate disasters? Absolutely nothing

by Matthew Rozsa, Science & Health, Salon, Aug 7, 2023

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

sailingfree at 22:38 PM on 15 September, 2023

Good thoughts on the IPCC, but back on topic, Clauser:

The recent article in Epoch Times is at https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/nobel-winner-refutes-climate-change-narrative-points-out-ignored-factor-5486267?cmt=1&cmt_id=bc9ade40-335a-4574-b934-27a8bb64dd4b

It is depressing to me to see the spread of such blatant crap. To get really upset, see the comments there for a view into the minds of deniers.

I hope that readers of skeptical science can add comment and replies to that article to help balance the propaganda and even get some deniers thinking of the real science.

There is no consensus

RicardoB at 09:23 AM on 12 September, 2023

Bob Loblaw @954 :

I would say Peterson has developed a rather high public profile well beyond Canada's frontiers, namely in the USA and all over Europe.

Also, Peterson is now on a "coverpage" article on Desmog.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

nigelj at 07:56 AM on 10 September, 2023

Eclectic @14 some of these physicists come across as very arrogant and over confident, and seem to think that because physics is the most fundamental of the science it makes them experts at everything, without having to study the detals of other issues, like the climate issue. And with the climate issue the details are particularly important. I assume thats sort of what you mean by Happer-Giaever syndrome.

Yes the IPCC reports are a rich lode of information. I can see a great deal of work has gone into these and I get a bit defensive when they get criticised, and especially when the motives of the authors get criticised.

The IPCC scientists are volunteering their time, and yet they get slammed by paid professional deniers with their junk science, and also slammed by a few people at the extreme edges of the warmist group, who think the IPCC should immediately and uncritically embrace the latest and most doomy study. Makes me furious. And I say this as someone who has a doomy disposition or bias, but at least Im aware of the potential for that to sometimes get out of control.

Exploring the feasibility of a new feature: Bunk of the Week

anticorncob6 at 01:51 AM on 10 September, 2023

(I mentioned this in the google form.)

I think it's good to refute arguments that haven't already been refuted in your "climate myths" permalinks. There are a lot of advanced climate change deniers out there, and it's hard to refute them if you don't have a solid understanding of climate science and research, which is a complex topic. Worse, they are sometimes convincing to people who don't have an agenda to deny AGW.

I saw this recently with a YouTube video arguing that CO2 greenhouse theory is self-contradictory in how the stratosphere cools. I'm considering posting it in the comments of the "greenhouse theory falsified" article but I don't know if I should expect people to watch a 20-minute video. I did suggest this as something to be in "bunk of the week" (or whatever to call it).

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

Markp at 20:47 PM on 5 September, 2023

Scientists are human beings like everyone else, and while that explains much of the disagreement one can find among scientists on all sorts of topics, when people like Clauser come along and speak outside of their area of expertise, flatly contradicting the work of the majority of those directly involved specifically in that field, as in this case climate science, it really makes you wonder what motivated them to do that.

Honesty is important for everyone involved on the subject of climate science and global warming, of course, including those in the mainstream. The characerization of the IPCC here, for example, is so glowing, one might think it was written by the IPCC itself "one of the world’s greatest scientific bodies. It is composed of the world’s foremost climate scientists, who every 5 to 8 years devote tremendous amounts of time and effort to author reports summarizing the latest climate science research, without any remuneration whatsoever. The IPCC reports are in fact the world’s best source of accurate and valuable climate science information."

In fact, the IPCC is arguably not a scientific body: the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" is, as the name implies, a governmental body, where scientists volunteer their work but must in a way "compete" with political appointees from 195 UN nations to haggle over messages delivered to policymakers. It is well known that those political agents have rejected and softened language in statements proposed by scientists numerous times, when that language was deemed problematic for their individual nations.

But it goes further than that. The IPCC in fact has been criticized, not only by cranks like Clauser, but by its own contributors as well as other, reputable scientists in the climate science field, for being far too cautious, particularly in their characterization of the speed and severity of the effects of climate change from global warming. Being on the "right" side of this debate between the mainstream climate science "community" and people who are clearly climate deniers, should not mean that those defending what scientists have discovered need be deniers themselves of the many errors and misinformation that has been produced by organizations like the IPCC.

Papers such as "What Lies Beneath; The Understatement of Existential Climate Risk" by David Spratt and Ian Dunlop, and "Faster Than Expected; The IPCC's Role In Exacerbating Climate Change" by Kyle Kimball, are a good start for those interested in examining clearly documented errors and pattern-forming cases of inaccuracy on the part of the public messages delivered by the IPCC.

It is one thing to be an outright climate denier. It is another to be one who so stridently opposes the outright frauds and fakes that one refuses to admit, and even attempts to hide or gloss over the real problems that do exist within what people call the climate science "community" and those various organizations responsible for gaining insight and finding solutions for humanity to fight what may someday soon be legally recognized as the ecocide perpetrated by numerous energy companies when they were warned numerous times by scientists of the need to swiftly switch to alternate fuels, and chose to bury, manipulate and deny that science in order to focus on business as usual and the maximization of shareholder value.

It's not urgent

PollutionMonster at 09:17 AM on 5 September, 2023

Thank you, I've read the responses and have used them to debunk the deniers claims. Yet, like a bad game of whack a mole more keep coming.

Seems anti-green budget house government

I don't know how good a source this is the Heritage foundation which we debunked earlier is quoted a lot. Aren't government websites supposed to be least bias? I am confused. Thank you in advance. :)

Climate Confusion

Markp at 22:43 PM on 3 September, 2023

For Rob: I know I have not provided much data to back what I've been saying, but that's mainly because I was going on the assumption that you may already be aware of the data that could support me. In other words, I don't think what I've said is uncontroversial from a data point of view, but I do accept that it might be controversial from the point of view of making those holding a mainstream view (and I know that's vague) uncomfortable.

I disagree with little of what you say about climate in this last post. From your list of 8 items, only 1,4 and 5 are problematic in my view. Unfortunately, those few items are weighty:

"A lot is happening towards decarbonization" is vague enough to require examples to qualify the statement. There has definitely been a lot of talk about decarbonization, but as 2022 saw global emissions hit a new high of 36.8 Gt, according to the IEA's report "CO2 Emissions in 2022" one has to ask what decarbonization achievements, what action, in place of mere talk, can we point to. Renewable energy production plus use of EVs, heat pumps and who knows what else saved about 550 Mt. Fine. But this growth rate (growth of renewable contribution) won't hold up. So when you say "a lot" is happening, what's that really mean? And could you give just a few bullets on how you think we'll achieve net zero by 2050?

I'm also curious to know how much your vision of "net" zero relies on offsetting schemes, because I don't trust them and fear that they are being relied on too much for comfort.

As for what happens to the rising temperatures in a net zero 2050, we'll have to wait and see.

I'm certainly with you on breaching 2C by 2050, but since I've got little hope we'll be anything close to net zero by then (for whatever net zero is actually worth as long as we've got all the offestting nonsense thrown in there) it looks worse to me than to you.

Finally, and to change the subject a bit, I think the talk about models went too far. I'm not saying models are bad, just that they're being relied on too heavily in certain important cases. And as my primary experience (nearly 30 years now) has been in the financial arena for many "quant" strategies where, in that industry it is painfully common to see wonderful quant investment funds with great backtested results finally have some real money thrown at them and start a live track record, only to see the live returns look nothing like the lovely return characteristics of those backtests, I confess a lot of my skepticism comes from just that type of environment. Still, when we continually see news reports with headlines running "Researchers present shocking new data that climate change is happening much faster than expected" and the previous expectation was based on models, I don't feel at all surprised. I've just had a look at the "myths" section of Skeptical Science specifically at the models myth and I also see there that most of the argument seems to be toward trying to convince climate deniers who say models are all wrong that GW is real. That's clearly not me.

For Eclectic: I don't think I've written too much, do you? I know people these days don't like to read anything longer than a twitter post, but I don't think your assessment here is fair. I've tried to keep it short, in fact. Like I said, I assumed, and maybe wrongly(?), that you folks had a decent understanding of the data already, and could follow commentary like mine that took a broader look at things rather than fussing over citations and decimal points because I'm not claiming anything that boils down to a disagreement over small measurements but has been more about one's basic orientation: some of you seem to be wearing rose-colored glasses in my view, like too many people are.

As for the mirror concept, if the goal were to limit global temperature rise to 2C by 2100 we would need about twice the surface area of the contiguous USA. Although these reflectors would be useful in many instances, like on rooftops, parks, outdoor markets, reservoirs, etc., the main idea is for them to be used in agricultural settings because there's a lot of agricultural land, and because the reflectors would bring both local benefits to the crops by cooling, saving water and increasing yield, and contribute to global cooling. How to do that on a large scale is a problem that needs to be worked out. Any cropland managed by tractors and other large machines would either need to involve reflectors that would be removed from time to time for those machines to do their work, which wouldn't be easy, or they'd need to be placed so as not to interfere with those machines, perhaps by having them suspended vertically alongside crops rather than horizontally over them. And of cource, horizontal coverage would not involve blocking all available sunlight as to choke off photosynthesis, but as most crops can thrive with up to 30% shading, it would be placed intermittently. Anyway, this is the rough idea. Reflectors made from PET and aluminum cans from landfill provide more than enough for this level of scale, but other reflector constructions/materials could pop up as well. If you feel this isn't the type of detail you'd like to see, I'm not allowed to offer more. Not to protect technology or profits, because this comes from a nonprofit, but simply because I'm not authorized. As some of you know, the science takes time. We're working on it.

If that surface area seems "too big" as in "nobody will go for that" I can certainly feel that, but what choice have we got? The Earth is big. We can do it. We've got 4 million miles of roads in the USA. When cars first got started, nobody would have thought that possible. All of our climate "solutions" are by nature on a grand scale. Nothing to do about that as far as I know. And why people might balk at lots of mirrors/reflectors when they seem to think DAC (or your solution of choice) can clean (enough of) the entire atmosphere, I'm stumped.

Ice age predicted in the 70s

michael sweet at 00:36 AM on 19 August, 2023

Don Williams:

The "hiatus" papers do not show what you are claiming. Yes, Mann et al claimed that the "pause" was statistically significant. You can quote that paper. But in science it is not individual papers that count, it is the conclusions that count.

Foster and Ramsdorf replied to the Mann et al paper and claimed that the Mann et al paper had made calculation errors that invalidated their result. Foster et al claimed that there was no statistical significance. The scientific method is to exchange peer reviewed papers to debate facts. After several papers were exchanged, Mann et al conceded that they had made a mistake in their calculations and the "pause" was not statistically significant. It was magnificent to watch top scientists debate a fact and reach a consensus on what the true result was.

The scientific consensus is that the "pause" was simply random variation and not a change in the warmng pattern. Data collected since then have conclusively confirmed that the climate did not stop warming as demonstrated by the escalator. The Mann et al scientists agree with the consensus.

Mann and his collaborators are great scientists. Sometimes everyone makes mistakes. The difference between scientists and deniers is that when data shows that a scientist made a mistake they learn from the experience and move on. Deniers just regurgitate the same old debunked "pause" claims after everyone informed has moved on.

Do phrases like ‘global boiling’ help or hinder climate action?

michael sweet at 00:12 AM on 19 August, 2023

Old time readers of this website will remember when climate deniers derided "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change" or CAGW. Scientists insisted that was not their message. Was that only 10 years ago? Now I often hear climate scientists discussing catastrophic effects of global warming and I don't see the deniers using CAGW any more.

Eclectic: you read WUWT, do they still discredit CAGW?

I like the term catastrophic climate change. What else would describe the fires, droughts and floods worldwide?

It's not urgent

Eclectic at 20:22 PM on 15 August, 2023

PM @42 , please report on anything genuinely valid which these deniers can produce from Mr Stossel or Dr Curry. I'm betting that's Zilch.

You won't change the deniers, but you may influence "onlookers'. Myself in this situation, I'd figure it is reasonably justified to "poison the well". Point out that Stossel once, years ago, was a reputable journalist . . . but now he's an angry propagandist and has received money from the billionaire Charles Koch, whose propaganda "institutes" encourage propaganda half-truths & cherry-picking slanted information.

I would probably also go ad hom [ ad fem ? ] on Curry ~ whose arguments are vague & tenuous & rhetorical . . . and are therefore difficult to get to grips with. Point out that the real climate scientists find her a joke, and laugh at her and her vague position.

Challenge the deniers to come up with anything definite from these two anti-science propagandists.

It's not urgent

PollutionMonster at 19:18 PM on 15 August, 2023

Now the denier is linking to the infamous John Strossel and Dr Judith Curry. I am attempting to show the errors of their source, but having trouble.

A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

nigelj at 06:21 AM on 13 August, 2023

Eclectic @11.

I agree the cranks are a small subset of denilaists and that many of the denialists are fundamentally driven by selfish and economic motives. However you should add political motives to the list, being an ideologically motivated dislike of government rules and regulations. Of course these things are interrelated.

I have a bit of trouble identifying one single underlying cause of the climate denialism issue. It seems to be different denialists have different motives to an extent, randging from vested interests, to political and ideological axes to grind, to selfishness, to just a dislike of change to plain old contrariness. Or some combination. But if anyone thinks there is one key underling motive for the denialim I would be interested in your reasoning.

The cranks are not all deniers as such. Some believe burning fossil fuels is causing warming but some of them think other factors play a very large part like the water cycle or deforestation. A larger part than the IPCC have documented. They unwittingly serve the hard core denialists cause. They are like Lenin and Stalins "useful idiots."

I do visit WUWT sometimes, and I know what you are saying.

"To very broadly paraphrase Voltaire : It is horrifying to see how even intelligent minds can believe absurdities."

Voltaire is right. Its presumably a lot to do with cognitive dissonance. Intelligent minds are not immunue from strong emotively or ideologically driven beliefs and resolving conflicts between those and reality might lead to deliberate ignorance. Reference on cognitive dissonance:

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326738#signs

This does suggests cranks might be driven by underlying belief systems not just craziness.

A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

Eclectic at 11:06 AM on 12 August, 2023

Nigelj @17 :

Cranks or crackpots do inhabit the Denier spectrum, But IMO they are outliers of the main body. Dr Frank's wondrous "Uncertainty" simply produces absurd results ~ see his chart showing the envelope of uncertainty which "explodes" from the observation starting point, rendering all data nearly meaningless. Yet he cannot see the absurdity. He falls back on the bizarre argument of uncertainty being separate from error. (But in practical terms, there is a large Venn Diagram overlap of the two concepts.)

WUWT blog is an enjoyable stamping ground where I observe the denialists' shenanigans. Most of the commenters at WUWT are angry selfish characters, who do not wish to see any socio-economic changes in this world ~ and hence their motivated reasoning against AGW.

Certainly, WUWT has its share of cranks & crackpots. Also a large slice of "CO2-deniers" who continually assert "the trace gas CO2 simply cannot do any global warming". (WUWT blog's founder & patron, Anthony Watts initially tried to oust the CO2-deniers . . . but in the past decade he seems to have abandoned that attempt.)

Dr Frank's comments in a WUWT thread are worth reading, but sadly they rarely rise above the common ruck there. Much more interesting to read, is a Mr Rud Istvan ~ though he does blow his own trumpet a lot (and publicizes his own book "Blowing Smoke" which I gather does in all ways Smite The Heathen warmists & alarmists. Istvan, like Frank, is very intelligent, yet does come out with some nonsenses. For instance, Istvan often states mainstream AGW must be wrong because of reasons A , B , C & D . And unfortunately, 3 of his 4 facts/reasons are quite erroneous. He is so widely informed, that he must know his facts/reasons are erroneous . . . yet he keeps repeating them blindly (in a way that resembles the blindness in Dr Frank).

To very broadly paraphrase Voltaire : It is horrifying to see how even intelligent minds can believe absurdities.

A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

MA Rodger at 18:52 PM on 11 August, 2023

Nigelj @13,
The paper Frank (2019) did take six months from submission to gain acceptance and Frontiers does say "Frontiers only applies the most rigorous and unbiased reviews, established in the high standards of the Frontiers Review System."
Yet the total nonsense of Frank (2019) is still published, not just a crazy approach but quite simple mathematical error as well.

But do note that a peer-reviewed publication does not have to be correct. A novel approach to a subject can be accepted even when that approach is easily show to be wrong and even when the implications of the conclusions (which are wrong) are set out as being real.
I suppose it is worth making plain that peer-review can allow certain 'wrong' research to be published as this will prevent later researchers making the same mistakes. Yet what is so often lost today is the idea that any researcher wanting publishing must be familiar with the entirety of the literature and takes account of it within their work.

And for a denialist, any publication means it is entirely true, if they want it to be.

In regard to the crazy Frank (2019), it is quite simple to expose the nonsense.

This wondrous theory (first appearing in 2016) suggests that, at a 1sd limit, a year's global average SAT could be anything between +0.35ºC to -0.30ºC the previous year's temperature, this variation due alone to the additional AGW forcing enacted since that previous year. The actual SAT records do show an inter-year variation but something a little smaller (+/-0.12ºC at 1sd in the recent BEST SAT record) but this is from all causes not just from a single cause that is ever accumulating. And these 'all causes' of the +/-0.12ºC are not cumulative through the years but just wobbly noise. Thus the variation seen do not increase with variation measured over a longer period. After 8 years in the BEST SAT record is pretty-much the same as the 1-year variation and not much greater at 60 years (+/-0.22ºC). But in the crazy wonderland of Pat Frank, these variations are apparently potentially cumulative (that would be the logic) so Frank's 8-year variation is twice the 1-year variation. And after 60 years of these AGW forcings (which is the present period with roughly constant AGW forcing) according to Frank we should be seeing SAT changes anything from +17.0ºC to -12.0ºC solely due to AGW forcing. And because Frank's normal distributions provides the probability of these variations, we can say there was an 80% chance of us seeing global SAT increases accumulating over that 60 years in excess of +4.25ºC and/or decreases acumulating in excess of -3.0ºC. According to Frank's madness, we should have been seeing such 60-year variation. But we haven't. So as a predictive analysis, the nonsense of Frank doesn't begin to pass muster.

And another test for garbage is the level of interest shown by the rest of science. In the case of Frank (2019), that interest amounts to 19 citations according to Google Scholar, these comprising 6 citations by Frank himself, 2 mistaken citation (only one by a climatological paper which examines marine heat extremes and uses the Frank paper to support the contention "Substantial uncertainties and biases can arise due to the stochastic nature of global climate systems." which Frank 2019 only says are absent), a climatology working-paper that lists Frank with a whole bunch of denialists, three citations by one Norbert Schwarzer who appears more philosopher than scientist, and six by a fairly standard AGW denier called Pascal Richet. That leaves a PhD thesis citing Frank (2019)'s to say "... general circulation models generally do not have an error associated with predictions"
So science really has no interest in Frank's nonsense (other than demonstrating that it is nonsense).

It's not urgent

PollutionMonster at 15:03 PM on 6 August, 2023

Eclectic@40

Thank you I found the quote, would have taken me a very long time to find on my own. I could only find a much lower number before. Going to argue with some deniers now. :)

It's not urgent

PollutionMonster at 15:49 PM on 4 August, 2023

Eclectic @38

You've made some interesting points. One week I really dug in and was arguing for 8 hours + a day with deniers, did not make me happy. Do you have a source for the $100 per ton tax on carbon emissions from Nordhaus? I've searched and searched but could not find. Thank you.

It's not urgent

Eclectic at 14:37 PM on 3 August, 2023

PollutionMonster @37 , yes the economist William Nordhaus is an interesting case.

Climate science deniers love him since he seems unconcerned about a 3 or 4 degree rise in global temperature . . . because, in his estimation, the vastly higher temperature will have no adverse effect on "output" (aka Gross Domestic Product ~ GDP being the heart & soul of economists' thinking). And undoubtably Nordhaus is correct in his projections, for we all know that the "dismal science" of economics has an impeccable track record of long-term accuracy . . . and it is also the Be-all & End-all of measurement of human happiness (and of all other aspects of the natural world).

But putting that minor point aside, the Denialists are slightly less happy that Nordhaus has suggested a $100-per-ton tax on carbon emissions ( I am unsure, but presume he means tax on tonnage of CO2 rather than tonnage of elemental carbon emitted ).

As per usual, Denialists feel entitled to cherry-pick from the sayings of any prominent scientist or public figure, in order to support themselves.

For arguing online ~ no, it is not a waste of your time, since your comments will be seen by "undecided" fence-sitters. No, your arguments won't & can't change the minds of the hard-core intransigent Denialists (who are usually political extremists that are basically uninterested in the actual science or the actual happiness of other people). But your activity will encourage decent sensible people.

Only keep arguing so long as you find it fun/entertaining. Refresh yourself with lots of walking & greenery & open skies . . . plus good company and other interests in life. But I am sure you already know that is how Life should be lived.

It's not urgent

PollutionMonster at 12:08 PM on 3 August, 2023

I agree that it can be fun entertainment for awhile. Yet, after awhile it just becomes exhausting trying to keep up with a denier constantly changing topics only to repeat as in your example with the anti-vaxx.

MA Rodger said in #27 that it was still nesscary to argue with deniers, do you agree? Or am I wasting my time arguing online?

What about William Nordhaus? Deniers like to reference him. Saying that we should aim for 3.5C change and that 1.5-2C is infeasible if not impossible by 2100. Thank you in advance.

CO2 effect is saturated

Eclectic at 08:32 AM on 3 August, 2023

[ If the Moderator will allow a brief off-topic musing, I promise a sort of return in my concluding paragraph. ]

As a complete tyro in the world of probabilistic AI language generative models, I picture ChatGPT as the analogy of a Zillion monkeys tapping away at a Zillion typewriters . . . and eventually (which is actually a millisecond) out comes something speciously good. The product is sometimes Booker Prize standard; sometimes merely quite presentable; sometimes a diamond but deeply flawed when examined closely; and sometimes there is an Einsteinian Pearl of inventiveness (if the reader has the wit to pick it up and run with it). But always, the winning monkey has no real knowledge of what he has produced. Play-It-Again-Sam . . . and a millisecond later, the new winning monkey gives you a somewhat different product. ~In a decade's time, will the current language AI become so refined as to filter out its own fabrications & nonsenses? Probably yes...

On-topic ~ another analogy is the brain of the climate-science-denier, whose Motivated Reasoning (produced by a Zillion monkey neurons) keeps coming out with flawed presentations, in various repetitions. Monkeys, or Dragons?

It's not urgent

PollutionMonster at 16:40 PM on 31 July, 2023

@34 Electric

Thank you. I am currently arguing with three deniers and got quite overwhelmed. I didn't want to dismiss a legitmate concern and lose crediblity with the interlocutors.

I sometimes go on tilt and cannot process the paragraphs when I am presented with a vague argument. A confusing denier statement can be the most difficult of all.

Loris' part about three decimal points sounded legimate, thank you for debunking this myth.

It's not urgent

PollutionMonster at 13:54 PM on 30 July, 2023

With the last post, I was asking for help debunking what I am pretty sure is a denier's argument and link. I could have made that more clear this heat wave is affecting my cognitive ability.

For example, the link quotes very specific numbers, are they correct and a red herring or just plain incorrect? This is the best place to come if I get stuck and it takes too long to debunk a climate change myth or is there another place?

It's not urgent

PollutionMonster at 18:07 PM on 29 July, 2023

I used the tactic of asking for a source rather then trying to debate an incoherent argument.

Denier link heritage

This seems very similar to the other arguments they make usually focusing on how expensive and infeasible renewable energy is. Certainly more subtle than other deniers who deny the 97% scientific consensus.

2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29

wilddouglascounty at 15:01 PM on 24 July, 2023

The term "climate change" has buried the lead for too long, so it's time to correct this. When Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire were not voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, it was not because of Home Run Change, it was because of Performance Enhancing Drugs. And everyone who watches baseball knows that.

When the severity and frequency of extreme weather increases, the sea level rises and gets more acidic, wildlife populations move and wildfires abound, it is not because of Climate Change. It's because fossil fuel use that has changed the atmospheric and oceanic chemistry, allowing it to store more heat, changing the climate. Everyone who watches the weather needs to be reminded of that, too.

It's time to stop using euphemisms that don't explicitly connect the changing climate to fossil fuel use so that folks understand in the same way that folks understand the role of performance enhancing drugs in sports. Everyone needs to be reminded of the role fossil fuels has in climate change, just as they know about the role of performance enhancing drugs in turbocharging the natural talents of the users. Whenever discussing any of the things related to Climate Change we should make that link explicit by using phrases like:

- Fossil fuel induced Climate Change

- Increased greenhouse gases from Fossil Fuel use

- Climate Change caused by Fossil Fuel use

- Changed atmospheric chemistry through the widespread use of fossil fuels

and the like. And if someone says that you're politicizing the weather, tell them that this isn't just political; it's based on overwhelming scientific evidence. Refer them to the IPCC or skepticalscience websites if they are still deniers, and change the focus to how to become more energy efficient first, replace fossil fuel use with renewables second, and nurture local ecosystems third. We don't have a choice but to make things super-clear if we are to have a chance to turn the ship away from almost unimaginable disasters for future generations.

“It’s almost like a cult.” Activists shout down rural renewable energy projects

PollutionMonster at 18:36 PM on 17 July, 2023

One part that stuck with me when watching the entire video was that they spent all their time as anti-renewables. This shows that the distrubtive protestors themselves were victims.

I was a denier in the past and perhaps the greatest harm was it was a huge time sink for me. All that time watching conspiracy thinking videos, books, and going to meetings could have been better spent.

Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater

Rob Honeycutt at 11:11 AM on 7 July, 2023

Dave @29... Here you're playing the classic science denier game of cherry picking facts that support the conclusion you prefer. Your graphs are technically correct but intentionally misleading because you're using them outside of the full context of the issue at hand.

If, on the absurd chance, you actually believe what you're presenting is compelling evidence then it is encumbent upon you to publish your findings in a legitimate science journal and convince a panel of experts that your findings are significant.

Given you've been doing this for something over a decade now I would have expected your position to become more substantive and nuanced. But it's not. You're regurgitating the same junk you've been posting all over the internet this entire time.

This leads me to believe you're not genuinely interested in facts or science. You're merely promoting an ideological position and you think this is an interesting way to do that.

Once again, this is not ad hom. Lots of people do exactly what you're doing and they (and you) have every right to do so. All any of us are doing is pointing out how weak your position is.

The Dynamics of The Green Plate Effect

Bob Loblaw at 10:58 AM on 30 June, 2023

The bucket analogy does relate to the greenhouse effect in terms of reducing the rate of loss, which requires an adjustment of the bucket level. The reason the bucket reaches a new equilibrium is that as the water level rises, the pressure increases (a linear function of the height of water above the hole), and that increased pressure succeeds in forcing enough water through the smaller hole. We need to remember that there is a pressure term that drives the flow.

The increased pressure in the bucket is an analogy to the increased surface temperature creating a larger temperature difference between the surface and the ubiquitous 255K emitting IR to space in the greenhouse effect.

On the other hand, the Green Plate effect is intended as a specific counterargument to the "cold object can't cause a warm object to heat up" myth. It does not need any reference to the greenhouse effect at all to demonstrate that this "cold object/warm object" myth about the 2nd law is wrong.

If the "cold object/warm object violates 2nd law" argument was correct, then the argument would have to show an error in the Green Plate scenario. If any hard-core denier want to continue with that argument here, they are going to have to do it without any reference to the greenhouse effect. If they can't "disprove" the Green Plate effect, then there is no way that they will be able to apply the [lack of] logic to the more complex greenhouse effect.

The Dynamics of The Green Plate Effect

Rob Honeycutt at 01:57 AM on 30 June, 2023

The green plate analogy is the most fun to argue with hard core climate deniers. It's amusing to watch all the contortions they go through to avoid understanding the concept. You end up with energy appearing and disappearing everytime they say something.

I had one guy insisting that energy actually does disappear because of superposition when a photon is received by a warmer object. (sigh)

Cranky Uncle: a game building resilience against climate misinformation

Rob Honeycutt at 04:49 AM on 19 June, 2023

I actually take Peppers at his word thinking he actually believes these are pertinent questions to ask. I think he's likely operating at a very low level of understanding on climate science issues, thus everything seems pertinent. The problem is he's not understanding that he's asking very low level questions for which there are simple answers.

It's rather like when climate deniers say the warming is caused by the sun on the ridiculous assumption that climate scientists have never bothered to check.

All very "Cranky Uncle" stuff.

I guess it's far easier to believe there's a conspiracy rather than reading the published research to learn there's not.

Cranky Uncle: a game building resilience against climate misinformation

peppers at 03:09 AM on 19 June, 2023

Hi Rob, OK thanks for trying to understand. The world has completely changed and Co2 is just a one part of these changes. But this is proving hard to relate, especially in this settled and denier climate.

But Co2 is up, and increasing. Still, there are a lot of questions that have answers that are being suppressed.

Hey, allow me a tickler for you. This is not any main point of mine at all, but I would love to hear a rebuttal.

I understand the premise that human respiration on earth is an equalized basis; that an equal amount of Co2 is expired based on the photosynthesis that happened to create the Co2, as a cycle. What about if one quotient were increased by a factor of 5 times, such as human population inceasing from 1.6B in 1900 to 8B today? Foliage has increased according to Nasa, by not 5 times worth. With 5 times the 'engines' of people respirating Co2 being in play, but without the photosynthesis being up to speed at the same rate, wouldnt the atmosphere be 'banking' Co2 until the other parts of this cycle, used to explain the human equalizing factor, be a possible explaination to increased Co2 in our world? I find some questions intriguing. We must ask more questions.

Cranky Uncle: a game building resilience against climate misinformation

peppers at 01:31 AM on 19 June, 2023

Eclectic,

You are more than welcome to call me out on misuse of premises or data. But I think you slipped in to some all or nothing thinking to cancel out my logic. I dont think Einstein updating Newton's laws of gravity, from all objects exterting an attracting force to thier interplay with space and time and warping the fabric of space itself, invalidates Newton's advance on the subject to him point in time. Bur more is always coming in science. One can never say something is settled. Einstein is now (and he knew it) unable to explain the deepest space questions within black holes, where his formulas now fail. My only point is to ask you to question anytime someone says an area of science is settled, and the derogations of any still continuing to ask questions, to be deniers. Thx D

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

scaddenp at 11:28 AM on 13 June, 2023

RH - well CO2"Science" have long history in misrepresenting what science papers actually say, secure in the knowledge that their intended audience won't read them to check. LikeitWarm, I agree that the Idso's are intelligent and smart - just not in a good way.

Likeitwarm - I appreciate that it is very difficult to evaluate material that you dont know very well. However, a common strategy for the deniers is the"strawman fallacy". Ie they claim that "science says X", which means that it follows that Y should be observed. If Y is not observed, then clearly X is wrong. (eg Idso is effectively claiming "Science says CO2 is only thing that effects temperature, therefore past temperatures must reflect CO2 concentration" ). If you discover that science says no such thing (eg check with what the IPCC reports claim instead) and that your source would likely be aware of that, (eg quoting or misquoting IPCC) then you have reasonable grounds for assuming that the source is bad actor, and not to be compared with what peer-reviewed science is saying (no matter how appealing their presentation is).

10 year anniversary of 97% consensus study

scaddenp at 07:50 AM on 17 May, 2023

I thought the working definition of "catastrophic" for deniers was "something that would force me to pay more tax"

10 year anniversary of 97% consensus study

HuangFeng at 09:28 AM on 16 May, 2023

If you sum all of the (100-percentages) up you get over 30 percents of papers disagree with AGW. And if assume that they are only 95% certain, because I heard somewhere about p values and confidence limits at 95%, then we can take another 5% off for each of those 9 papers, which is 45%, add the initial 30% and we get 75% total papers disagree with AGW. Flawless denier math!

_{Please don't ban me, this is sarcasm / humour.}

2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19

gerontocrat at 21:20 PM on 15 May, 2023

Brown Report Claims Anti-Wind Group Uses Deceit, Delay, Denial and Chicanery to Sabotage Crucial Renewable Energy

The report emphasises that the denial techniques used by the local group use "data" from fossil-fuel funded national institutions.

It cannot be stated too often that climate denial, misinformation, disinformation and simple outright lies comes from groups mostly funded by the oil and gas industries and rich people with large investments in the oil & gas industries.

It also cannot be denied that climate denial / obstruction has been successfully implanted at all levels of Government and in small local denier groups, and they are increasingly effective in blocking progress in reducing CO2 emissions.

It is a pity that lying now seems to be a normal acceptable part of discussion.

At a glance - The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics

John Mason at 00:46 AM on 7 May, 2023

NigelJ #28 - yes it is a complex challenge achieving balance in this business. The deniers have the advantage that they can make stuff up. We cannot!

Also, some myths are very straightforward to rebut - e.g. "it hasn't warmed since 1998". This particular one we are discussing here is something of a pig by contrast!

Realclimate has improved by strides since its inception. I was working on "Further details" about the Urban Heat Island effect - a debate largely triggered by a paper by Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels in 2004. Realcimate's response was robust but only undererstandable to someone with serious statistical training. I nevertheless linked to it but with a note to that effect.

Fortunately, most of the myths on the database can be laid to rest in the At-a-glance pieces in less than 500 words, that being the ideal word limit for that class of rebuttals. Like I said, the one we are commenting on is a bit of an outlier in this respect because so much needs introducing to the layperson. But I firmly believe we need to be near-absolutely inclusive in this business - near because I accept that there are people out there who have reading difficulties, but nevertheless reaching the biggest possible audience is the aim here.

At a glance - The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics

John Mason at 09:35 AM on 1 May, 2023

Charlie #17:

There you portray the dilemma in an illustrative way. Now go back through it and, critically, add an asterisk after every single word/acronym that, to your knowledge, the typical "consumer" has not meaningfully encountered before.

The vast majority of folk are slightly to non-curious about global warming until one of its effects comes a-banging on their door. We have to reach them - they ARE the majority here. Deniers and activists are in contrast a small percentage at two ends of a spectrum- although I figure activists are far more populous these days but at the same time some deniers still have a disproportionare noise-allowance. But it's the everything-in-between we have to reach and explain what's happening.

Arctic sea ice has recovered

Rob Honeycutt at 00:46 AM on 21 April, 2023

Albert @150... I'm curious why you can't see what you're doing is selecting (cherry picking) short time frames out of a clear overall trend in order to fit a predetermined conclusion.

This is truly what I find so fascinating to witness. The sheer volume of well-established research and scientific evidence that has to be dismissed or ignored in order to come to such conclusions is staggering.

Anthony Watts I can understand simply because his income is predicated on keeping climate deniers coming to his website. People who don't have a specific monetary necessity, these I don't understand.

There is no consensus

Rob Honeycutt at 15:18 PM on 20 April, 2023

If one thinks about how Albert is trying to frame this, it makes no sense. I've heard the same tripe from other deniers over the years; he's not the first to come up with this.

He's trying to re-frame the question from "in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW" into "in order to determine the percentage of research papers that endorse and quantify human contribution to GW as >50%."

It's quite a nonsensical and pointless framing of his (their) own creation that bears no relevance to anything that would have the least bit of interest to anyone.

Once again, it is fascinating to watch such entrenched, intractable displays like this.

Arctic sea ice has recovered

Rob Honeycutt at 14:49 PM on 19 April, 2023

Albert... Do you have any idea how many decades deniers have been claiming that this is all just about to flip over into a cooling phase?

Heck, I (and others) even won a bet against the climate deniers at NoTricksZone on this.

Of course, their response was, "Okay, we lost the best but now it's going to really start cooling."

It's not urgent

MA Rodger at 08:24 AM on 26 March, 2023

PolutionMonster @28,

The "green wash" aspect to CCS comes from the oil industry seeing the injection of CO2 down oil wells as a useful 'voidage replacement' method for extracting more oil while the storage of CO2 keeps some of the criticism of fossil fuel extraction at arm's length. I'm not sure of the capacity in old FF wells. The carbon density of a well full of CO2 is going to be far far lower than one full of oil. Strangely, pumping CO2 down gas wells (where prsumably carbon-density for CO2 would be on a par with CH4) is mostly discussed in terms of preventing atmospheric CO2 release during gas extraction (which can contain a lot of CO2).
Yet CCS does obviously run beyond the "green wash" when the storage isn't an aging oil well and/or is used to draw down atmospheric CO2 rather than to stop CO2 emissions. Thus Bioenergy CCS or Direct Air CCS.

And denialism in politics - the right-wing of UK politics has become far more mainstream due to Brexit. And I have found those who campaign for Brexit were almost to a man also strong climate change deniers. This was very noticable here abouts as we had a big battle over an off-shore wind farm opposed by the denialists and eventually stopped by the Tory government newly free of coalition partners. This was followed closely by the Brexit referendum and us 'remainers' were locally facing exactly the same opposition line-up as with the wind farm.

It's not urgent

PollutionMonster at 06:46 AM on 26 March, 2023

Thank you for the detailed response. I'm still reading all the links. I finished the guardian link.

I didn't know that carbon capture was considered green-washing. I started arguing with climate change deniers in 2016 and I was a pro-science libertarian, sort of like Michael Shermer. I got caught up in the new atheist movement as I saw it a pro-science movement. A call to arms to defend science.

The tribalism of the pro-science tribe versus the deniers. I guess what I am saying is my stance is more of "I must protect science" as opposed to I must save the environment.

I've been focusing on fossil fuel subsidies and taxing carbon.

"Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020 and are expected to increase to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025" imf

International monetary fund 5.9 trillion fossil fuel subsidies

The fact that we still have fossil fuel subsidies is abhorrent to my libertarian perspective. Also, carbon is a pollutant, without taxing carbon this is economic rent. Individual profits and socialized costs which breaks capitalism.

I didn't know that the deniers still had such political influence. There are a few hardcore deniers out there but I can usually win the audience, and the onlookers see the denier as a lunatic as you have said.

It's not urgent

MA Rodger at 18:59 PM on 25 March, 2023

PollutionMonster @26,

The quoting of Schellnhuber in that Scientific American article is a bit of an add-on and somewhat out of context. The article is based on analysis dating back to 2018 here & here (so a little dated now) and is really concerned with the net negative emissions required after we reach the net zero emissions. These net negatives are not much discussed in the political arena, as though we can ignore them. The same is true of the "carbon budget" also addressed by the article. But the 'budget' and the 'negatives' are significant in tackling AGW. The climate scanario SSP1-1.9 (which prevents AGW exceeding +1.5ºC warming, roughly) requires we halve our emissions by 2030 (and indeed to have made serious progress toward that halving by now) as part of keeping-to the 'budget', and following that for all our emissions post-2007 to be removed by the 'negative' policy post net-zero. So keeping to SSP1-1.9 would mean the 'negative' totals something like 1,000 billion t(CO2) [so over 20 years-worth of today's emissions] although the majority of that (perhaps two-thirds) would be post-2100.

The Schellnhuber quote is lacking a bit of context but is presumably predicated on the view that we could lose control of AGW and kick off some extreme tipping points: Schellnhuber has co-authored work on such outcomes. Myself, I would be worried by allowing AGW to get significantly beyond +1.5ºC warming as the effect could easily destroy the world political order and bring about that sub-billion human world population through conflict.

Humanity does need to rough out a workable global plan (or set of plans) for keeping AGW to sensible levels, the first step in identifying how bad the situation actually is. Without such planning, your attempted triage is not going to work.

So what would a plan look like? The world is going to be short of energy sources in years to come as renewables will be required to power the economy as well as those 'negatives' which will be potentially bigger than SSP1-1.9 because we are not cutting our emissions and running out of 'budget'. We need to quickly replace FF with renewables, so build a few tens-of-thousand sq mile of sunny places with solar, connect it to the developed world's power grid as well as using it for hydrogen/ammonia production. And get ready to start sucking those 'negatives' out the atmosphere and pumping them into saline aquifers which have the capacity to take ample amounts of CO2. So a plan would rough out what all that would look like in terms of costs and resources.

Arguing with deniers is required to demonstrate they are the lunatic denialists. They do still have enough influence to slow and even stop mitigation measures. In UK they are now doing just that.

It's not urgent

PollutionMonster at 15:38 PM on 25 March, 2023

I am still not really sure how urgent global warming is. I read this article

"Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director emeritus of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, told reporters that the cascading effects could lead to a world capable of supporting just one billion human beings, down from 7.5 billion today." Scientific America

World capable of supporting one billion

The reason I ask is there is a lot of causes out there as well as my own personal problems. I am trying basically triage. When I get time I try to feed several causes as well as meet my own needs.

Other noteworthy causes, pro-vaccination, anti-racism, let alone charities like the ASPCA. I haven't even managed to donate blood, I get a physical reaction sometimes. Often authors will make the case that their cause is the most urgent and dire.

Is climate change so dire that we should drop everything else? I mean on some level maybe I should just search for a better paying job and buy an electric car to replace my gasoline car. As opposed to arguing with deniers. Thank you in advance.

CO2 effect is saturated

Rob Honeycutt at 10:58 AM on 25 March, 2023

Gootmud... The "CO2 saturation" claim is a red herring used by climate deniers to try and instill doubt about the science. Don't get stuck on whether the claims are technically accurate. Fundamentally, people rejecting climate science are mostly politically or ideologically motivated and are using this topic as a cudgule to further their goals.

The "saturation" of CO2 is a nuanced element of the science that is well understood and does not change the accepted position that human emissions of CO2 are precipitously warming the earth. I was offering the animated graphic I posted to help you understand why this is the case.

You can't get around the basic fact that energy in = energy out, and when you add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere the surface must warm. Functionally, the effect is occurring up higher in the atmosphere where CO2 is not saturated. When you add more CO2, the point where that occurs rises and, again, the surface sees a corresponding warming (per my graphic).

CO2 effect is saturated

Eclectic at 02:55 AM on 25 March, 2023

Gootmud @689 ,

it would be helpful if you could state whether (or not) the English language is your mother tongue. I mention that, because some of the faulty communication here may be simply a communication problem of the meanings of words (plus or minus their translated meanings).

Example : the word "saturated" has a range of meanings in English ~ ranging from the colloquial (or even hyperbolical) through the standard formal and through to the technical and through to the scientific. When we say "this garment is saturated" it means (formally) that the garment is so wet that it cannot get wetter. But that is not the meaning of the term saturated in relation here to CO2 levels.

The (roughly) logarithmic effect of rising CO2 means that there will be no actual halt to the warming effect of rising CO2 levels. Which is why the "CO2 doublings" is the mathematical concept used in climate science.

Science-deniers sometimes use "saturation" as an argument that more CO2 cannot have a harmful effect on Earth's climate ~ sometimes they do this out of ignorance, and sometimes they do this out of bad faith & a desire to deceive others (including deceiving themselves). And I am sure that sort of misunderstanding occurs too in languages other than English.

CO2 effect is saturated

Eclectic at 16:18 PM on 24 March, 2023

Gootmud @680 ,

The explanation of "Greenhouse" by Rob Honeycutt @681 is basic and straightforward, if you stop to think it through. And yet a vast number of climate-science-deniers completely fail to understand the concept (most likely because they wish to stay in denial mode).

You are right that the eminent Dr Happer (et Wijngaarden) has re-invented the wheel, and finds that all the climate scientists are correct about the climate sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 as being (roughly) 1.2 degC for CO2 change alone, without feedbacks. Here, we definitely should trust the experts.

Strangely, most of the denizens at WattsUpWithThat blog (and similar) are giving out the impression that Happer has shown them (the denialists) to be right and all the climate scientists to be wrong. Very strange indeed. Perhaps they (the denialists) are not actually reading/understanding Happer's confirmation of previously-known climate science ~ I suspect they they are in sympathy with Happer's extremist wingnut politics (which he makes no effort to hide).

Probably they are using wishful thinking, in that they use the faulty paradigm : 'Happer is an eminent scientist and he is "one of us wingnuts" ~ and therefore the mainstream scientists must be wrong.' [~ Which does not compute.]

(B) Gootmud , I must beg you to tell more about this idea you present about a CO2 laser effect at the tropopause level. I have not heard of this before (unless it is something to do with a certain notorious Congresswoman who talks of Jewish Space Lasers ).

CO2 effect is saturated

Gootmud at 13:00 PM on 24 March, 2023

We all intuit that the more blankets you put on the bed, the warmer you'll be, so the article's argument has an intuitive appeal. It has an embedded assumption, though, that the heat transfer up the atmosphere will stay constant.

The physics is more complicated. In the dense lower atmosphere, convection matters more and will change as temperature changes. An excited CO2 molecule will lose its energy by bumping into an N2 or O2 molecule before it can radiate it away. Around the tropopause there's a laser effect, in which CO2 radiation stimulates other CO2 molecules to emit their own radiation, so more CO2 means more radiation transfer. A somewhat arduous calculation of the physics by van Wijngaarten and Happer can be found at arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf. They estimate doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 PPM would raise temperatures by 1.4C, in line with other published estimates.

In other words, the article's original statement is a strawman. Even a notorious climate denier like Will Happer agrees that there is a greenhouse effect, and more CO2 causes some warming. So what exactly is being debunked?

Moreover it's not clear what the SS authors believe to be the case instead. If 1.4C isn't the right number, what is--5.0C? Do you maintain there is no saturation effect at all, that the greenhouse response is linear, and we would see the same 5.0C going from 0 to 400 PPM, or 2000 to 2400? That would seem to be implied by the article's physical argument.

Climate Science Denial Explained

Eclectic at 23:02 PM on 20 March, 2023

MA Rodger @21 ,

Yes, as I was addressing Foster @11 and @17 , it seemed reasonable to throw in mention of those two scientists who are "icons" of the science-denier crowd at WUWT .

As you know full well, Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer are almost the only climate scientists having enough genuine track record in the field, as to qualify for worshipful attitude from the denialists. (In their desperation to find a respectable scientist who is "on our side" . . . the denialists are reduced to a choice of slim-to-none , compared with the many hundreds of mainstream climate scientists ~ or many thousands, depending on how defined.)

Dr Spencer's tendency is ( I gather secondhand from a Potholer54 video ) to take a religious fundamentalist viewpoint ~ to the effect that "all will be well with the Earth, thanks to divine protection". And Potholer54 relates how - over many years - Spencer has had to repeatedly backpedal from his climate assertions, as the contrary evidence keeps proving him wrong. Even so, at times Spencer gets a bit of flak from denizens at WUWT , because he is not quite politically-correct enough to deny Greenhouse Effect etc.

Both Lindzen and Spencer demonstrate how some well-informed & intelligent men can get it so very wrong, owing to a pigheaded "motivated reasoning" directed by the emotional part of their brain.

Climate Science Denial Explained

MA Rodger at 21:54 PM on 20 March, 2023

Eclectic @20,

The other denier you mention, Spencer, has been described as mixing religion with his science (eg by The Christian Science Monitor). As for him doing actual science, I remember hearing his 2010 book 'The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists' (thus implying he is not himself a 'top climate scientist') was published with the expectation that the paper presenting the scientific work underlying that grand title would be refused publication. However it was published but, I heard, it has been shown to exaggerated the effect he was proposing, an effect which does exist but as a very minor effect.

Climate Science Denial Explained

MA Rodger at 18:20 PM on 20 March, 2023

eclectic @18,

I don't see Lindzen's opposition to the science as being motivated by religion. I see it as a scientist of some repute who lost the conclusive scientific debate over AGW in the 1980s but refused to admit defeat. While such stubbornness is not to be condemed (skepticism being a big part of the scientific process), Lindzen 'crosses the line' and sets out unscientific messages. I still remember his rather ludicrous contribution to the 1990 film 'The Greenhouse Conspiracy' (YouTube) which actually convinced me of the opposite view that AGW was real and likely a big problem being politically kicked into the long grass. (The 'crossing of the line' into non-science is not a wholly climate denier thing but they do seem to spend much more time doing it.)

Through the years, Lindzen did (indeed still does - see Lindzen & Choi 2022) continue work attempting to show that climate sensitivity is low and AGW not a problem for humanity, most famously his 'Iris Effect' which turns out to be a real effect but one having the opposite impact and one threatening significant increased warming.

Climate Science Denial Explained

Foster at 10:03 AM on 20 March, 2023

Thank you all for summing up and explaining why that recent blog on WUWT post by Anthony Watts is just again, more misinfomration. I'm no climate scientists but I often come here to learn more, research and hear from you all as I'm well aware climate change is a major problem and love to hear thoughts as to how we can all help combat it. A higher

I feel like something needs to be done to stop denier sites and the spreading of misinformation as it relates to climate change. Thank you all again! I enjoy reading the comments and articles here and continue to be an active member here.

The Big Picture

Eclectic at 17:51 PM on 19 March, 2023

Gootmud @106 , I've no argument against vitamin D, in moderation.

But when you apply common sense to the situation, it is evident that the "thousand other effects" must be so exquisitely balanced against each other as to be in toto largely insignificant in comparison to the well-known Usual Suspects [insolation, albedo, aerosols, and of course the biggies of the Greenhouse gasses group].

As a follower of (but not disciple of) the vague hand-wavey arguments put forward by Dr Curry, that forces unknown to human science are steering our planet's climate . . . I must say that Dr Curry is a disappointment, for she has provided no worthwhile evidence to back her statements.

I will say two points in Dr Curry's favor :-

(A) She has not actually mentioned Martians in her testimony to Congressional Committees ;

(B) She is not a science-denier of the Greenhouse Effect.

The Big Picture

Rob Honeycutt at 01:33 AM on 17 March, 2023

Peppers @17, paragraph 3...

Likewise, lately I've been trying to drink more water on a daily basis to stay better hydraded. It's working very well. I feel much more healthy for it.

That doesn't mean I can breathe underwater and start living like a fish.

Yours is a climate denier canard from long past that's been debunked a million times over. No one is claiming that humanity hasn't benefitted from the use of fossil fuels. Those fossil fuels have provided a cheap access to energy. It's the access to energy that has benefitted humanity in so many ways. That energy can—and increasingly is—being supplied through cleaner/cheaper methods with renewable energy sources.

This classic argument is the same as complaining about the advent of automobiles since horses have done so much for us over the course of human history.

It's not urgent

PollutionMonster at 14:13 PM on 8 March, 2023

Hi, I just read the book No One Is Too Small to Make a Difference by Greta Thunberg. Wow, what an emotional rollercoaster. I've played the Cranky Uncle game for hours, taken the edx101 course, surfed the skeptical science website, and argued with deniers.

Book no one is too small Greta Thunberg

Yet, only in 2022 have I heard about net zero emissions. Even then, I thought it was by the year 2050. Greta Thunberg makes the case that global climate change is an existential urgent crisis. That we need net zero by 2030. Is this really true?

As a millennial I feel a lot of the same emotions that the older generations are out of touch when I say I cannot get a job or having trouble with the basics like a roof over my head, running water, heat in winter. I find I get scolded by the older generations and they offer out of touch simplistic solutions blaming the victim or even calling me a liar.

Did I get distracted by the pandemic, George Floyd's murder, and possible nuclear war between Russia and Ukraine? With all my climate activist since 2016 did I really miss that we only have a 50% chance to avoid a climate catastrophe of runaway greenhouse effect if we go for a 2 degree Celsius increase by 2050 or whatever Thungberg said in her book?

How urgent is climate change? Thank you in advance. :)

CO2 limits will hurt the poor

PollutionMonster at 17:10 PM on 1 March, 2023

I agree about the mode two. I am guilty of not being able to change my mind in the heat of battle. Even 48 hours cooldown can help a lot.

I am having trouble in online debate with that I go out of my way to be respectful and the other person does the opposite. Oddly, I've found I can learn from a denier. Sounds silly, but I get my facts mixed up and sometimes just having someone, anyone to talk to even a troll can help. That forming an argument helps me synthesize and process data into information, as opposed to just passive reading or watching videos.

As for values, I think some may be genetic. Others is circumstances. For example, I have lived around lower class my entire life. Sometimes below the poverty line, other times barely middle class. Therefore, the economics of climate change interest me more.

If someone was to say sea level to rise 1 meter over the next century that isn't going to affect me much. While I do care about other people, if I am locked into short term thinking, how do I pay to get gas and my car fixed so I don't lose my job? The long term effects of climate change are lost on me.

In brief, I care most about how climate change affects me in the past and present, then how it effects me in the future. So part of the reason I struggle so much is that there is 20% more heavy rain in my area. The last thing my location needs is more rain.

Another example of values, is people might value the free market economy based upon how they were taught and life experiences. A student exposed to the dangers of monopolies will have less value in a free market than those exposed to the horrors of Communism versus a control group.

CO2 limits will hurt the poor

scaddenp at 08:37 AM on 1 March, 2023

Nope, never heard of him. But I would iterate that most people do not change their minds, especially if position tied to values. Unless you have ongoing discussion with mutual respect, then I think you are wasting your time. However, on public forums, there is a bystander audience and reasonable to assume that they will not all be vested. Pushing the facts won't convince a denier, but challenging misinformation can help prevent it spreading.

Email for discussion with friends has plus and minuses. The plus is time to think about what and how you say things. Everything else is minus. Remember that changing a friends mind is not as important as maintaining friendship. Also that in active discussions, mode-2 responses are what you will both be using and no one is likely to back down in the heat of battle. Some days or weeks or months later however, the nagging doubts might prompt a re-examination of beliefs. That is why ongoing respectful contact is important.

Oh never even try to change a persons value system. Some evidence I think that it is baked in at genetic level.

CO2 limits will hurt the poor

PollutionMonster at 07:40 AM on 1 March, 2023

scaddenp @80

Thank you for the informative post. This sounds a lot like street epistmology. Have you ever heard of Anthony Magnabosco? I've tried your techinque with friends over email didn't work too well. Either feast or famine. Would go silent or flood me with way too much words.

I tried with some deniers and some replied to my questions "if your too stupid to figure it out yourself I am not gonna tell you." I did seem to have success with strangers that believed in Qanon using street epistmology.

CO2 limits will hurt the poor

scaddenp at 18:33 PM on 28 February, 2023

Well Skepsci- this site - puts its mission statement at the top "Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation".

But in terms of discussion, I dont think we would have changed the mind of a single hardened denier. It more about provide protection from misinformation and informing those who haven't taken a ideological position. I think bystanders quickly see who has the facts in discussions here.

In relationships, when someone comes up with a statement about something that you are pretty sure is wrong, then the appropriate response is "That's interesting, why do you believe that?". Ie what has informed your prior. And a zillion non-confrontational followup questions to understand it. If it is a value-based belief, then directly going to countering facts is probably going to antagonize. You have to think first about what line of retreat they might have that doesnt run counter to their values. And that needs a lot of active listening from you to understand where they are coming from first. I think you can see why that doesnt really work in blog conversations and why relationship is important.

Of course, all of us have false beliefs I think. When challenged yourself about something, taking a moment to think about your own lines of retreat can help in not falling into Mode-2 thinking.

CO2 limits will hurt the poor

PollutionMonster at 16:10 PM on 27 February, 2023

"The main point is that the land loss will include a great amount of fertile farming land, including the particularly productive river delta regions."

"And gradual worsening & lengthening of heat waves in India and the Middle East and Central Africa." Eclectic

Do you have a source for that? I wish to improve my arguments and I don't think linking to say BBC is the best choice. The part about losing fertile soil worries me because people still die of starvation in the world.

Mostly the deniers use the myth of climate change is overblown and climate change solutions are super expensive. Which to be fair, I was reading that some solutions are infeasible Weekly Roundup.

The denizens are mostly atheists, so that is some common ground we have that lets me tailor the message. I could also use some advice for keeping it all organized. I hate it when I loose track of a really good source or argument.

CO2 limits will hurt the poor

Eclectic at 15:15 PM on 27 February, 2023

Good luck with that, PollutionMonster, if you wish to be a David fighting a Goliath of website denizens there. The Daily Mail , eh [insert supercilious emoji here] . Endless hours of free entertainment for you, in battling a bunch of bigots. Though I hope you won't cross swords with them more than a few times per week (you do not wish to justify any label of troll . . . even where they deserve being trolled). And after all, you have a life to live in less toxic circumstances ~ and you may be able to do more good elsewhere.

"CO2 limits will hurt the poor" is just one of the grossly hypocritical excuses put forward by climate deniers. What is behind all these Denier arguments? Near as I can tell, the underlying personality flaws boil down to Selfishness 75% plus Anger 25% . . . or maybe closer to 50 / 50 .

CO2 limits will hurt the poor

PollutionMonster at 14:09 PM on 27 February, 2023

Eclectic @73

Thanks that helps a lot. I sometimes have doubts when a lot of deniers yell at me at the same time. I think its best for me to pick my battles and choose a different community to talk to.

I am finding very very little common ground. They refuse to use sources, which makes it difficult to understand where they are coming from. Of course there is endless accusations of me being a idelogue.

Other uninvited deniers join in and call me a troll for using sources and accuse me of gish gallop when I link to skepticalscience. Of the group their two favorite sources tend to be Daily Telegraph and dailymail. Though the group consensus is generally sources are bad.

CO2 limits will hurt the poor

Eclectic at 06:22 AM on 27 February, 2023

PollutionMonster @72 ,

Regarding Kulp & Strauss (2019) the figure "per satellite measurement" indicated that 230 million people would need to move, i.e. would lose their land, as the sea level rose 1 meter. Yes, that might well take around 100 years (and the figure might well have grown to more than 230 million by then). The main point is that the land loss will include a great amount of fertile farming land, including the particularly productive river delta regions. But I am sure your Denier friend has no concern about loss of food production in a world of increasing population. Nor will he admit to concern about impoverished refugees coming to a location near him ~ or concern about their wellbeing.

Yes, in the big picture, it all happens slowly. I must admit to a certain liking for your Denier friend. He seems a man without compassion. The world needs more of that sort of person !

CO2 limits will hurt the poor

PollutionMonster at 05:07 AM on 27 February, 2023

Eclectic @70

I read your entire post, thank you for the response. :) I feel like I can have a conversation with you on how to best prebunk and debunk climate change deniers. One problem I have is that some websites are so full of snark and dog piling that I am afraid to have a conversation with other climate change activists. That people are trying to look cool and who can get the best insult off, rather than attempt to become better prebunkers.

According to Greta Thunberg politics have become very very toxic.

GretaThungberg NPR

One dilemma I have with such a strategy is the person practicing denial lures me into the <i>"snake pit."</i> For example if I say the ocean is acidifying, they insist the statement is vague and therefore useless, demanding I say exactly how fast, how much, and what damage. Ditto, with iceberg shrinking, sea level rise, and refugees.

Next, if I commit to exact numbers, we enter the snake pit. The cranky uncle comes up with different numbers and shows the flaws of my numbers they call me a compulsive liar and are usually able to swing the audience. I'm suprised how often the onlookers side with denial.

I am not the most scientifically literate, nor the most intelligent. I often have to admit humility that the denier is simply smarter and more knowledgeable. That they can pull the conversation to the battleground they are most effective at.

For example when I linked to the Kulp Strauss 2019 article they just dismissed as irrelevant that the sea levels will rise slowly and people will migrate as they always do. Thank you again for the informative civil conversation. :)

CO2 limits will hurt the poor

Eclectic at 22:45 PM on 26 February, 2023

PollutionMonster @70 ,

Please do not go down into the "snake pit". There is no point arguing in areas where you are not clearly the victor. Whether it is 5 million per year dying of heatwaves versus 2 million dying of cold ~ or vice versa . . . really does not matter, because Deniers will dispute you with all sorts of rubbery figures (faux or real) and their own rubbery definitions of what's what. You cannot clearly win, in the eyes of onlookers (and they will see you as argumentative & unconvincing . . . and losing credibility).

The people who spout "freedom / totalitarian control" and suchlike ~ they are a lost cause. They cannot (and do not wish to) think logically. They are into Conspiracies ~ the Mr Soros; the Rothschilds (and their space lasers) ; other Billionaire Communists; the Deep State; the "Q" ; the Lizard people ; etcetera.

Keep it simple. Point to AGW leading to ice-melting and sea-level rise with consequent migrations of millions of refugees. And gradual worsening & lengthening of heat waves in India and the Middle East and Central Africa. More refugees, more poverty, and still more refugees.

Then the real question for discussion becomes : what should we actually do to reduce & prevent those future problems? Sit on our hands for the next 20 years? Or advance gradually (or quickly) toward nett zero carbon emissions (maybe by 2050 or 2060 or 2070?). Argue for the big picture, not the small stuff.

It is the same with friends who are "un-engaged" ~ just make an occasional brief reference to what we actually need to do. (You don't want them to think of you as That Guy who is a boring one-trick pony.)

CO2 limits will hurt the poor

PollutionMonster at 05:51 AM on 26 February, 2023

BaerbelW @68

I am checking out the link you posted. Specifically the one page Flyer.

One page flier

I find the part about the part about ask for the sources of their information to lead my friends to either avoid the subject or clam up. I've found my friends to either talk way too much and not give me a chance to talk or avoid the subject entirely. Feast or famine neither feels like a real conversation.

Right now I am more concerned about stopping myself from spreading misinformation. For example I recently got called out online for spreading misinformation and labeled a liar and a science denier when I said there was five million people dying a year from climate change. I get confused by the scientific jaragon that the lancet used the word association.

This sometimes spills over into other areas like how many people die from covid-19, or smoking and comorbidities. Seems the theme is to say yes, climate change exists, smoking causes cancer, covid-19 kills, but the damage is minimal and we should sit on our hands and do nothing.

Followed by a verbose speech about freedom and analogies to totalitarian regimes. Anyways, seems the fastest way to lose your audience and interlocutor is to accidentally spread climate change misinformation.

CO2 limits will hurt the poor

Rob Honeycutt at 10:32 AM on 23 February, 2023

PM @60... Sounds like your climate denier needs to pick a lane (pun intended) and stick to it rather than Gish galloping through all the topics they don't understand.

CO2 limits will hurt the poor

PollutionMonster at 09:45 AM on 23 February, 2023

I could use some help I got a sanctimonious belligerent trollish climate change denier [snipped] scolding me for not caring about the poor in first world countries. They won't even tell me what country they are from.

They go on and on about bicycle lanes not being used and how the working class has to pay for them. That lashing rain, what in the world is lashing rain anyways, makes it too difficult to bicycle to work?

Then, they go on and on about the expense of electric cars and solar panels. I've found the electric car and solar panel argument to be very common.

Crank uncle: Electric cars and solar panels are too expensive for the poor!

Thank you in advance. :)

It's not bad

PollutionMonster at 18:07 PM on 21 February, 2023

Rob Honeycutt @412

That's an awesome example. "I don't deny the Earth has a climate." I love it! Thank you. :)

Eclectic @413

Thanks this helps me a lot.

""Denier" is a handy short label for those who are opposed to taking action for fixing the global warming problem. They themselves dislike it, and whinge greatly about the label" Eclectic

I won't visit or even mention the name of the website you mentioned. I figure it is just giving them more ad revenue. As for the part about Africa, I call what the climate change denier is doing as concern trolling. This argument also relies heavily upon climate myth #3 it is not bad.

Sometimes the denier takes the moral grandstanding route, angry, and insulted when I implied they are a climate change denier. I usually, just apologize to be nice, but sometimes I think I apologize too much. Anti-vaxxers do this too.

Caricature of a climate argument.

me: "climate change can be prevented without pitting the enviorment versus poor people. I recommend the websites skepticalscience.com and crankyuncle."

Sample denier argument: "You are calling me a climate change denier by linking to the two links above. How dare you insult me! Calling me a climate change denier is an ad hominem and dehumanizing language. You should be ashamed of yourself. I will not stand for such harassment, abusive hate speech, I am highly offended!!!"

This moral outrage type of argument can be quite difficult to stomach. More so if they catch you off guard. Let's check my message, wait what? Let alone if I show any emotion especially anger.

me: "Wow, this is tin foil hat level of conspiracy thinking gish gallop."

Climate change denier: "Enough with the attitude! I wrote twenty pages and you dismiss my claims with a single sentence. You ignore all of my claims and make no effort. What do I get in response, snark? I find this disrespectful. Nobody listens to me. How dare you! "

Pay attention to the self-pity in the above paragraph. I can practically hear them playing a violin.

With your example of Africa the climate change denier tries to peg the skeptic as a member of the cabal, the denier as a member of the army of light, and everyone else as sheeple. That's why I think #3 its not bad is such an important myth to dispel.

The idea that proponents of climate change action are cast as the villains and deniers the heroes bothers me. Taken a step further the climate change denier sometimes resorts to abusive ad hominems and even threats. Justifying their nasty remarks and threats because in their warped sense of reality they are heroes defeating a horrific villain and saving the sheeple.

I call the tactic attack the skeptic. Sometimes I get a little scared when a denier uses violent rhetoric and graphic threats. At first I thought it was funny because it was so over the top. I though he was just poeing to be funny.

Poe's Law

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

Pretty scary because this has been going on since about May 2022, I though if I ignored him he would just go away.

But I guess that's pretty normal if you debunk climate myths long enough you are going to attract a tin foil hat Young Earth Creationist Christian zealot who really thinks God is on their side believes in Qanon and views the opposition as a satanic threat. How common is this?

In conclusion, I think #3 myth it is not bad is a pretty good place to focus because climate change deniers love to declare themselves the heroes and vilify anyone who pushes climate change action.

Simplest form:

Climate change action advocate: "We should do something about climate change."

Denier: "You monster! Groups x,y, and z will be harmed by your immoral and reckless actions. We should be completely passive and do nothing because climate change is good."

It's not bad

Eclectic at 13:43 PM on 21 February, 2023

"It's Not Bad" is quite a general topic, and covers many Denialist areas.

"Denier" is a handy short label for those who are opposed to taking action for fixing the global warming problem. They themselves dislike it, and whinge greatly about the label : but after all, a label usually doesn't matter much ~ since every reasonable person can recognize an alligator / crocodile / caiman by sight, regardless of its exact label.

No point in joining the bunfight at the famous blogsite WattsUpWithThat. WUWT is 98% echochamber, and shows the interesting range of deniers ~ extending from the studious intelligent ones who are crippled by their own motivated reasoning . . . to the crackpots who deny CO2-physics and/or deny there is any true warming occurring. And through to the paranoid political wingnuts who deny any AGW (or alternatively, claim that AGW is good for us and we should have more of it).

At WUWT there is a kaleidoscopic churning of all sorts of "reasons" why we should stay on fossil fuels and avoid renewables. #Now, during the past decade (as car lithium batteries have soared in number) WUWT has ranted about the need to increase coal usage to: "lift those poor Africans out of poverty" . . . and even more particularly: "EV batteries are causing small Congolese children to work in slave-like conditions in the cobalt mines".

The "poor Africans" argument I find remarkable, as it typically comes from American wingnuts who oppose any decent governmental help to their own American poor ~ and who themselves for the past half-century have have not lifted a finger personally to aid the African poor. And even now they still do nothing to help these children ~ and they completely fail to see that it is sheer poverty which forces African parents to send young children to the mines. Fixing the Root Cause is unthinkable.

It's not bad

Rob Honeycutt at 11:33 AM on 21 February, 2023

PM @411... Many who claim not to be a climate denier are merely stretching the definition to make that claim. As in, "I don't deny the earth has a climate." And then if you point out the absurdity of that definition and clarify they're a climate change denier, they respond with, "But I don't deny that the earth's climate changes; in fact it's always changing."

Now, I generally try to skip all the inanities and go straight to the full scientifically accepted definition that... human activities, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, are responsible for most or all of the warming of the past 50 years and best estimates show the earth will warm ~3°C per doubling of CO2 concentrations.

If they deny that, they're a climate denier. Plain and simple.

It's not bad

PollutionMonster at 11:08 AM on 21 February, 2023

Eclectic @410

Right now I am talking with a person who's position is ambiguous. The individual claims they are not a climate denier. Yet, they make many of the denier's talking points. Similar to dog whistling. My guess is they are a climate change denier, but won't admit it.

Instead, hiding behind how much the "working class" is harmed by "rip off merchants". Sample argument below:

"But I'm not a Trump supporter or a climate change denier I'm concerned about costs to the working classes you claim you are also yet you sound exactly like one of the rip off merchants who feign concern over the planet yet profit significantly from forcing people into green schemes they cannot support, you have no explanation on how it's in anyway reasonable to expect people to pay for electric cars or solar panels, you also want to punish them further by insisting they cycle long distances to work in every sort of condition." sample probably climate change denier argument

This seems like classis motte and bailey strategy to me. My advice to you is push a little further than you feel comfortable into the innermost motte by pushing climate change action. Giving no place to retreat, this advice is from the skeptics guide to the universe book by Steven Novella, MD.

I've found very few climate change deniers will straight out deny warming. Instead, hiding behind more "moderate" stances. The result is the same whether a hardcore or moderate denier, slothful climate action. Anti-vaxxers do the same, "I'm not anti-vaxx I am anti-mandate and mask".

I. Ban Gasoline leafblowers. One of my favorites to show climate change mitigation can be very small. Many people want to get rid of them anyways.

II. Transfer fossil fuel subsidies to renewable. Showing the true cost of fossil fuels.

I think you are 100% correct about persuading the onlookers. Good points on A, B, and C I will try them. C seem very interesting the part about denialists hating the idea of refugees and migrants. :)

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results