It is impossible to explain something to people who are determined to deny whatever it is you explain.
What you CAN do is explain the logical errors of deniers to non-deniers.
1. "Crop yields have increased over the past several decades, so global warming couldn't possibly be harmful to crops."
≈
In America, life expectancy was higher in the 1900s than the 1800s, so smoking cigarettes (average 50 per year per capita in 1900, 4000 in the 1960s) "couldn't possibly" shorten average life spans.
2. "There was no warming in this time period, even though CO2 levels went up, so CO2 couldn't possibly cause warming."
≈
The baseball team scored no runs tonight even though the number of hits they got went up from the night before, so hits "couldn't possibly" lead to runs being scored.
Notice your explanation, "And, these arguments bear a certain resemblance (at least in logic structure) to the "Well, there was no warming in this time period, even though CO2 levels went up, so CO2 couldn't possibly cause warming" arguments."
If you would care to watch your High Priest Al Gore's movie 'The Inconvenient Truth' he graphically displayed that when CO2 went up it drove the temperature up. Conversely, when the CO2 went down so did the temperature. This was his main tenet and one that most politicians absorbed. That is why there are all these laws attempting to limit CO2. Upon this tenet the US Supreme Court deemed it fit to call CO2 a pollutant. Upon that premise the UN saw fit to steal money from countries that signed to the KYOTO Accord. Do you even get it! How numb are you to science?
So scientifically in a test of yours and Al's theory the CO2 level has gone up and so should the Earth's temperature gone up in accordance with his chart. If the temperature does not go up then that theory of yours and Al's is bogus. That is the established scientific method that you should have learned in grade school. To bad you wasted all that money on science classes that taught communism rather than SCIENCE!
EDIT: RE your comment, "temperatures tend to follow CO2 in general =/= temperatures will always and absolutely follow CO2 exactly." Apparently you are unaware that Mother Earth and true science have proven you wrong. I know this won't get through your thick skull because you can't hear the truth because of the din of the ringing of Al Gore's cash register. Al is a phony and so is your science and that has been scientifically proven. So now show all of us some proof that your statement has some validity.
The only way that can happen is if global warming is not the cause of everything. Therein lies your problem.
Be more critical and don't just ignore the result you don't like. Ask yourself: If increasing GW causes an increase in A then what caused the decrease when GW was still increasing? Further, could it be that the answer to that question might also furnish the answer to what caused, or at least played a significant role in, the increase in the first place?
Don't just assume that GW is the answer but the mechanism needs to be explained to you. Have the courage to say that you think the emperor may be actually naked in this instance.
Way to pass the burden of proof.
Here is the problem. YOU WARMERS are claiming AGW kills crops. You have NOTHING to back that statement. IN fact, you cannot possibly have anything as crop production has been increasing faster than population.
So we are clear what this means. If it is increasing faster than population, then you are running into a problem with demand. Even if crop production increases leveled off to be the same as population increases, you would not know if that is caused by AGW or simply supply and demand.
So YES AGW may cause crop loss. But you have NO WAY OF SHOWING this is true. The data simply does not support this.
So do you think you do not hold the burden of proof for your claim?
As far as the extreme weather, you still have to show that, but the deaths is another thing.
Many warmers are asking for solutions that will cost 2% of GWP for some time. Now if you want to spend trillions, then I am going to demand you show that this will save MILLIONS of live.
Why? Because you are drawing so much money from other purposes, that you are going to pull from things used to save lives. Trillions of dollars can save MILLIONS of lives.
If you want to ask for a few billion instead, then you don't have to show as much.
Think about it in terms of yourself. If I ask you to spend $10 or $10,000, which are you going to require more evidence?
Edit:
When you control for all other factors, warmer weather tends to produce more, as does increased CO2 concentration. In fact, the entirety of the tree ring data ASSUMES that warmer temps mean more tree growth. Look it up.
As far as droughts, as I have said there has been no increase in drought in the last 60 years. So what are you really showing beyond models. Am I to believe the models without the trend proving true in reality?
Further, I wonder about the bias of the studies. Someone already showed a study that I ripped apart. It was poorly done and they assumed what could not be assumed. They used the derivative which was decreasing as opposed to the crop production which was increasing. Then they treated the analysis as if they had not used the derivative.
Nonetheless, I want evidence, and I think you hold the burden of proof if you want trillions spent.
Raisin Caine –
>>In fact, the entirety of the tree ring data ASSUMES that warmer temps mean more tree growth. Look it up. <<
Only at the extreme upper elevational and latitudinal limits of tree growth where variability in temperature is the most important factor in whether a tree lives or dies. Strong common variance in tree-ring series are frequently found at elevational extremes, often near the lower forest border and upper treeline limits of a species. Because of the limits temperature places on the elevational limits of timberline, it is reasonable that such signals might be found in upper treeline stands. Confidence in this is gained in part by building a repertoire of chronologies on a regional scale that evidence similar and synchronous annual changes due to commonly recorded climate signals.
>>When you control for all other factors, warmer weather tends to produce more<<
When you control for all other factors, warmer temperatures reduce yield in grains – and we understand why on the molecular level. CO2 offsets the loss caused by for wheat at least in the short term, but not for corn.
When you consider the way things are and have always been, agricultural yields for every major crop category are lower in the tropics than in temperate climates. The same is true for beef and pork livestock. Bananas do extremely well in the tropics – not a well-balanced diet, though.
Well, then again, there is the fact that Al Gore's charts, and all research since, shows that CO2 rises FOLLOW increased in temperature -by 800 years on average not precede (come before) it. so the evidence is, CO2 emissions follow heat rises, not the other way around. Cant have effects come before causes, now can we? That'd be like, changing your diaper before you poop, eh?
When you control for all other factors, warmer temperatures reduce yield in grains – and we understand why on the molecular level. CO2 offsets the loss caused by for wheat at least in the short term, but not for corn.
I don't know about explaining it to denialists, but I could explain to people who want to learn.
Just as carbon dioxide isn't the only influence on temperatures, global average temperature isn't the only influence on such things as crops and extreme weather events. Take the example of crops. New pesticides, hericides, fertilizers and GMOs and well as new techniques have all improved crop yeilds, as has irrigation. Some "skeptics" will point out that we are improving crop yeilds by using energy. First of all, energy =/= oil, natural gas and coal. We can use renewable energy for agriculture. And while it may be true that Farmer Bob's tractor will probably never be equiped with solar panels, it also isn't equiped with its own oil well or coal mine. Just as present day tractors use diesel, future tractors could use hydrogen, batteries or biodiesel.
Hmm alarmists say climate change will harm crops and reduce production, skeptics point out rightly or wrongly that crop production is increasing faster than population growth, that means skeptics have an argument which could be disputed, but alarmists have zero argument.
Alarmist say climate change will cause more extreme weather, but hurricanes and tornadoes are lower than normal, 90+ days are below average, again alarmist have no evidence, while skeptics have, even if you do not like their evidence.
I make that skeptics 2 alarmists 0
Right - I hate these denialists as well. We just need to publish what the predicted climate will be annually for the next 50 years. When they see just how accurate we are they won't able to deny the science anymore. Right?
I have seen several denialist arguments in the general form of "Since A increased/decreased while there was global warming, global warming couldn't possibly have caused A to decrease/increase (respectively)" The old favorite is that crop yields have increased over the past several decades, so global warming couldn't possibly be harmful to crops, but more recent posts have also been talking about death rates from extreme weather events. And, these arguments bear a certain resemblance (at least in logic structure) to the "Well, there was no warming in this time period, even though CO2 levels went up, so CO2 couldn't possibly cause warming" arguments.
Can some kind soul explain, in for-dummies terms, where they're getting the logic wrong on this one?
"Well, there was no warming in this time period, even though CO2 levels went up, so CO2 couldn't possibly cause warming" arguments."
But isn't that a valid argument? Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but when you don't even have correlation, then there is a word for that its called "wrong".
I've seen no indication that deniers are capable of understanding the idea that more than one cause can be acting at once, any more than they can grasp that positive feedback doesn't necessarily result in a runaway.
Yes please explain, how did co2 ( which was predicted to increase temperature if it's levels, rose) manage to rise without the corresponding temperature increase. Gee I guess I just don't have the same blind faith and ability to accept every bit of crap I'm spoon fed as yourself. x
Liberals are the main cause of denial of just about everything. Ignore all that you know about everthing, we've discovered today that everything bad happening around you is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
the keyword is denialist.
