Hooray! Another Article Explaining How To Convince Your Friends Of “Climate Change”

Warmists have been nagging people for decades about the current warm period and how it’s all Mankind’s fault. Before then, it was on cooling. Then warming. Then cooling. They blamed witches before then. Anyhow, they current set have been agitating and whining and spreading awareness since the 80’s, and are still doing it. This time, the Washington Post trots out some propaganda in the health-science section. This should be in the opinion section

How to convince your friends to believe in climate change. It’s not as hard as you think.

Environmental­ists have a reputation for being self-righteous and a little naggy, which makes them ripe for parody. (Seen “Portlandia”?) The perception that the eco-conscious are trying to take the fun out of life, however, is unfair. It also has some unfortunate consequences: It drives people away. Nagging breeds defiance.

Yes, it does. So, let’s nag some more

Socially negotiated silences grow up around issues that we simply can’t agree on. But we have to find a way around this stalemate, because the consequences are monumental. Marshall recommends tweaking your language slightly to make yourself sound less judgmental.

“Speak openly of your personal ownership of your convictions,” he notes. “Say, ‘This is what’s important to me, and this is why.’

And I’m going to ask “if it’s important, what changes have you made in your life?”

Don’t get caught up in the scientific discussion. You’re not a scientist, and evidence doesn’t persuade people who reject climate change. What carries power is your personal conviction as a friend, colleague or neighbor.”

Sounds rather judgmental, especially coming from people who reject Earth’s natural processes as explanations for climatic changes.

Say that you, too, were once reluctant to accept the idea of climate change.

So, lie.

Now you’ll need a compelling argument to explain why you came around. As Marshall notes, communications research shows that “because scientists say so” is a loser.

Don’t expect Warmists to give it up. The science doesn’t back them up, so they have to go with “consensus”.

The writer goes on to describe some talking points, which are pretty much the same talking points they’ve been using for decades. Here’s a fun one

Illness terrifies people of all stripes, so it sometimes helps to emphasize the links between climate change and disease.

Yeah, remember when that Black Plague spread as the climate turned cool and wet? It’s no wonder fewer and fewer people either do not believe in anthropogenic climate change or just don’t care. Warmists are nuts and naggy. And hypocrites.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

45 Responses to “Hooray! Another Article Explaining How To Convince Your Friends Of “Climate Change””

  1. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    OMG, that is too funny.

  2. Jeffery says:

    “Sounds rather judgmental, especially coming from people who reject Earth’s natural processes as explanations for climatic changes.”

    Climate realists do not reject Earth’s natural processes but are waiting for evidence to suggest that natural processes are causing the current warming.

    “Don’t expect Warmists to give it up. The science doesn’t back them up, so they have to go with “consensus”.”

    The science does back the theory of AGW but you choose to ignore the data, as the article pointed out, hence their idea about not arguing science with science deniers. There is no evidence or data persuasive enough to get a denier to see the truth.

    The article was not directed at hard-core deniers like the Pirate and his minions.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Climate realists do not reject Earth’s natural processes but are waiting for evidence to suggest that natural processes are causing the current warming.

    In other words, people like Jeffery believe that throughout time the earth warmed and cooled but that naturally occurring cycle has stopped totally.

    What science do you have that supports that contention, Jeffery? What scientific data supports the idea that the earth no longer cools or warms as part of a natural cycle?

    The interesting thing is that the article says “don’t rely on science, but instead, rely on the depth of your convictions.”

    In other words, truth and science doesn’t matter to the AGW crowd. In fact, even displaying the depth of their convictions doesn’t matter because as Teach keeps pointing out, they refuse to act on that which they claim they believe.

    “Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct.”
    ― Thomas Carlyle

  4. jl says:

    J-“But are waiting for evidence to suggest that natural processes are causing the current warming.” Continuing the theme from the post above: “Waiting”? Really? How about 4 billion years worth of “natural processes” that warmed and cooled the earth before man arrived. Sorry, Jeffery, but it’s up to you and your cult to prove that it isn’t natural processes, not the other way around. Look at it this way- we have 4 billion years, you have several decades. Do the math.

  5. Jeffery says:

    What are the natural processes that are causing the Earth to warm now?

  6. gitarcarver says:

    What are the natural processes that are causing the Earth to warm now?

    Do you accept the premise that natural processes warmed and cooled the earth in the past?

    If not, what processes caused the earth to warm and cool?

  7. Weds. morning links

    Hoffman’s Heroin Points to Surge in Grim Trade P.J. O’Rourke talks Baby Boom, Gen Y, & what (maybe) lies ahead Bad hair, 1970s About a book:  The Perv in Us All An interesting admission of error by J. K. Rowling Real men know how to s

  8. Jeffery says:

    Of course the Earth’s climate warmed and cooled in the past by natural processes. Those same natural processes are at work today – solar cycles, Earth orbit cycles – but the most likely reason for the current period of rapid warming is the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere during the past century or so.

    So, what are the natural processes causing the Earth to warm rapidly now?

  9. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Please answer my question about CO2 in the oceans, your “paper” didn’t cut the mustard.

  10. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    Wow, J is a broken record. Literally. He claims that man-made CO2 is the reason for our warming pattern that occurred from 1978-1990s. He claims this because at the time, total CO2 was also increasing. It is assumed therefore that the reason CO2 rose is because of man and his industry. Therefore, according to his cult’s reasoning, man is causing the warming.

    Yet, this fallacy is ignoring the evidence that points to the theory being false.
    1) CO2 always has followed temperature, both up and down.
    2) CO2 rose and fell before man’s industrial revolution, it will continue to do so.
    3) CO2 rose during other recent periods yet temperature either did not rise or in fact fell.
    4) CO2 is continuing to rise during this period, yet our warming has not risen for nearly 20 years.
    5) The warming that occurred during the 70’s to 90’s is in no way different than the warming that occurred during the 30’s or any other uptick in warming.
    6) There has been no warming for nearly 20 years.
    7) If so-called climate scientists can’t explain the climate, then how can they claim that man is responsible for earth’s climate?
    8) If so-called climate scientists can not explain the previous rise and falls of temperature, nor the previous rise and falls of CO2, then they are incapable of explaining today’s rise and falls of temperature and CO2.

    If you don’t know anything, you look even more stupid pointing fingers trying afix blame.

  11. Zachriel says:

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: 1) CO2 always has followed temperature, both up and down.

    Much of the lag may be an observational artifact. Parrenin et al., Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming, Science 2013.

    In any case, atmospheric CO2 is both cause and effect. If the temperature increases, the oceans tend to absorb less CO2, a positive feedback.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: 2) CO2 rose and fell before man’s industrial revolution, it will continue to do so.

    You are correct that atmospheric CO2 has changed over Earth’s history, however, atmospheric CO2 content is likely at its highest in the last 20 million years.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: 3) CO2 rose during other recent periods yet temperature either did not rise or in fact fell.

    CO2 is not the only influence on climate.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: 4) CO2 is continuing to rise during this period, yet our warming has not risen for nearly 20 years.

    The Earth continues to warm, primarily the oceans, which account for the vast majority of Earth’s heat capacity.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: 5) The warming that occurred during the 70′s to 90′s is in no way different than the warming that occurred during the 30′s or any other uptick in warming.

    The cause is posited to be different.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: 6) There has been no warming for nearly 20 years.

    You already said that. The Earth continues to warm, primarily the oceans, which account for the vast majority of Earth’s heat capacity.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: 7) If so-called climate scientists can’t explain the climate, then how can they claim that man is responsible for earth’s climate?

    While there is still a lot unknown, that is not to say that nothing is known.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: 8) If so-called climate scientists can not explain the previous rise and falls of temperature, nor the previous rise and falls of CO2, then they are incapable of explaining today’s rise and falls of temperature and CO2.

    You already said that. While there is still a lot unknown, that is not to say that nothing is known.

  12. Zachriel says:

    david7134: Please answer my question about CO2 in the oceans, your “paper” didn’t cut the mustard.

    Curious. What was the question?

  13. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: The science doesn’t back them up, so they have to go with “consensus”.

    There is significant scientific support for anthropogenic climate change.

  14. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: What scientific data supports the idea that the earth no longer cools or warms as part of a natural cycle?

    The basic physics of greenhouse warming.

  15. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    Thought you had gone for good Z. you are too funny. Glad to have your humor and lunacy back to show why true science always wins.

    Warming oceans is cause for no atmospheric warming? So, the heat bypasses the entire atmosphere of water vapor and (according to CAGW, the CO2 as well) and yet warms up only the deep oceans?

    Despite millions of years of nature doing what it wants, it now doesn’t? And now since man is aware, it now must be man’s own actions that control climate?

    The Earth continues to warm, primarily the oceans

    you already said that, despite it not being true. Just because you can’t prove it, does not make it true. In science, you must first prove your theory. Sure, you can make a hypothesis, but a hypothesis is not a theory. Especially if evidence contradicts you.

    CO2 is not the only influence on climate.

    According to your spokesperson J it is. According to many people of CAGW cult, it is. And yet, you saying that Z you still have stated that it is only man’s CO2 that is causing the world to have warmed.

  16. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    Comment by Zachriel 2014-02-05 11:23:26

    gitarcarver: What scientific data supports the idea that the earth no longer cools or warms as part of a natural cycle?

    The basic physics of greenhouse warming.

    So, the greenhouse effect is only a product of man’s CO2? is that what you are saying?

  17. Trimegistus says:

    “Hypocrites” is the wrong term.

    They are liars. Conscious, deliberate, God-damned liars, every last one of them.

  18. gitarcarver says:

    The basic physics of greenhouse warming.

    Well gee thanks Zach, I guess you believe (as does Jeffery) that “basic physics” started within the last 100 years or so?

    After all, the earth never warmed or cooled before that time, did it?

  19. Zachriel says:

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: Warming oceans is cause for no atmospheric warming?

    ENSO is one of the natural cycles that affects internal variability. During La Niña periods, cold water upwells in the eastern Pacific. This results in a warming of the ocean waters, and a cooling of the atmosphere. This process reverses during El Niño phases.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: you already said that, despite it not being true.

    The heat content of the oceans continues to increase.
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png

    Zachriel: CO2 is not the only influence on climate.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: According to your spokesperson J it is.

    Jeff isn’t our spokesperson. In any case, he said “Of course the Earth’s climate warmed and cooled in the past by natural processes.” You have misrepresented his position.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: So, the greenhouse effect is only a product of man’s CO2?

    No. However, an increase in CO2 leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect. The current increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human activities.

  20. Jl says:

    J-“What are the natural processes causing the earth to warm now?” The same natural processes that have warmed and cooled it for the last 4 billion years. Besides that, it’s stopped warming. The “heat is hiding in the cleans” ploy has only come about to explain away the recent lack of warming. There are several other desperate “explanations”.

  21. Zachriel says:

    Jl: The same natural processes that have warmed and cooled it for the last 4 billion years.

    The Earth can only gain or lose energy radiatively. Please be specific.

  22. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: After all, the earth never warmed or cooled before that time, did it?

    Of course it did. Indeed, historical climate change is important for understanding the climate system, including determining climate sensitivity.

  23. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    First Z states:

    The Earth can only gain or lose energy radiatively. Please be specific.

    and then states:

    gitarcarver: After all, the earth never warmed or cooled before that time, did it?

    Of course it did. Indeed, historical climate change is important for understanding the climate system

    which is completely contradictory.
    First, he claims that there was no climate change before man because only external forcings can cause a gain or loss of heating – thus there was none. Then he states that climate did indeed change on its own.

    The current increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human activities.

    oh really? So, the 3% man contributes is responsible for 100% of the CO2 since ….. since 1900? Since 1800? Since 1700? When did man start to become responsible for the growth of CO2?

    You have misrepresented his (J’s) position.

    No I have not. You just haven’t been paying attention. But since you’ve just said the same thing, then you too have no leg to stand on.

    And I can show you the SSTs
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20SST%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
    which show no warming. And, CAGWers still have not explained how warming can bypass the whole of the atmosphere, bypass the surface of the ocean where MOST of the heat is converted in to energy due to evaporation, and only warm the deep oceans.

    Also, your graph is a bit misleading as it is measured in joules. a massive change in joules in a body of water the size of EARTH is not noticeable.

  24. Zachriel says:

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: which is completely contradictory

    Of course it’s not. Causes of historical changes in global mean temperature have been due to changes in solar irradiance, orbital changes, natural changes in atmospheric content, volcanism, continental drift, changes in albedo, even the occasional cosmic impact.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: So, the 3% man contributes is responsible for 100% of the CO2 since ….. since 1900? Since 1800? Since 1700?

    Humans are responsible for a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2, along with an attendant increase in oceanic CO2, as well as other trace greenhouse gases.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: You just haven’t been paying attention.

    It’s called reading. Assuming by J, you mean Jeffery, you said his position was CO2 is the only influence on climate. But he actually said “Of course the Earth’s climate warmed and cooled in the past by natural processes.” That directly contradicts your caricaturization of his views.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: which show no warming

    Your chart certainly does show warming. Furthermore, that’s only surface temperature, not heat content. Here’s the heat content.
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: And, CAGWers still have not explained how warming can bypass the whole of the atmosphere, bypass the surface of the ocean where MOST of the heat is converted in to energy due to evaporation, and only warm the deep oceans.

    ENSO is one of the natural cycles that affects internal variability. During La Niña periods, cold water upwells in the eastern Pacific. This results in a warming of the ocean waters, and a cooling of the atmosphere. This process reverses during El Niño phases.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: your graph is a bit misleading as it is measured in joules. a massive change in joules in a body of water the size of EARTH is not noticeable.

    The graph is in tens of sextillions of joules. Yes, it’s a large amount of energy, equivalent to millions of fusion bombs.

  25. gitarcarver says:

    It’s called reading. Assuming by J, you mean Jeffery, you said his position was CO2 is the only influence on climate. But he actually said “Of course the Earth’s climate warmed and cooled in the past by natural processes.” That directly contradicts your caricaturization of his views.

    No it doesn’t because you are entering this conversation in the middle of it.

    Notice what Jeffery says – that the earth has warmed and cooled in the past by natural processes.

    Jeffery has previously stated that any such cooling or warming today is not part of “natural processes” but attributes it to “magic.” (Actually, he says that people who don’t believe AGW believe in “magic” warming or cooling the earth and that only AGW can be warming the earth. By his own admission he doesn’t believe in the “natural processes” occurring in today’s world. )

    Clearly there is a disconnect between reality, what Jeffery says and what you are saying. As two people here on this site that believe in AGW, you can’t even get your stories straight as to what is going on and why.

    That actually is part of the rampant disbelief in AGW (to the extent you believe it.) The AGW crowd cannot get their stories straight, fabricate data, change data, can’t get models to work and say everything is the fault of AGW.

  26. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    First off, reference to J’s comments are a carryover from many many previous posts of J’s. Like you, sometimes he blames warming solely upon man, and other times, like above, you blame warming upon natural cycles when it suits your argument.

    First, CAGWers claim that the earth is continuing to warm rapidly, but it is only showing up in the deep oceans (as evidenced by your post of deep ocean content). You still blame man for the warming while pointing your finger at deep oceans as proof, despite the fact that nothing else shows a warming trend. When you are asked to explain it, you fall back upon “its a natural cycle like ENSO”. you can’t have it both ways.

    Oh… the millions of nuclear bombs talking point. Did you know that we have an even bigger nuclear bombing of earth outside of earth’s atmosphere?!?!!?

    My chart I referenced does not show warming since the late 90’s. If you are looking at the extended time frame, then you also have to take in to account the cyclical patterns and the concurrent levels of CO2. Thus, with any rise in CO2, there WAS no concurrent rise of temperature. Therefore, the theory falls. your cult’s insistence that a rising CO2 explains the rising and falling of temperature is sheer lunacy.

    Humans are responsible for a 40% increase (in CO2)

    Say what?!!?!? And you found this out how?

    But to the greater point, you, like J, acknowledge that the climate has changed in the past due to internal and external forcings. yet, you demand that ONLY man is now the sole responsible factor in this century’s warming. Were we also responsible for the MWP? The LIA? The Great Ice Age?

    If we weren’t responsible then, and CO2 plays a very minor role in temperature regulation, then how is man responsible now?

  27. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: No it doesn’t because you are entering this conversation in the middle of it.

    We can only go by what we read.

    gitarcarver: Notice what Jeffery says – that the earth has warmed and cooled in the past by natural processes.

    Natural process continue, but they are not sufficient to account for the climate changes that are occurring.

  28. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    So, you are now stating that natural processes can NOT explain a small increase in global temperatures over the last 100-150 years?

    Your multiple personalities really need to work on your stories.

  29. Zachriel says:

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumball: First, CAGWers claim that the earth is continuing to warm rapidly, but it is only showing up in the deep oceans (as evidenced by your post of deep ocean content). You still blame man for the warming while pointing your finger at deep oceans as proof, despite the fact that nothing else shows a warming trend.

    Energy is conserved. The oceans are warming.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumball: When you are asked to explain it, you fall back upon “its a natural cycle like ENSO”.

    ENSO is a specific mechanism, not a vague pronouncement of “natural cycles”.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumball: Therefore, the theory falls.

    Energy is conserved. The Earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumball: Say what?!!?!? And you found this out how?

    Human emissions are fairly easy to determine.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumball: acknowledge that the climate has changed in the past due to internal and external forcings. yet, you demand that ONLY man is now the sole responsible factor in this century’s warming.

    Just the primary cause.

    We’d be happy to consider your alternative explanation for the data.

  30. Zachriel says:

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumball: you are now stating that natural processes can NOT explain a small increase in global temperatures over the last 100-150 years?

    You do realize that “natural processes” is not a scientific explanation. Energy doesn’t come from nowhere. We’d be happy to consider your alternative explanation for the data.

  31. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7C9MpYs0T8

    all i’m reading is “blah blah blah blah”. No explanations and only suppositions and hypocritical statements.

    You do realize that “natural processes” is not a scientific explanation.

    ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

  32. There is significant scientific support for anthropogenic climate change

    Yes, there is. Hell, I maintain that there are some anthropogenic components to the current warm period, both global and localized. However, how much of the warming was caused by Man? Warmists maintain it is mostly or solely. Yet their models fail, can’t explain the pause, and don’t live their lives in accordance with their so-called beliefs.

  33. gitarcarver says:

    Natural process continue, but they are not sufficient to account for the climate changes that are occurring.

    that is your opinion and that is fine.

    However, as stated, your opinion and Jeffery’s opinion don’t agree and yet you both claim that people that are skeptical of AGW are “science deniers.”

    Let us know when you get your side of the story straight and when you can actually deal with facts instead of contradictory “opinions.”

  34. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    Zachriel:

    Comment by Zachriel 2014-02-05 13:02:52

    You do realize that “natural processes” is not a scientific explanation.

    but then:

    Comment by Zachriel 2014-02-05 12:55:19

    Natural process continue,

    Again, trying to have it both ways? If you, a huge proponent of CAGW can’t decide what “natural” means, or even what it is, then how can you have a theory that man is responsible?

  35. Zachriel says:

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    What’s the scientific explanation for planetary movement? Natural processes.
    What’s the scientific explanation for planetary movement lightning? Natural processes.
    What’s the scientific explanation for the formation of mountains? Natural processes.

    William Teach: Yet their models fail, can’t explain the pause

    The Earth continues to warm, primarily the oceans, which account for the vast majority of Earth’s heat capacity.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: Again, trying to have it both ways?

    We listed some of the natural causes above: changes in solar irradiance, orbital changes, natural changes in atmospheric content, volcanism, continental drift, changes in albedo, even the occasional cosmic impact. Heat is also transferred internally through various ocean systems, including ENSO and NAO.

  36. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    While I may disagree with you regarding planetary movement lightning being a natural process (i’ve never heard of such a thing), I’m glad to see that you’ve now come over to the realist side again to accept that there are natural processes that drive our climate (despite your protestations on 2014-02-05 13:02:52 and despite you also using the term profusely earlier).

    Ok, now, since you believe you know how much man has an impact upon our environment to degree that we affect the warming, and only the warming, please define how much each of these natural processes has an impact upon the total warming of Earth: solar irradiance, orbital changes, natural changes in atmospheric content, volcanism, continental drift, changes in albedo, even the occasional cosmic impact. Heat is also transferred internally through various ocean systems, including ENSO and NAO.

  37. Zachriel says:

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: I’m glad to see that you’ve now come over to the realist side again to accept that there are natural processes that drive our climate

    Of course there are natural processes that drive climate. That has always been our position.
    http://www.thepiratescove.us/2013/07/20/bummer-satellite-records-still-not-following-un-ipcc-prognostications/
    2013-07-22 12:32:02

    But just saying “natural processes” accounts for the warming of the Earth is not a scientifically useful hypothesis.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: solar irradiance, orbital changes, natural changes in atmospheric content, volcanism, continental drift, changes in albedo, even the occasional cosmic impact.

    There’s been a slight decrease of solar irradiance, about 0.25 w-m^2, not enough to compensate for greenhouse warming. Orbital variations are not an issue over the period in question. Volcanoes have a known and observable effect. Continental drift doesn’t have an effect over short periods. No recent cosmic collisions. Albedo is the one that has some validity. As ice melts, it increase heat absorption, acting as a positive feedback. The change is atmospheric content is due to human activities, which is increasing the greenhouse effect.

  38. Jeffery says:

    gitar,

    Here’s what I typed previously:

    “Of course the Earth’s climate warmed and cooled in the past by natural processes. Those same natural processes are at work today – solar cycles, Earth orbit cycles – but the most likely reason for the current period of rapid warming is the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere during the past century or so.”

    The current enhanced greenhouse effect is superimposed on the natural processes.

    You use the term “natural processes” without defining them – which is why I say you might as well say the Earth warms and cools by magic.

    This is why I ask you and others to identify the “natural processes” that are causing the Earth to warm now. Perhaps the sun is warmer? No. Perhaps the Earth is receiving more energy from the cooling sun because of changes in the Earth orbit? No. So what is the cause?

  39. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    But just saying “natural processes” accounts for the warming of the Earth is not a scientifically useful hypothesis.

    Sure it is. Makes as much scientific sense as yelling “It’s Man’s Fault!”

  40. Zachriel says:

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: Makes as much scientific sense as yelling “It’s Man’s Fault!”

    That’s right! Now you got it. You have to point to a specific mechanism, in this case, atmospheric CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas.

  41. Jeffery says:

    gumballs,

    The difference between saying that the current warming is caused by “natural processes” and an increase in atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels is that 1) we can measure atmospheric CO2, 2) we can measure the interaction of radiation with CO2, 3) we can calculate how much CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere etc.

    What “natural processes” are causing the Earth to warm?

  42. jl says:

    “You have to point to a specific mechanism.” No, professor, you don’t. There are obviously many. We don’t know them all. There were obviously many mechanisms playing a part in the Medieval Warm Period- non of them CO2. “What natural processes are causing the earth to warm?” Probably the same ones that caused it to warm for the other 4 billion years, on and off. What makes you think those same ones are not the cause now?

  43. Zachriel says:

    jl: There were obviously many mechanisms playing a part in the Medieval Warm Period- non of them CO2.

    The Medieval Climate Anomaly was caused by an increase in solar irradiance and a reduction in volcanic activity. This, in turn, resulted in changes to ENSO and NAO.

    jl: Probably the same ones that caused it to warm for the other 4 billion years, on and off.

    Changes in solar irradiance and volcanic activity do not explain the current warming.

  44. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    Zachriel: “Because I said so, dammit!”

  45. Zachriel says:

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: Zachriel: “Because I said so, dammit!”

    No, because that’s what the evidence shows. Did you want citations for some particular claim? On the Medieval Warming Period, see PAGES 2k Consortium, Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia, Nature Geoscience 2013.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5280 access attempts in the last 7 days.