The simple fact is that most people have never taken a climate measurement. Most people didn't get sufficient marks, nor did they have sufficient aptitude to study science in college. Most people can't do the level of maths required for climatology. Most people haven't the foggiest notion of even the most basic laws of physics governing the behaviour of gases, let alone fluid dynamics and chaos theory. Most people do not have access to scientific journals nor have they performed a literature review of current papers on the topic. Most people have never devised a scientific experiment, analysed data, or drawn conclusions. Most people have never studied any subject related to instrumentation, data capture, or the subsequent calibration and normalization. Most people have never written a scientific paper, have never had to defend that paper, conclusions and data from reviewers or from the audience at scientific conferences. Most people have never had to write a grant proposal, outline the research they wish to conduct, and convince funding agencies to give them cash for equipment and researchers.
And yet, despite not having done any of these things, people somehow believe they are qualified to pass judgement on the work of the people who have. I don't care whether you call yourself a 'denier' or 'skeptic'. I care about your expertise in climatology.
It's an utterly ludicrous situation. At what point did people suddenly become so breath-takingly arrogant? At what point did people suddenly decide they were experts and deserving of having their opinions taken seriously? Why express an opinion on climate change? Why not RF plasma sources, or the detectors searching for the Higgs boson, or brain surgery? Why is it acceptable for non-experts to declare their 'opinion' on climate change when everyone knows non-experts would be laughed at for offering their 'opinion' on how to construct a missile guidance system or how to integrate composite material into aircraft airframes? Why do we not have thousands of people writing into Boeing with their 'opinions' on the science of aeronautics?
Denier is their battle cry which they wield with God like fury against the forces of carbon, or in other words, they're just idiots mate, who think invoking the holocaust makes them smart.
I've just got to answer some unrelated points one of the crazies brought up.
a) scores of pilots with 20 years plus experience are on record saying that they could not have followed the flight path of the jets into the towers, it was an impossibly difficult manoeuvre, especially since the hijackers flight instructors said they could hardly fly small cessna's
b) The whole world saw the building fall in it's own footprint, the speed of the collapse was free-fall, meaning that each floor met no resistance from the floor below, now to anyone who dabbles in physics that must mean the supports were blown.
c) The hole was in fact a hole not a plane or missile, but a hole far too small for that plane, it left no debris, there were no marks where the wings and tail should have hit. The most secure building in the world couldn't come up with any cctv footage of a plane. The flight plan of the pentagon jet was impossible because of the ground effect it would have undergone at 500mph.
d) technology has improved now but at the time you could not make a cell phone call from a jet.
I'll tell what, you have one days training in taking off and landing in a 747 and then have a go for real and see how many people are willing to trust you! My God is there no end to the nonsense you're prepared to babble.
The list of inconsistencies in the official 911 story are huge and it actually insults the intelligence of a child. One of the most absurd government statements was that despite the devastation, the fires , disintegrated concrete and bodies, they found on top of the rubble a hijackers passport !!- Yeah right.
And what about the hijacker who is still a pilot for Moroccan airlines, that's quite a feat isn't it?
The list is huge, what about building 7 and how come the BBc reported it's collapse 15 minutes before it collapsed.
It really shouldn't be a surprise that warmons will accept any old crap fed to them by the government, as they are either propagandists or useful idiots.
My wife and sister are both cancer survivors (stage 4 colon cancer).
20 years ago most climate scientists were skeptics. There was no consensus of scientific evidence or opinion supporting AGW.
Based on the evidence, thousands of professional scientists whose job is to study and understand the evidence moved in the direction from skeptical to acceptance. You claim that the evidence has moved in the opposite direction.
Someone is not understanding the evidence and the science correctly. What makes you believe that you know more about science than scientists do?
>>when I found out Co2 lags temperature <<
As stated, that is not true - there is no way that you could have adequately researched this question and come to that conclusion.
You often hear 'denialists' claiming that they are called such because people that do so do it because they are attempting to affiliate them with holocaust deniers. Given this, and I am fairly certain you have argued this before, your post here has absolutely no grounds in reality. I feel sorry that your wife had cancer. I have known a few people myself that have had terminal cancer and I know how hard it can be. But I don't think the word denial implies what you are saying it does. The meaning of the word has a broad range of possibilities. Here's a question...
What evidence did you look at?
I've never seen you post any evidence in here whatsoever that goes against mainstream science. If you do I would like to see it. Why do you think you know better than the majority of climatologists? Why do you think you know better than many of them that even post in here?
Edit: I think your first problem was paying attention to Al Gore past your studying period. In order to find the true nature of what is going on, and why temperatures shift from year to year so abruptly, you're going to have to look past Al Gore's movie and do more studying. And the basis of 'CO2 lagging temperature" does not take into account the numbers involved.
The atmosphere is currently increasing in CO2 at a rate of 2ppm or 15.6 billion tonnes per year.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends...
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html#3...
While fossil fuel emissions, in 2009, amounted to 8738 million metric tonnes of carbon.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global....
Change this to include the oxygen molecules by multiplying by 3.664 you get roughly 32 billion tonnes of carbon. Notice the amount human emit is greater than the amount the atmosphere is increasing by. Naturally, you are correct, that CO2 follows temperature increase. This is due to the relation of gasses over liquids and is given by Le Chatelier's Principal which states the following:
"If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or partial pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to counteract the imposed change and a new equilibrium is established."
Naturally then CO2 increase follows temperature rise in an effort to maintain equilibrium. However human emissions are increasing the partial pressure of CO2 above the oceans causing an increase in oceanic uptake, not outgassing. This is why the atmosphere is increasing at a rate almost half that of human emissions and why the oceans are currently decreasing in pH as they absorb more air-borne CO2.
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab...
And the tropical hotspot will occur due to any type of warming and is caused by changes in the moist adiabatic lapse rate. Is there an error in the models showing a tropical hotspot? Yes of course. Does this mean the models are completely wrong? No. Does this mean anthropogenic global warming does not exist? Of course not. And the troposphere was warmign and the stratosphere was cooling up until the point of ozone recovery.
"when I found out Co2 lags temperature that's when I changed my mind"
That pretty thoroughly illustrates the fact that you haven't bothered to understand either the science or the economic stats that show how much CO2 we're producing.
Denial has a range of levels, I watched a documentary on a group of English deniers of 9/11 they had a range of absurd theories concerning government plots and 9/11, each had a different angle, they were taken to America and meet relatives and experts on each aspect of the various plots they believed.
like
a) you could not lean to fly a jet into a building as easily as the terrorists did.
b) It was a controlled demolition
c) the hole in Pentagon was not a plane but a missile
d) you could not make a phone call from a plane
each expert pulled these theories apart with science, like the time it would take to set up a controlled demolition and the number of people, i.e. it was impossible
or that one of the 9/11 deniers was shown and instructed in just one lesson to fly and land a plane.
It was interesting to watch these people try to switch to alternate theories like (for the demolition) it must have been thermite, they were taken and shown thermite in a practical test and it didn't cut steel the way the myth says it does.
One of these turnips made the claim that you could not make a phone call from a plane given the altitude and it was not allowed, how stupid is that on either count the plane in question was clearly not at altitude as only minutes later in crashed and I think few who know they where about to die are going to care about the 'no cell phone rule'
By the end most of this group had changed their minds, only two diehards refused and they started to get quite angry with the others and the film crew, and their excuses more and more irrational, I think most people will, with reliable info give up their denial but there will always be a small hardcore that will not change their minds no matter what the evidence presented.
Your quote:
"but altered my beliefs when I looked at the evidence, that would hardly make me a denier."
What evidence, I have seen you post the most absurd questions with no backup or just the usual denier blogs, nothing that I would call even slightly credible evidence, sorry to say that is a fine example of denial.
But please present this "evidence" you refer to, as in years of attempting to supply deniers with real information, I am yet to see any denier actually present anything credible but perhaps they were missed in the hail of references to nazis, communists, Al Gore, volcanoes, cosmic rays, the Club of Rome, the return of the planet Nibiru and the fiction jim z has posted about the contents of my id page here.
I wonder what the odds are, that you will be unable to post this evidence you allude to!
They do know what denial looks like because they give good references to conspiracy theories. Apparently stupid people believing in other stupid theories proves a theory, other scientific theories that most people believe in are also good to reference, that helps prove that science is not always intentionally vague. In that case I find AGW not plausable because people who want to ban water also believe in AGW, additionally those wanting to ban water obviously have no scientific background or they do and they didn't learn anything which is further reason to be skeptical about their opinions.
I'm very sorry about your wife, that is quite sad.
Instead of being a denier you are perhaps an innocent dupe of the denial propaganda machine. However when you persist in spreading misinformation you can understand that you do not appear innocent.
AGW supporters see humans as made in two kinds, warmers and deniers, If not the first, then you are the second. What is denied is unimportant to their argument.
I do, when my Wife was diagnosed with stage 4 liver cancer, I went into denial and tried to find out if it could be any other curable disease.
Psychological denial only happens when the truth is unbearably painful, I hardly put climate change in that category, and seeing that at one time I believed in climate change, but altered my beliefs when I looked at the evidence, that would hardly make me a denier.
Kano is not an innocent dupe of the denial machine. He deliberately lied about a supposed 15 year hiatus in global warming.
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
Until proven otherwise, human lives are at stake. Would you touch an electrical wire because it might not be live.
OM
Many realists love science. The supposed stall in global warming is something that people wanted to explain. Apparently, we started to explain it before we checked the data. For a while, we were acting like denialists, believing the blogs without checking if they were true. Give future generations a 15mm sea level rise penalty.
