We all want to believe that Earth will remain a safe place to live. It has, in the main, provided a stable climate since man has inhabited Earth.
Yet, now, deniers do agree that the climate is changing, ten years ago that was not the case. They now pick reasons for the change in climate that scientists have already considered and found not to be the case. They deny the impact of greenhouse gases on climate. There has been talk of setting up a colony on Mars, could human exist there without any technological ways of creating an atmosphere in shelters? Clearly, the answer is a resounding no. We are able to survive on Earth as greenhouse gases allow for temperature to be moderated to allow for human, and flora and fauna survival.
1. Greenhouse gases do not have an impact on climate.
Climate science began through Fourier in the 1820s. Later, Foote and Tyndall experimented with various gases and found that CO2 retains warmth. Much more sophisticated experiments have upheld their findings since. A 1912 short article in a New Zealand paper discussed what impact coal would have on climate.
Scientists working for ExxonMobil in the 1970s, found that fossil fuels do impact on climate, as have scientists contracted by the American Petroleum Institute prior to denial becoming a thriving Industry from the late 1980s.
2. The Climate has always changed.
Here we have a statement that we all know is true. The fact is that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere change over time as a percentage of the atmosphere. CO2 takes a huge number of decades to break down. The “great dying” 252 million years ago is an example of greenhouse gases being created through coal seams being ignited. Unsurprisingly, artefacts are created through such a process. Dr Benjamin Burger acknowledges prior studies, and through breaking down samples shows chemical and mineral artefacts consistent with coal burning and the creation of greenhouse gases. Dr Burger suggests that his study provides an analog for what is beginning to happen currently.
3. Information provided by deniers is often distorted.
Dr James Hansen has been fraudulently misquoted in relation to paradigms he set out in the 1980s where two of his paradigms were very close to the mark, and the other two are the ones deniers use. Deniers often do not understand nuances climate scientists state, they cherry pick statements from Reports they believe fit their pseudo science. For example, a study might clearly establish that anthropogenic climate change is happening, yet comments from deniers use the Reports anyway. Astro-Physics being an example where this has happened.
4. Climate scientists distort temperature.
Deniers complain that temperature readings are homogenised, they would apparently prefer inaccurate records to be made. Weather stations are influenced by what is around them, if trees, asphalt, or buildings are placed; or taken away from the vicinity of a weather station, then readings change. Environments do change after more than one hundred years. The US has placed weather stations in areas where change is extremely unlikely to happen as datum points so menaces such as Anthony Watts from WUWT are silenced.
They have found their homogenisation of temperature readings have been accurate. No longer do deniers use 1997 as a datum point for their arguments, they would be laughed at if they did. Temperature has increased since the El Nino year of 1997, even in years since when El Nino was not a factor.
5. Climate scientists make a fortune.
Climate scientists do seek funds to allow for research; as do other scientists in a myriad of other disciplines. However, their salaries are what can be expected in any Professional position. The message is put out to shift the focus off the Fossil Fuel Corporations making huge profits at the expense of a liveable environment.
Any commentary provided by deniers needs to be checked against what science says. I would hope that anybody reading these comments checks what I have written against science, not blogs.
Comments such as … “Indeed, the AGW theory posing as ‘settled science’ in in fact the greatest science fraud in human history.” It is just a meaningless comment that offers no evidence, and is quite infuriating. It is a form of comment often provided by anthropogenic climate change deniers.
Each point made has lots of further details, but I’m trying to be brief.
- Deniers argue climate science is just modelling.
Tell that to divers in Antarctica, or scientists tramping up and down glaciers, or scientists working in other inhospitable places gathering data. Modelling has been used in the past to provide an idea of what is happening. The grids used were quite large two hundred kilometres square, now they can be as small as ten square kilometers. A few years ago quite a number of Glaciologists were complaining about modelling not keeping up with the pace of decline in snow and ice regions. Erosion of coastlines, river banks or valleys requires observation and measurement, nothing to do with modelling. Noting how fish species are moving North or South from their habits depending on which hemisphere they are in, requires observation.
Deniers like to promote problems with temperature measurement; but, when the artefacts of temperature are pointed out, they claim that is out of order. Examples of artefacts … thawing of permafrost; where greening of tundra areas is taking place, lakes and ponds forming, marshes are forming, infra-structure is breaking down, and glaciers disappearing.
- Anthropogenic climate change is not happening.
Often the response is just, it is not happening without any kind of evidence provided. It’s a case of knowing better than the millions of scientists over the years who have come to the conclusion that humans do have an effect on climate. Sometimes it is expressed as humans do have a little effect on climate, though not enough to do much damage. The point particularly came to mind after watching a BBC interview with Myron Ebell a strong Trump supporter. He had no better response than in his view climate scientists are wrong.
Science is not based on opinion, it is based on hypotheses being shown to be correct through observations and data collected.
- Satellite data shows that temperatures are not increasing to any large extent.
New data in relation to warming of Oceans almost makes temperature readings from land based weather stations and satellites superfluous. Oceans comprise 70% of the Earth’s surface, and they act as a sink for CO2 and temperature. Satellites do not actually measure temperature; they provide inferred data which then needs to go through a modelling process. Remember, denialists do not like modelling. There is controversy in relation to the accuracy of satellite inferred temperature relating to the process the data needs to be processed by. There has been controversy for many years in relation to the processing of inferred temperature. The other factor is that as satellites age they move out of their orbits causing difficulty in accurately interpreting their inferred temperature.
- There is no consensus between climate scientists in relation to anthropogenic climate change.
The comment seems mainly directed at John Cook, he began the successful Skeptical Science web site years ago which provides a thorn in denier arguments. The consensus view was first spoken about by Naomi Orestes, it was an observation she made without any objective proof. The consensus view created much attention and several studies were completed to verify the opinion including one by Naomi Orestes. The studies varied from 91% to greater than 97%; the studies assessed were from recognised peer reviewed climate science journals. Consensus studies: Orestes 2004, 100%; Doran 2009, 97%; Andregg 2010, 97%; Cook 2013, 97%; Verheggan 2014, 91%; Stenhouse 2014, 93% and Carlton 2015, 97%. From Skeptical Science
- Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas.
As with the claim that the climate has always changed it is a true observation.
But, water vapour doesn’t just happen without a particular processes occurring. There is the normal water cycle operating with the add-on of warm marine waters and warm atmosphere. The warm atmosphere is created by extra greenhouse gas emissions which then allow for extra water vapour to be carried. Warming waters allow for more evaporation to take place. Water vapour once created is a powerful greenhouse gas, and a positive feedback system is developed. Wet micro bursts, jargon for “rain bombs” in the past were quite rare, and occurred for a short time frame; now, they are very common and can last for long periods; for example, Hurricane Harvey 2017.
Keith Antonysen has been researching climate science since the 1980s, at that time predictions were being promoted that would happen in the future. We are now beginning to witness the predictions forecaste in the past coming true. Denier Agencies have been very successful in promoting pseudo science for many years; it is very clear that many decision makers are fooled by the pseudo science promoted; or, have been bought through large donations. Keith Antonysen believes we must fight against the greed shown by Fossil Fuel Corporations and self serving Politicians for the sake of up coming generations.