Greg Laden asks:
Why is Anthropogenic Global Warming Denialism Important?
There is a second question:
And what do we do about it?
Laden’s use of the “D” word sets the tone for his answers. So does the appalling scientific ignorance that is snapping at its heels.
Global warming is for real, and it is important.
Sonny, of course global warming is real. If it wasn’t for global warming we’d be over our heads in ice. More than a mile over our heads.
Just as important is the fact that global warming is largely anthropogenic.
Riiiiight. Global warming has absolutely nothing to do with that honking great nuclear furnace in the sky and Snowball Earth only came to an end when Man dropped from the trees and began roasting mammoths. I don’t want to name drop but the Cretacious Thermal Optimum and the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maxima, all far warmer than today’s temperatures, aren’t just something geologists and palaeo-climatologists made up for the hell of it one rainy Wednesday afternoon. Let’s also ignore the more recent warm periods such as the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm period because they had frig all to do with anthropogenic anything so let’s conveniently move along folks, nothing to see.
Global warming is important because conditions for life on the planet are changing due to warming as well as other changes caused by the release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere, in ways that will have, on balance, negative impacts;
Life on Earth is constantly changing and adapting regardless of temperature. It’s called evolution and it’s been happening for billions of years. But wait, what’s this? There’s been a release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere? We have aeriel anthracite whizzing around defying the law of gravity? Being smacked in the face by a lump of low flying nutty slack certainly would have a negative impact. A fucking painful one too. But of course, you meant carbon dioxide didn’t you Greg. The same CO2 that hit a high of around 7000 parts per million (ppm) in the Cambrian, and peaked at around 2,600 ppm in the Jurassic (which bothered the dinos and other abundant fauna and lush flora not at all) and has been in decline ever since. The very same CO2 that at 390 ppm has the archprelates of the Church of AGW getting their knickers in a twist about positive feedbacks that only exist in global climate models but not in observable and measurable nature. The very same trace gas that is currentlyt at an almost all time low and has little correlation with global temperatures which are currently cooling. Here’s a pretty graph for you to look at Greg. It was made by people called scientists who know something about Earth’s palaeoclimate. People who are not you.
That it is anthropogenic is important because this means we have identified a cause of an important negative effect and thus could potentially curtail it. The anthropogenic nature of global warming is also important for another reason: It provides a test case. Can humanity handle a problem of this magnitude, that it has created for itself, with sufficient speed to curtail the worse consequences? Or not?
What problem would this be? The imaginary one that has warmists wetting themselves and politicians salivating at the prospect of raised revenues? There is nothing unprecedented about the recent warming cycle which ended in 1998. Humanity has survived far worse climate changes including a catastrophic population decline some 70,000 or more years ago, believed to be the result of a prolonged volcanic winter caused by the eruption of the supervolcano, Mount Toba. Cold kills. Warm is good.
It has been said that global warming is a mixed bag: For some it will be bad, for others it will be good. This is a myth. Global warming is on balance bad, and it is mostly bad. Never mind the extra CO2 in the atmosphere that plants like, and which would increase agricultural productivity. Plants do not produce more tissue, fruit, grain, or what have you in direct proportion to the CO2 in the atmosphere. A little, yes, but after a small increase in productivity more CO2 does not increase productivity. The small amount of productivity is offset by the negative consequences of global warming.
Because some of the greatest civilisations in history such as the Minoans, the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans flourished in the middle of a bloody ice age. And because you appear to understand absolutely sod all about plant biology or agricultural productivity. But that doesn’t stop weapons grade bullshit tumbling from your lips, does it Greg.
It may be that the most significant impact of “global warming” will actually be not in atmospheric temperature change, but rather, in the change of ocean chemistry caused by absorption of extra CO2. If ocean chemistry changes in a way that some models predict, it will become difficult for several kinds of small marine organisms to build their shells. Many of these organisms reside at or near the base of the marine food chain. Some also serve, collectively, as one of the primary means by which atmospheric CO2 is broken down to produce atmospheric oxygen. Collectively, they are one (and an important one) of several “lungs of the, planet.” In the worse case, which may or may not happen, oxygen may become noticeably depleted in our atmosphere, and food supplies may be negativelhy affected.
You don’t say! How on earth did marine organisms, such as microscopic plankton and other shelled beasties, ever manage to survive in ancient oceans bathed in concentrations of atmospheric CO2 far higher than we have today? And not for a couple of pathetic decades but for tens of millions of years. The critters must have been made of sterner stuff, eh? By the way, it’s cool oceans that absorb CO2, not warm ones.
The situation will probably eventually resolve itself. A widespread oxygen-breathing organism causes the oxygen-producing system to fail and disrupts its own food chain. The oxygen-breathing organism then goes extinct (taking numerous other species with it). Eventually, oxygen-producing systems re-develop, food chains adjust, and something like present-day conditions return, and since the oxygen-breathing organism that caused the problem to begin with has gone extinct, things would be back to something that passes for normal for a while.
You’ve had that pile of shrivelled gnats gonads peer reviewed have you? Complete with a spliced data horse hockeystick graph to underpin your epic twaddle theory?
If you are an anthropogenic global warming denialist, you can count yourself as partly responsible for such a calamity. You probably won’t live to see the worst consequences because you are old (most AGW denialists are grumpy old men). You may want to write a letter to your grandchildren, who will suffer these consequences, explaining your role in creating their misery. Just sayin’
Calamity my arse. There is no calamity other than in the minds of the AGW faithful and in the global climate models that can’t even explain past climate changes. In the real world the greenhouse gas calamity has failed to materialise because it has been horribly exagerated. Every single AGW alarmist prediction and crackpot theory has turned out to be a dud. Greg, your apparent grasp of the various physical sciences is looser than a tart’s knicker elastic. Given your demonstrable lack of anything approaching higher function logic you’ll likely go far as a post-normal climatologist. Just sayin’.
Ooooooh lookit! Another question.
What does AGW denialism look like?
Well, what does it look like?
It looks like a lot of things.
It looks like anonymous Internet cranks shouting at other people for not being real scientists.
Yeah, the warmist CiFalitic trolls get on my tits too.
It looks like people shouting about alarmism.
It looks like faux journalists seeking a “balanced view” that gives “both sides” of “the debate.”
Yeah, who the hell needs a balanced view giving both sides of the debate when you have religious belief…
It looks like web sites pretending to be valid science-oriented resources faking data and making stuff up, and Internet trolls dropping links to those sites wherever possible to (mis)direct people to them.
Don’t be shy. Name names. I want to see what you consider to be a data faking, shonky science website. I also want to see a specimen of fake data. You know, like CRU’s HARRY_READ_ME.txt file. But then, it seems that you are not exactly averse to making stuff up. Your own shonky knowledge, ad hominems and lack of criticality hardly qualifies you to differentiate between good and bad science…
I feel another of Greg’s questions coming on…
How do we address it?
Yeah, how do we address this alarmist crap?
Call them on it, every time they open their mouths.
We do but the likes of Al Gore soil themselves and run away which leads real scientists to believe that the Climate Catastrophist groupthinkers don’t have the courage of their convictions. The catastrophists prefer to hurl ad hominems rather than answer shrewd questions about the lack of falsifiability and real evidence AGW is happening (models are not evidence and neither is cherrypicked and homogenised upwards data). And they have the bloody cheek to call us sceptics deniers…
Demand explanations for their motives (which is something to think about, by the way).
WTF have motives got to do with science? Oh, silly me. I forgot that AGW is a belief system. Alarmists have unimpeachable integrity and deniers heretics sceptics have sinister motives…
When you have friends or colleagues who seem to show leanings towards AGW denialism, show them clearly that you do not take them seriously, indicate subtly that their credibility is at stake, politely give them links to sites like Real Climate where actual climate scientists talk about actual climate science.
It’s not the credibility of your doubting “friends” that is at stake you ridiculous fly speck. Do you have a single, original critical thought in your whole body? I’ll take your stinking, immature attitude as a “hell no”. And if you are a true believer what are you doing communicating your drivel via an oil derived computer? Where do you think plastic comes from?
Do not vote for, and always vote against, politicians who are denialists.
I wish I could find a politician who is an honest to goodness climate realist. I’d vote for him like a shot. Unfortunately they all seem to be collectively insane, hell bent on a mission to extinguish every fucking electric light and all hi-tech consumer merchandise this side of civilisation.
Yes, yes, I’m suggesting that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a “litmus test” issue, because it is.
Yes, yes. And David Archibald hits the nail squarely on the head.
And the litmus test is not only a political one … it is also a test of ocean acidity, which has increased by an average of 30% with the release of fossil carbon to date, and which is expected to reach 150% by 2100, which, in turn, is probably beyond one or more thresholds of disaster.
Greg, it could be that if you are feeling the heat right now it’s because your trousers are ablaze. If you are gullible enough to believe that a trace atmospheric gas can dissolve in the oceans to create sufficient carbonic acid to lower global oceanic pH by 30% then you are a fool.
When you look upon a global warming denialist, you are not seeing a person who is deluded, wrong, misinformed, or misguided. You are seeing a person who is intent on killing your grandchildren. You may want to treat them politely, you may want to be a dick to them. Do whatever works. But don’t let them think for a second that you do not know what the consequences of their actions are. Don’t let them get away with it.
Foolishness compounded by being a thoroughly objectionable and ignorant cunt.
H/T Climate Depot