They missed Bastardi's wager in 2011 that temps would fall 0.1-0.2C over the next decade. Still a few years I guess but looking unlikely at this point.
Several different beliefs can cause someone to be called a "climate denier".
1. The world is not warming. 2. The warming is not caused by man's activity (or not primarily caused by man's activity) 3. The warming is slower than the IPCC believes 4. The warming is not a catastrophic problem. (or, the warming has done more good than harm) 5. The warming models are unreliable. 7. The IPCC and some "climate catatrophists" are biased and unreliable 8. International meetings like Kyoto and Paris are not a useful way to deal with climate change.
The actual climate result shows that the Type 1 deniers are wrong. It says nothing about Type 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8.
I think the only criteria required to be called a "climate denier" is denial of the science. Acceptance of the science often leads to the label of "climate alarmist". I think folks on this board do a pretty good job of avoiding either label.
It should be clear that folks who predicted cooling in the face of rising CO2 (all else being equal) were at least deeply, if not willfully, misinformed. The failure of those predictions is not surprising to those familiar with the science. DiC, I suspect even you would have bet against them.
The use of "deniers" in the title of the Guardian article is dismissive, but probably the folks touting "global cooling" at this point are worth dismissing.
Layzej - I cannot understand why anyone doubted that the world would warm. The world had been warming ever since the end of the Little Ice Age. And, CO2 is known to cause warming.
Temps now appear to be much warmer than the medieval warm period , solar output has been dropping since the 80's with the most recent solar cycle the weakest in over a century (and probably much longer). If someone was ignorant of the greenhouse effect it would be easy to understand why they might predict cooling. But there's no reason these folks should be ignorant.
"I cannot understand why anyone doubted that the world would warm. The world had been warming ever since the end of the Little Ice Age"
I cannot understand why some people are so ignorant in physics to believe that because it's warming, it is going to continue to warm, because it's been warming, without considering why.
"And, CO2 is known to cause warming."
Be aware you are saying something that a group of people outright deny, or strongly minimize.
9 comments:
They missed Bastardi's wager in 2011 that temps would fall 0.1-0.2C over the next decade. Still a few years I guess but looking unlikely at this point.
Several different beliefs can cause someone to be called a "climate denier".
1. The world is not warming.
2. The warming is not caused by man's activity (or not primarily caused by man's activity)
3. The warming is slower than the IPCC believes
4. The warming is not a catastrophic problem. (or, the warming has done more good than harm)
5. The warming models are unreliable.
7. The IPCC and some "climate catatrophists" are biased and unreliable
8. International meetings like Kyoto and Paris are not a useful way to deal with climate change.
The actual climate result shows that the Type 1 deniers are wrong. It says nothing about Type 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8.
Cheers
David in Cal.
Keep spinning, it's all you are good at.
I think the only criteria required to be called a "climate denier" is denial of the science. Acceptance of the science often leads to the label of "climate alarmist". I think folks on this board do a pretty good job of avoiding either label.
It should be clear that folks who predicted cooling in the face of rising CO2 (all else being equal) were at least deeply, if not willfully, misinformed. The failure of those predictions is not surprising to those familiar with the science. DiC, I suspect even you would have bet against them.
The use of "deniers" in the title of the Guardian article is dismissive, but probably the folks touting "global cooling" at this point are worth dismissing.
Layzej - I cannot understand why anyone doubted that the world would warm. The world had been warming ever since the end of the Little Ice Age. And, CO2 is known to cause warming.
cheers
Temps now appear to be much warmer than the medieval warm period , solar output has been dropping since the 80's with the most recent solar cycle the weakest in over a century (and probably much longer). If someone was ignorant of the greenhouse effect it would be easy to understand why they might predict cooling. But there's no reason these folks should be ignorant.
"I cannot understand why anyone doubted that the world would warm. The world had been warming ever since the end of the Little Ice Age"
I cannot understand why some people are so ignorant in physics to believe that because it's warming, it is going to continue to warm, because it's been warming, without considering why.
"And, CO2 is known to cause warming."
Be aware you are saying something that a group of people outright deny, or strongly minimize.
David: Why did the world warm after the LIA?
David - I don't know why the world warmed after the LIA.
Post a Comment