Debunking global heating denier myths updated

Nearly a month ago, I wrote a point-by-point debunking of the top 17 global heating denier myths I had heard. As a result of all the comments I received, I’ve decided to keep the original post updated with new information and data, improved arguments, clearer language, and additional denier myth debunkings as new myths appear.

I’m happy to say that I’ve recently completed the first significant update to Anti-global heating claims – a reasonably thorough debunking. Here’s a brief rundown of the updates:

  • Added Myth #18 – water vapor is more important than CO2, and since we can’t control water vapor concentrations directly, we must not be able to directly cause global heating either.
  • Added figures from the IPCC Working Group 1 technical report for Myth #5 so readers didn’t have to dive into the AR4 .pdf file if they didn’t want all the gory details.
  • Rewrote Myth #6 to more accurately address the “CO2 doesn’t cause global warming – just look at the times when there was WAY more CO2 and we had an ice age” myth I was trying to debunk.
  • Update some of the wording in general to address several general criticisms made in comments here at S&R and at various social networking sites.

Check it out.

13 replies »

  1. Perfect timing. I was hunting for the original post but couldn’t find it. I’ve got a neighbor who claims global heating is a scam … but is strangely evasive about who would profit from such a scam. Thanks for updating this awesome post!

  2. Not a problem.

    If you ever have a problem finding the original again, use the search feature for “global heating debunking” and it’ll be bottom of the list (right now only this update and the original come up if you do that search). And it’s occasionally down in the “Top Posts” section below the blogroll too.

  3. It’s not about money per se in so much as it is about rebrokering of power.
    Global warming is inherently junk science because we have no quantifiable idea of what the ‘norm’
    is for an active dynamic system. We have only been making records of temps since the mid 1800’s.
    Spotty records exist into the 1600’s but nothing uniform, widespread, or exact.
    The only ones who can honestly claim to generate valid data with 150 years or so of spotty
    data either know they are lying, or have no idea of real statiscal analysis much less the scientific metthod.
    A lab coat and a govt grant does not a true scientist make.

    It is the type of crisis that the NWO types wish to use to usurp national boundries and soverignties
    in the name of a global threat to humanity. Never mind that to this day as you read this HVAC techs
    in china vent more R12 in one week than we did in one year back in the early 1980’s.

    Who profits exactly are the internationalist suckups here and their foreign sponsors.
    Our industry will be relocated to areas deemed more sustainable.
    Commerce will be redirected away from areas deemed at risk.
    Energy use will not be diminished in general, it will in fact increase exponentially.
    It’s availability will be greatly restricted from sectors deemed unsustainable( western civilian ).

    If you want to drive 20 foot cars belching gas and oil into the air.
    Clear cut woodlands for a warehouse/parking lot.
    Where labor unions aren’t allowed to fuzz production…or else.
    A land where money talks and suckers walk.
    That would be China.

    Go west young man….and catch a boat to the East.

  4. No you are supposed to take the numbers seriously.
    There is no statistician worth their salt who can claim to
    come up with a viable number with only 150 or so years
    of spotty measurement against a backdrop of thousands of millions of years.

    Could you make any credible claim of analyzing our US population of 300,000,000+/-
    based on a uneven sampling of only 150 people?
    That would be no.

    I say NWO types, because they clearly aren’t American interest oriented.
    Extra-governmental is more accurate.

  5. You don’t need to know the entire history of the planet to make statistically valid forecasts about the likelihood of the sun rising in the East and setting in the West tomorrow morning, or to forecast that the seasons will process from spring to summer to autumn to winter every year. The same is true with respect to climate disruption.

    In fact, because of many factors, statistics run on climate conditions from the first few billion years of the planet’s history are precisely invalid to recent climate conditions. A sun that has a radically different output level, totally different atmospheric conditions, periods of orbital bombardment, a much hotter core, radically different continental positions, very active volcanism vs. low levels of volcanism in recent geologic periods – any or all of those could disqualify direct comparison from today’s climate to climate in geological history.

    As for 150 years of spotty measurements, there’s thousands to hundreds of thousands of years of indirect, proxy measurements that support the contention that something is different this time around, even after the sources of error in the proxies are accounted for.

  6. Indirect/proxy is a nice way of saying guessing.
    Nothing exists to support the claims you chicken little types claim.
    Computer models are about as useless as it gets.
    No computer exists capable of factoring all variables, we don’t even know all the variables.

    Mt Pinatubo’s outgassing is simply dismissed.
    Never mind that it discharged in one week what took man over 175 years to equal.
    Nah, that’s inconsequential.
    Mars, Venus, Saturn, Pluto: all show signs of temp increases….
    nope nothing to do with the regional (not global) temp variations on Earth.

    In truth you are anything but scientific. Not too far removed from the witchdoctors
    that would have us sacrifice virgins to mountains to forgive us for our trespasses
    againt the false earth diety.

    Only now you would have us sacrifice our global standing for an idea just as spurious.

    Fact, China and India are not going to cooperate with any chicken little proposals.
    To sandbag our industry for what amounts to a symbolic gesture is foolish beyond the pale.

    The west has to regress back to the early 1800’s in order for the eastern nations to
    rise to our current std of living. That is the reality of what you propose.

    Further, once the Chinese attain global primacy, they will trash your precious environment
    like you wouldn’t believe. Just how successful are the greens in the PRC?
    The soc/coms have no problem with chicken little ideas provided they are directed at the west.
    Any meaningful opposition to PRC industrial policy is to not care too much about keeping one’s kidneys.

    • Just to be clear, Jason D, you reject proxy data like that which shows a) CO2 rising after the start of deglaciation in the ice core records and b) Greenland was warmer during the MWP and c) all the other proxy-based denier memes too? After all, if all the temperature proxies that climate scientists use are no better than guesses, then the same temperature proxies that deniers like you use are no better than guesses either.

      I really recommend you read my debunking of the “model are useless” meme here. It’ll make you sound less ignorant of how models work. In case you don’t, though, here’s the basic point – you don’t need to know every variable perfectly to model how something performs. You don’t need to know the trajectory of every single atom since the Big Bang in order to model how the angles, spin, and resistance of a pool table will affect a game of billiards. Simple geometry, friction, and conservation of momentum will suffice.

      As for Pinatubo’s outgassing, your data is out of date and wrong. The British Geological Survey reported on volcanism’s addition to the global carbon cycle, and appendix 1 of this pdf file shows that the estimated emissions were between 4.8 and 42 Mt, or between approximately 0.02% and 1.4% of a single year’s worth of human emissions (about 30,000 Mt annually). And if you’ll look at the image at this link, you’ll see that there’s no radical upward blip of measured CO2 in 1991 or immediately thereafter as would have to occur if, as you claim, Pinatubo expelled CO2 equal to 175 years of human emissions.

      The “other planets are heating up” is a canard. Jupiter emits more energy than it absorbs, and we don’t have near enough data on Jupiter to do more than guess as to why it might be heating up. Mars is much more sensitive to solar changes than the Earth is due to a very thin atmosphere, and given that the sun is colder now (isn’t that the point of the whole “global cooling” meme? Bummer that these two denier arguments contradict each other….), it heating up suggests something else is at work on Mars. And if we don’t have enough data to accurately attribute changes in the Earth’s climate to one source or another, we sure as hell don’t have enough data to attribute climate changes on other planets to the sun. Oh, and don’t forget that there are at leat 177 major bodies in our solar system, and it’s entirely reasonable that some of them are going to be heating up while, at the same time, others are cooling down. 3 or 4 out of 177 is a miniscule percentage and WAY down in the noise.

      Finally, if you’re going to tell me, on the anniversary of the first Moon landing, that American ingenuity can’t figure out how to maintain our standard of living while China and India are growing their economies, well, that’s just not patriotic.

  7. I never mentioned Jupiter for pretty much the reason you stated.
    While your points are valid to a degree, what is left unrefuted is that much
    is going on that we don’t know how or why. 177 bodies. Get real bruddah.
    That’s called obfuscation my friend. We aren’t monitoring the temps of 177 solar bodies, just 9.

    With regards to ice cores, not very helpful because we have no definite means of dating the cores
    realistically. A few years ago some aircraft recovery team sought to recover an aircraft in Greendland.
    It was buried in over 200 feet of compacted ice and snow. Now we know it wasn’t lost circa 10,000 bc.
    My point is that ice core dating is specious at best. Unless the item being dated is conveniently known
    to have been built 1943-45, it is pure guess work. Radiometrics is more of an art than a science.

    As for Mt Pinotubo. The early data from that time is totally at odds with subsequent data rewrites.
    Given that at the time of Mt Pin’s eruption nobody knew what to expect or what the discharge would be,
    it would follow that that data is more unbiased than later revisionist interpretations.
    If the initial reports of Mt Pin were allowed to stand,
    the misanthropic global warming view would be seriously lacking.
    At the time of the eruption no less than Nat Geo, Time, Newsweek, WSJ all reported
    the eruption’s outgassing was equal to man’s output since the dawn of the industrial age.
    It wasn’t just CO2 that was released; nitric oxide, sulphur dioxide, oodles of spent hydrocarbon waste.

    CO2 is not a toxin or a pollutant, any appreciable increase in CO2 would lead to
    a significant increase in vegetative growth of all types. Heck I remember my org chem prof
    once made the statement (way before the ecoreligion came into being) that just a half a percent
    increase in O2 would cause fires to burn abnormally hot and fast. A similar increase in CO2 would affect
    the combustion rates of every air mix fuel. That was like whew, 1979.

    Besides, the unconvenient reality is that though many ecopatsy nations declared they were going
    to follow the Kyoto protocols. The bitter truth is that none of the advocating nations have met even
    the lowest emission goals of Kyoto. All nations have increased their CO2 since 1995.
    Yet in spite of significantly increased global CO2 production; temps have flatlined since 2001,
    no heating trend for the past 8 years. A reasoned being with no prescribed agenda could reasonably
    infer that CO2 has little or nothing to do with the weather. A demagouge on the other hand
    won’t let a little thing like reality get in the way of their false paradigm.

    Get it brother?!
    No decrease in CO2 ‘production’ over the past decade, a significant increase in CO2
    has been accompanied by a halt in heating and the beginning of a cooling trend.
    Either CO2 increases heat retention or it doesn’t.
    If it did, temps would still be increasing( sadly none of your beloved computer models
    forecast the current cooling trend), but the temps are not increasing.
    Real scientists are truth seekers, not dogmatic goal tenders.

    Pfft, as if anything in your screeds has one mote of patriotism in it.
    I guess with wexler and obiden thinking they know jack about being a patriot,
    all the street clowns think they know too?
    Who do you think our Founding Fathers would support and who would they deport?

    There is not enough steel for windmills even IF the required powergrid was in place.
    The amount of steel required is laughable; you’re not going to get windmills made
    with wind or solar power.
    There is not enough silicon for solar, EPA nixed IBM and Intel’s attempts at a US silicon foundry.
    As a result, the silicon fab plants are now in Taiwan and China-where they don’t have to mess with
    no stinking environmental impact crapola.

    Both are illogical choices and are not equitable choices vis a vis petroleum power.
    Oil is King. We will cripple ourselves needlessly trying to correct something that doesn’t exist.
    There is nothing patriotic about subverting our global position and abdicating our descendents liberties.

    There is no viable alternative to geofuels. Oil is not a fossil fuel. It is constantly being generated
    by the geological processes going on in the mantle crust interface zone. There is much evidence
    that our crust rides on a pressurized bed of hydrocarbons on the mantle. Hubble has imaged huge
    stellar gas clouds comprised of gaseous hydrocarbons, Venus’ clouds are loaded with hydrocarbons.
    Mars’ past vulcanism would lead to the existence of some kinds of petroleum. Oil? Doubtful given elapsed
    time. Probably oil shales or tar deposits have the most likelihood of still being usable.
    That’s right, Halliburton Space.
    Jupiter and Saturn’s hydrocarbon reserves far outsize anything the Saudis or Russkies possess.
    But I digress,

    Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.
    That was meant as a joke. You can’t change the weather.
    Besides, the greenies conveniently overlook that their ice cores don’t line up with palentology.
    It boggles the mind to try and compute how much methane and CO2 the dinosaurs generated.
    A sauropod planet would generate more methane and CO2 than we measely humans could ever manage.

    On a more dire note.
    CO2 restrictions could be used as the pretext for forcing the limiting of, relocating of,
    or ultimately the reduction of populations. How much CO2 does 3 billion people generate?
    Viewing CO2 as a waste gas is but one step away from taxing the air you breathe.

    Got your breathing permit renewed with your basketball exemption stamp?

    • Jason, you’ve just “refuted” geology, volcanology, seismology, physics, palentology, glaciology, and radiometric dating.

      You’ve put Time, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal on the same level as peer-reviewed scientific journals.

      You’ve made demonstrably false claims about planetology and you’ve illustrated that you have little to no understanding of space travel, radiation effects on human tissues, the times and distances involved.

      You’ve shown no willingness to consult even the most basic of references for fact checking (aka Wikipedia, for Venus) your claims.

      You’ve illustrated a complete lack of understanding of metallurgy, mining, and high technology vis a vis wind turbines and solar panels.

      You’ve claimed, without irony, that the Earth is cooling while Mars and other planets are heating as a result of a cooling sun even after I specifically pointed out that the arguments are in direct contradiction with each other.

      At this point, Jason, you’ve essentially denied the existence of significant chunks of science, and I’m forced to conclude one of two things: either you’re so ignorant of science that you don’t even recognize your own ignorance, or you’re a troll. Either way, S&R exists to advance discussion and understanding, and at this point you’re doing neither.

      • To Brian’s comments I’ll add that we have a zero troll policy here and precious little tolerance for those who exhibit such blatant intellectual dishonesty.

        Either advance to conversation or go away.

  8. Thanks to the hacker/whistleblower who exposed the fraud being perpetrated by the ecofacists.
    The released emails from the E Anglia’s climate research poobahs illustrate a concerted and organized
    effort to distort, manufacture, and destroy data as they see fit to maintain support for the ecoshakedown.
    In another time, those responsible would be looking at prison time for foisting such a scam on the public.
    The attempts to avoid FOIA requests carry punishment as well.
    That was when there was Justice.
    Now there’s just us.

    There is a conversation going on here, Dr slammy.
    One maybe not to your liking…… political censors get all riled over anyone who dares
    to think for themselves– not good. If your arguments were valid they could withstand
    brutally invasive critique. However facades don’t bear too well under scrutiny.

    The most bothersome aspect of debating these arguments is the innumerable facets that
    need to be addressed as well as the fact that dates get blurred. The heating of the solar system
    is based on data from the late 1990’s. The subsequent cooling phase was first observed in 2001.
    None of the anthropogenic oriented climate models predicted the current 9 year cooling trend.
    Whether sunspots are to blame is anyone’s guess…and until a century or so of hard solar data
    that’s all it would be a guess.

    As for Venus, her clouds are composed of significant amounts of hydrocarbons.

    Radiation’s effect on human tissues? That has exactly what to do with anything?

    Intellectually dishonest? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
    I am not intellectually dishonest, that’s a league all your own.
    I’m intellectually backlogged, It takes more than a blurb to correct the dogmatic
    bumpersticker catch phrases that the left have foisted into the arena of common ‘knowledge’.

    I have an idea of what Hugo and Copernicus faced when trying to defend the truth of reality,
    in the face of what passed for scientific concensus back then.

    consensus is not science
    consensus is politics

    True scientists embrace scepticism.
    Tyrants, dictators, oligarchs of all types disdain open critique.

    • Jason – Thanks for stopping by, but the bottom line here is that there’s a difference between signal and noise. There’s a difference between scientific skepticism – of which there’s a boatload around here – and conspiracy dogma that confuses ignorance and automatically rejecting research findings by those it doesn’t understand or agree with out of hand.

      When push comes to shove, this issue is a lot like any other political issue. No progressive is ever going to convince a social conservative of anything, no matter what evidence he or she brings to bear. Likewise, people like you will never be convinced, even if the planet gets so hot that the pavement catches fire.

      So we’re more interested in talking to people who approach the conversation in good faith, either with honest points of view to offer or a willingness to learn. Since you already know everything, there’s no real point in us talking, is there?