Original Question: What proof do climate change deniers use to justify their views?

OK, I can’t speak for others, but I take issue with several elements in the question. (Imagine that!) One is the now-pervasive epithet “deniers.” Another is the umbrella-spread of a term to describe a hypothesis (and the related other hypotheses) of recent global temperature rise, the majority of which according to the second hypothesis is due to man’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere. The shift from “global warming” (which I also have a concern with regarding the name) to “climate change.”

With that name change, now we have a more general term which, frustratingly, would be an ordinary description of just that: climate change for any reason. Caused by human beings, or not. Why does this matter? Because regardless of the truth or falsity of a change’s cause, it can be brought in to the discussion. Any weather problems, whether related to the downstream effects hypothesized from the initial hypotheses of temperature increase and the 2nd that causally it’s from additional CO2, can now be pointed at as evidence of “climate change.” And again, regardless of whether or not there is a hypothesis supporting it, vs just speculation.

The climate would change even if humanity never existed. We have some understanding of the causes for the various changes. There will with very high certainty be future climate changes that have large impacts. Some may, though, and have been in humanity’s past, positive changes. While the positive side exists, it doesn’t seem to get equal weight.

As usual I have to have the first sentence in that paragraph stuck in everything I write about it. Because I don’t deny that. I don’t even deny the possible contribution by human beings in the way you would think. I am not a “Denier.” I am a science-based thinker of things that should be thought about with science.

We’re still not done with the question dissection! So, “proof.” I don’t need to provide proof, that’s not how it works. The person making the claim has to provide the proof. I don’t need to “justify” anything. I’m not the one making strong claims. Being skeptical in the course of understanding the world and examining causes doesn’t make me a “denier,” nor even a “Skepticalist” or whatever absurd label beyond skeptic, (uncapitalized) comes next. Questioning, and debating whether some evidence presented does or doesn’t support a hypothesis should be seen as normal and expected. When I then find myself subject to ad hominem attacks and 47 fallacies hurled at me if I question a conclusion, I cannot be expected to accept that.

I am willing to be wrong.

This is a great strength. If someone is so sure that they are right that they will accept no questioning or debate: that is a weakness.

I am not a “denier.” I am not obligated to provide “proof” of the falsity of a claim. I don’t need to “justify” my views—my views are not what’s being questioned. Which, again, asking questions should be encouraged and embraced. Not attacked.

When activists, media, journalism, and politicians are all pushing odd decisions to center stage, and suppressing dissent, skepticism, or any caution in making big decisions? I’m sorry but I don’t trust that. They all are so certain… then I look at quality research into climate and long-term trends, and find that level of certainty isn’t nearly so universal. I see a lot of (entirely expected) qualifications of findings, full of:

may,

might,

could,

potentially,

if,

uncertain,

not yet fully understood,

and requires more research.

Which is what I would normally expect, and you should too.

Example: There have been some forest fires recently. People flap their gums and blather about fires increasing in number, and severity. And in the next breath say that the cause is “climate change.” Oh. Hmm. “Wow, that sounds really bad!” I wonder how bad it is. Let’s look at the official data:

Hmm. OK so a few second Google search that any journalist ought to be able to do, shows that the claim of increasing numbers of fires is bullshit. That’s wrong. It’s not true.

So, we have evidence there. If the claim is that the increase in temperature has caused a larger number of forest fires over time, that claim has been shown to be wrong: falsified. Also, if there was a prediction that increasing temperature would cause an increase in the number of forest fires, that prediction has also been disproven. Falsified. Now, there may be other specific claims or hypotheses with a more narrow focus, that may be supported with evidence. Those others are not what was being asserted as if it was certain and correct and that the cause was known. Since the increase didn’t happen, you should ask: what does that say about the people making the claim that it did happen?

Are they lying? Are they just ignorant of the reality? Do they have any agenda? Do they want changes that this incorrect claim and prediction might guide you toward? Is there any personal benefit to them? They could have been right, too. But nope. Will they accept that they are wrong, or will they just attack me some more, moving goalposts, appealing to authority, appealing to majority, and so on?

Instead, since they were wrong, I have to write things like this. This one claim’s falsity does not mean that nothing else in the now-broad pile of hypotheses is false. They might be right about those, partially right, or wrong about some or all in the pile. If this now-shown-false hypothesis of the increase in temperature having caused an increase in the number of fires over time happened to be required for the primary, initial hypothesis to be true—well, good thing (for them) it’s not.

I am willing to be wrong.

Are they?

Are you?

“We’re getting more hot days every year” or whatever similar claim (I don’t want to build a straw man.)

Huh. And that’s the official data Even taking things like time of day observation bias into account, that claim and ones like it don’t seem to be true. Keep in mind that the end of the 70s was the low point in a decline. The increases you do see from then on toward the present would be entirely expected. It was colder then. I lived through it, it sure was colder in the local climate area I lived in.

Doesn’t look like more hot days, doesn’t look like it’s more volatile, and doesn’t look like there’s really a trend. Hmm.

Am I the asshole here for asking questions? For denying claims when there is evidence that refutes them?

Stop making bullshit claims that are easily falsified. Stop talking about fucking forest fire increases being caused by man-caused increased temperature due to increased CO2 (or “climate change.”) Stop saying that, it’s obviously not true. Thanks.

This is an interesting question coming from someone who apparently believes in climate change (meaning man made global warming) when there is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports the THEORY. Their entire theory is based on the claims of a guy who in the 1840’s claimed, without any evidence, that CO2 was a driving force of earth’s climate and that increasing levels of CO2 would warm the earth to the point that life could no longer exist on the planet. His claim was based in part of the false assumption that earth climate is stable. And that mans activity resulting because of the industrial Revolution was putting more CO2 in the atmosphere.

This guy was wrong on several points. One the earth’s climate could only ever be considered stable if viewed in terms of human lifetimes, which is an arrogant and ridiculous point of view. Secondly his claim that CO2 is the driver of earth’s climate system is also a ridiculous claim in light of everything that is known about the history of the planet. If CO2 played a significant role in earth’s climate temperature then when earth’s atmospheric levels reached 8,000ppm how do you or anybody reconcile the fact that these levels occurred during one of the coldest ice ages earth has ever experienced? As Einstein replied when asked by a report what he had to say about the 100 scientist who didn’t belief his theory of relativity, to which he replied, 100 it only takes 1. Meaning that science is not a consensus and it only takes 1 fact that contradicts the theory and the theory is invalid. According to the man made global warming theory the fact that earth has experienced levels of CO2 during extreme cold periods lasting millions of years, could never ever happen if CO2 was the driver of earths climate system.

In fact US climate deniers have much more evidence that their theory is trash then any evidence they have that it is true. Because they don’t have any evidence. They have a theory that is founded on another theory, neither one of which have been validated, ever.

Their and yours by extension goes something like this. Santa Claus is real, because the Easter Bunny is real because their are millions of people who lives are directly impacted by these being. Then you ask us what proof do we have that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. That is not how science works. It is the people making the claim that have to prove what they are claiming. So it is the people who cliam Santa and the Easter Bunny are real who bear the burden of proof. Those who don’t believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny don’t have to prove anything. But like Big Foot, even though there has never been any verifiable prove of its existence there are still those who claim it exist and they have built up an entire lore about it, claiming what noises it makes, how it communicates (by using branches to knot on trees). But since you can’t proof a negative, proving something doesn’t exist, it allows those who claim it does despite to over 50 years of failure in that effort. This is the reason why climate alarmist instead of referring to the actual science always fall back on things like 97% of scientist agree, which is also a fraud, considering 97 of 100 cherry picked scientists out of a pool of 10,000 scientists actually agreed forming this supposed consensus, which doesn’t matter in any event because science isn’t a consensus, something either is or it is not and only one of those two conditions can be the truth and it matters nil if 1 billion scientists believe the lie. Or the record heat, record cold, record number of tornadoes, record number of floods, even when NASA states that the frequency of severe weather is NOT outside the normal range people still want to believe the end is near.

We have seem this type of thing through history, where a claim is made and the proof of the truth of the claim is the belief in the claim makers. The end result is ALWAYS very very bad for humans. People being killed or killing themselves for the cause. And the man made climate change and its predictions are exactly the same, just trust us, belief us, where the proof the proof is because we are saying it, what about the evidence that says you are wrong, those people are deniers, heretics controlled by the devil. People have been using this tactic to control other people and enrich themselves for centuries. To quote a famous entrepreneur there are fools born every minute.

I am not sure what views a “climate change denier” is supposed to have., that require “proof”. I do find it peculiar that whenever a I read, hear or view any public comment on current climate I learn all the bad things that are happening or can happen. Never anything about what could be positive effects of changes. So apparently we have been living in an ideal climate, have evolved to thrive in it, and we are so delicate that we are not able to adapt to any changes, all of which will lead us down hill from our perfect peak. I don’t buy intp that and thus always look for justification of views on “climate change”, the “causes of climate change”, the “effects of climate change” and “projects” that seek my support to deal with climate change.

Want proof?

1960 – 1970 The climate terrorists predicted that all the oil would be gone in 10 years.

1970 – 1980 The climate terrorists predicted that we would have another ICE age in 10 years.

1980 – 1990 The climate terrorists predicted that Acid Rain would destroy all the crops in 10 years.

1990 – 2000 The climate change terrorists predicted the Ozone Layer would be gone in 10 years.

2000 – Present day, The climate change terrorists predicted all the ice caps would be gone in 10 years.

NONE, of this happened, but it did result in more TAXES on the people and more money in the pockets of the climate terrorists.

If you want to believe in the climate terrorists’ fantasies, go for it, just don’t expect for the rest of us educated people to fall for your LIES!

The same so-called scientists & climate terrorists who have predicted nothing right in the last 50 years, think they can predict what the weather will be like in the next 100 years? Only an uneducated FOOL falls for the same lie over and over.

You must be referring to man-made-climate-change-deniers, because you sure don’t have to be a scientist or even very smart to know and not deny climate changes. It’s the colossal fraud of it being caused by carbon or in any way man-made that’s being denied. Likewise, you don’t have to be very smart to know carbon dioxide is not pollution. It’s not a view needing proof or justification. Climate change being NOT man-made is a fact everyone with common sense knows. Some people just let their ideology overpower their common sense either because it makes them feel important or to deliberately propagate a fraud for corrupt and nefarious reasons.

We follow the climate professionals who do know what they are talking about. People like;

Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace;

Ivan Giaver, who won the Nobel Peace Prize;

Judith Curry, retired head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department of the Georgia Institute of Technology;

Richard Lindzen, retired head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and member of the National Academy of Sciences (you know, that thing Einstein was a member of);

Vincent Courtillot, a member of the French Academy of Sciences;

Khabibullo Abdussamatov, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

John Christy, who is a professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, who keeps the temperature data used by NOAA and NASSA, and who contributes to the IPCC reports;

Roy Spencer, who keeps the data with John Christy;

Frederich Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Sciences.

The fact that what we have is proof, and what the Cult of Climate Change has is concocted lies so people with otherwise useless degrees don’t have to flip burgers for a living.

We actually use real facts instead of made up lies….

 

TL Winslow

 · Mar 8

Is it physically possible to raise the temperature of a heat source by reflecting its heat back to itself in an open system? Can you raise the sun’s temperature that way?

No way. Call it a reflector or insulator, these can only slow heat loss from a heat source, not raise its temperature. That would violate Nature’s ironclad Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy). The surfaces of the Sun and Earth are black body radiators obeying Max Planck’s 1900 black body radiation law that gives the cooling radiation power vs. wavelength curve as a function of temperature only, irrespective of the material. This law is at the quantum level, and is remarkable for connecting the quantum world to the macro world of statistical thermodynamics. Once a black body reaches an absolute temperature T, its radiation curve is fixed. If a perfect reflector/insulator were placed on top of it, the most that could happen would be that the temperature would stabilize at a fixed value. It won’t start racing out of control. It would be like taking two black bodies at the same temperature and fusing them together. The interface would disappear and you’d just get a bigger black body. Ever wonder why the woke political movement tries to deny the basic science of sex to create the multiple gender fantasy that they want? It’s because they’re global Marxists, who don’t care about truth, only about turning people against each other, and what they want is to trick and scare Westerners into destroying their entire culture in hopes of burning capitalism to the ground and erecting a Marxist utopia on its ashes. Too bad, the result will have to face the same hard scientific facts as capitalism did, resulting in the fraud-based utopia coming crashing down amid rivers of blood and misery until there’s a counterrevolution. No surprise, the global Marxist politicians who run the U.N. have long been hijacking thermal physics and so-called climate science for their cause, using their lap dogs the IPCC octopus and WEF to foist the hoax that the Earth’s surface can reheat itself with its own heat via the magic of atmospheric greenhouse gases, first CO2 then H2O (water vapor) and CH4 (methane), as if they’re immune from the Second Law of Thermodynamics because they’re playing moneyball. Sorry, nothing is immune from Nature’s ironclad Second Law of Thermodynamics, and politics doesn’t trump physics. Note; Don’t hate me because I have a beautiful free mind. It was the U.N. IPCC that politicized science, not me. They started it and I’m trying to finish it. The IPCC was woke before there was a name for it. In their zany twisted version of thermal physics, the Earth’s atmosphere is a black body radiator like its surface, when no gas can ever be, because black bodies absorb and radiate photon energy at all wavelengths, shifting the input wavelengths way down from visual to infrared range. Since gases can’t be black bodies, they can at most only absorb and emit photons in narrow wavelength ranges. That means each day when the 5500C black body radiation from the Sun heats the Earth’s surface, raising its temperature slowly via its heat capacity to a normal maximum of 50C, it steadily radiates via its Planck black body curve of the moment based on its temperature to attempt to cool down to absolute zero, and the atmosphere can’t stop this radiation from traveling to space at light speed, leaving the surface permanently cooled until the next sunrise. Any dinky waste heat radiation absorbed and reemitted by atmospheric CO2 at its absorption wavelength of 15 microns is a day late and a dollar short, and nothing it can do can replace the real heat energy that’s already made it to space. Only a new sunrise can do that. To put it on a deeper level, the Sun’s 5500C black body radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface (water and land), slowly raising its temperature via its heat capacity. The temperature of any black body is based on its internal energy density, and the Sun’s is way higher than the Earth’s can ever be, allowing it to raise Earth surface temperature steadily as long as its radiating onto it. At each instant the Earth’s surface is attempting to cool to absolute 0K via its own black body radiation based on its current absolute temperature T, with the total energy proportional to T to the 4th power, meaning that it cools faster as it gets warmer. As it emits cooling black body radiation, its internal energy density gets lower, lowering its temperature. At a typical instant at any point on the Earth’s surface, the black body radiation covers a spectrum from 0 to 50 or even 70 microns. Meanwhile atmospheric CO2 only intercepts a tiny slip of this radiation around 15 microns. But by the time it returns it to the surface, the rest of its energy has flown the coup and will never return. Since there is no way this dinky return energy can restore the original internal energy density, it can never restore its temperature. Yet the IPCC hoaxers claim that it restores it completely and even raises it higher. This is why they play you for a fool with their energy double-counting magic trick. In short,the IPCC octopus flaims that the tail wags the dog, and CO2 emissions cause global warming with their co-called back radiation. Knowing full well all along that they were pushing a hoax on non-hardcore Marxists for political gain, they resorted to a sleazy carnival trick of double-counting of energy to make it seem that the photons from atmospheric CO2 hit the surface and raise its temperature by some nebulous amount, without wanting you to know that those photons came from the surface radiation that already left to space, so they’re pretending to heat up something further that’s already cooled. Here’s true math: 10–10+1=1. Here’s IPCC math: 10–10+1=11. Imagine 10 archers aiming straight up and all releasing their arrows at the same time. These arrows represent surface heat that’s being turned into radiation to cool it. According to the IPCC, although only 1 arrow returns, it replaces all the energy of the other 10 and adds even more. This is really funny when one realizes that it’s only the weak puny low energy 15 microns that are returned, that don’t begin to contain the energy in the main heat radiation in the 8–13 micron region that escaped at light speed through Earth’s so-called atmospheric window. They’re trying to have their cake and eat it too. The IPCC math is actually: 10–10+0=11. How many millions of suckers have they made by now? And all along the hoax was so simple to see, it would make the magicians of the film “Now You See Me” jealous. They’re laughing at your stupidity, while ever ramping up their efforts to suck all your money and power with —-000—-

 

Your question fails because it is never on the person denying a negative to prove it – it is up to the person trying to assert something positive that has to prove it.

Can I “prove” that God doesn’t exist? Of course I can’t – you cannot prove something that doesn’t exist – – it is up to the theists (or climate alarmists) to prove he (and it) does – and I am not talking about blind faith here.

I use THAT analogy because there is so much “blind faith” in the anthropological climate change arguments that it is akin to religion and is – in the opinion of many – the second biggest fraud on mankind behind religion!

So you ask what do I – as a retired climate scientist – use to justify my views?

I use the REAL and FULL IPCC reports – not the twisted and distorted summary – that demonstrates that our climate is NOT changing any faster than it ever has done in the past.

Our climate has been changing for ALL of Earth’s 4.5 billion years history and it cycles – in predictable cycles that are tuned to a range of variables – including – but not limited to – Earth’s oribital anomalies, Sun Spots and Solar Flares, the position of other planets in the solar system in their orbit viz-a-viz with Earth.

Trying to blame climate change on anthropological emissions is a total fools errand.

I use REAL DATA and imaging to prove that sea levels are NOT catestrophically rising, that temperatures are NOT catestrophically rising, that extreme weather events are NOT getting any more extreme nor any more frequent – and you know what?

It really isn’t that hard to find – if you actually open your mind to it.

Sure, climate change is real, most of us have never denied that but, Scientist have never proven that humans are even a small part of climate change. Get yourself a map of the earth and take a sharpie and put a dot, anywhere on that map. That dot represents the area that every human on earth can fit in. You honestly think we have any effect on the earths climate? We give ourselves way to much credit on the destruction we can do on earth if we believe that. Sure, we need to take care if our planet, recycling, growing trees are all good things. But to believe climate change is anything more then natural cycles of the earth is only fooling yourself, the fact is the earth has gone through warmer periods and colder periods and every scientist knows that.

I remember going to school in the 70s and 80s and them trying to indoctrinate us about climate change. In fact, if what we where told back then actually happened all of our coastal cities would have been under water years ago. Our polar ice caps would be long gone and Earth would be general hell to live on. Heck, how many years has it been since that climate change expert, Greta Thurnberg told if we didn’t make drastic changes our planet would be destroyed in 7 years, seem like we are getting close to that 7 years. We have been told these lies since to 50s, 70 years, with very little change and likely none of that change caused by human. The difference between you and me, I was told the lies and you where sold the lies, you are living proof that propaganda works.

Might it be science?

Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’

Physicist, meteorologist testify that the climate agenda is ‘disastrous’ for US