Because you refuse to worship at the alter of their false god.
Science has skeptics, religions have deniers.
I've said before and will say again that I don't consider you a 'denier.' I do think you can get very aggressive in some of your comments, which has perhaps contributed to some individuals here labeling you as such, but those individuals can get equally aggressive in their comments-and it seems to me that has been on the increase for quite some time as frustration has mounted and the name-calling has increased. It may be a chicken and egg situation and I have an opinion on which came first both here and elsewhere, but my opinion doesn't matter too much and I am not going to influence anyone of the opposite view on that particular point.
In fact, I would say at this juncture that this forum, based on the recent questions and answers, has become almost useless for anyone who is actually interested in science. The regulars here are just sniping back and forth at each other. Perhaps that is the intent of some of the participants here, and if so, one would have to wonder why. One can certainly speculate that some people, in their participation here, have the sole intent of disrupting this particular category just like most of the political categories have become a ridiculous caricature of discussion and "debate." In other instances, it appears that some people are so upset with the direction this forum has gone that they are unable to focus on the questions themselves and actually answer them.
Nonetheless, I have found many of your science related questions quite informative, and if they are skeptical of the findings of climate science, that's just fine-I wonder about the predicted outcomes and timing quite a lot myself. However, regardless of what anyone might want to say about climate scientists and their predictions, I have made business decisions predicated on those predictions-in concert with poliicymaker's actions (or lack of them)-and found the personal outcomes quite positive. Perhaps the energies devoted to arguing and insulting other people here might be more profitably engaged in economic analysis and investment. I'm just sayin.'
I hope the tenor of this category will calm down, we will see some more mature behavior from everyone who is perpetuating the name-calling and more serious questions and answers about the state of climate research will prevail, but I don't hold out much hope for that in the near future. In the meantime, please continue asking the questions you find relevant to climate science itself, and hopefully the majority of the respondents will provide useful information.
Calling you a denier justifies disregarding your objections to conclusions that are unsupported by the science. Remember when you thought your parents knew everything but then you grew up, they simply haven't grown up. Despite predictions based on calculations built from guesstimations which have uncertainty levels which include every possiblity except for natural catastrophies, like a huge meteor strike, they don't want to betray that parent-child relationship.
They deny that it falls within natural variation and you deny that it does not.
They call you worse than that --- now they are calling skeptics "Climate Change Deniers" as if there was anybody on the planet that denies that the climate changes.
And I be you don't even deny global warming. I bet the only thing you deny is that human activity is the main cause of global warming.
But the Eco-Fascist propaganda machine is happy to compare you with a Holocaust denier simply to drive their agenda forward. This in spite of the fact there is not one shred of evidence that humans caused global warming.
Warmists are a vicious crowd, today the New York Times ran a cartoon depicting a "Climate Change Denier" being stabbed in the chest for their lack of faith in Man-Made Global Warming. And an icicle is being used to do the stabbing --- so now if you don't believe that warming causes cooling, you are a denier.
Warmist/Alarmists think that's funny.
-----------------------
Because most of the time you post garbage and disregard scientific evidence.
EDIT: Kano said "I understand this a doubling of CO2 is projected to cause 3.7 WM2 (1C) warming (big deal)"
See, this is EXACTLY why you get the "denier" label--this is garbage you got off some denier website, that completely ignores water vapor. It's funny how deniers can alternately claim that scientists ignore water vapor as a greenhouse gas, then ignore it themselves when it's convenient for them.
Another EDIT: Kano says "The positive water vapor feedback is unproven and disputed"
"Disputed" only by deniers--there is no science behind that.
Because they want you to believe in global warming and follow it just like all the other sheep do with out question , have you ever noticed everything on the news lately nothing is good news it's all the world is heating up cooling down with ice melting and all the other nonsense .
Oh no when I breath out I am polluting , whoops I just let one rip and it just took 2 milliseconds of the world . Lmao
Change the language and it is easier to marginalize your opponent and win the debate.
Of course all that song and dance would not be necessary if the facts supported your side.
Your question shouldn't have been reported. Although you continue to post that it hasn't been warming for 17 years, even though you have been corrected many times.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
Pindar hit the nail on the head. If you DARE question that man made CO2 will destroy every living thing on the planet you are labeled a "denier". The foundation of science is to be skeptical of wild claims.
Because you deny the activists power to control your life and the lives of others.
Don't know why it was reported. the only one I have reported in the past few months was Billy's recent question proclaiming scientists were pedophiles.
Lets look at what denial means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/d...
Depending on your level of denial, when talking about the amount or effects of anthropogenic climate change, you or others could fit into several of those categories.
Denialism is merely to deny. You are denying the science and evidence, as I have presented it to you such as changes in outgoing or downward spectral frequencies, merely because you do not understand them and come up with reasons such as "There are so many errors with satellite data" yet you use that same satellite data to show that there has been a limited warming, or even a cooling trend, since 1998. You are not a 'holocaust' denier as your side continuously asserts that word means. I'm fairly certain you are not a gravity denier either. You are a denier of the scientific evidence behind quite a bit of the warming being attributed to CO2 increases. Your usual statement is "CO2 absorbs most of it's energy within the first 100ppm" or something similar while completely ignoring the fact that, while this is true, the amount of energy capable of being absorbed by CO2 is still significant and able to raise planetary temperatures by a large margin. Of course this is only per layer. Given this, and I have pointed this out before, further denial comes in the form that while a lower level may be saturated at some frequency upper layers will not be saturated at that frequency and that is where warming will occur. As that upper layer becomes warmer it will warm the lower layers as well as there is more back radiation to contend with.
Don't know why it was reported. the only one I have reported in the past few months was Billy's recent question proclaiming scientists were pedophiles.
Lets look at what denial means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/d...
Depending on your level of denial, when talking about the amount or effects of anthropogenic climate change, you or others could fit into several of those categories.
Denialism is merely to deny. You are denying the science and evidence, as I have presented it to you such as changes in outgoing or downward spectral frequencies, merely because you do not understand them and come up with reasons such as "There are so many errors with satellite data" yet you use that same satellite data to show that there has been a limited warming, or even a cooling trend, since 1998. You are not a 'holocaust' denier as your side continuously asserts that word means. I'm fairly certain you are not a gravity denier either. You are a denier of the scientific evidence behind quite a bit of the warming being attributed to CO2 increases. Your usual statement is "CO2 absorbs most of it's energy within the first 100ppm" or something similar while completely ignoring the fact that, while this is true, the amount of energy capable of being absorbed by CO2 is still significant and able to raise planetary temperatures by a large margin. Of course this is only per layer. Given this, and I have pointed this out before, further denial comes in the form that while a lower level may be saturated at some frequency upper layers will not be saturated at that frequency and that is where warming will occur. As that upper layer becomes warmer it will warm the lower layers as well as there is more back radiation to contend with.
Edit: I see Maxx is attempting to push together the phrases that I stated. HOLOCAUST DENIER is one that denies the holocaust occurred. ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER is one that denies man's hand in climate change. the word DENIER is what is being used here not the word HOLOCAUST. This is exactly how people like MAxx attempt to throw the argument under the bus and cry foul on something that was never meant and never stated.
Kano: It is well known there are negative feedbacks. Warming occurs with an increase of greenhouse gases when the positive feedbacks outweigh the negative. the planet has warmed over the past few decades due to increases in greenhouse gases. When do these negative feedbacks kick in?
Edit: The energy imbalance is escalating. Just because the surface measurements do not rise uniformly does not mean system energy is not increasing and measurements show it is. If feedbacks 'kicked in' they would be present from the get go and there would be no warming. If negative feedbacks were greater than positive feedbacks there would be no warming.
Edit: Temperatures are increasing. tropospheric water vapour is increasing. Water vapour is a positive feedback. Clouds are not increasing with warming.
I asked before but it was reported
Any time you are opposed to something you don't believe in that is denial
Read the GD definition http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...
1. You do not have an informed scientific understanding of global warming and you have never tried to inform yourself because you believe the data, the science, and the scientists are all fakes and frauds - even though your only sources of information are political opinions by scientifically uniformed people and liars.
2. You cannot be a skeptic of climate science because that role was claimed by scientists long ago - and because being a septic requires an expert level of knowledge about the subject or something damn close to it.
3, Your only reason for being here is to oppose AGW (even though you do not really know anything about it) because you have been told it is a political issue and that you are supposed to be against it.
4. Your opinion on AGW comes from - and can only be changed by - your sources of political information. Your opinion on AGW has never been - and never will be - based on empirical evidence or scientific research.
5. There is no real-world evidence or scientific knowledge that can change your opinion because you never considered those things in forming your opinion and you never will - and part of the problem, of course, is your inability to identify, assess, and understand the subject, the data, the evidence, the research, and the scientific results.
So, if you do not call the out-right and active (by your questions and answers) rejection of something that you do not understand and that you refuse to objectively examine "denial" - what do you call it?
=====
edit --
>>C. If by stating that spending trillions of $, adding regulations and restrictions and not being able to reduce global CO2 by even 1ppm is stupid, I am denying, well yes then I am a denier<<
You have no evidence for that claim - other than your blind acceptance of it because you want it to be true.
Your "if by stating" = "if by lying".
Rejecting something you do not know anything about is not the opposite of blind acceptance - it IS blind acceptance; and it is precisely your blind acceptance of politically motivated anti-science propaganda and your equally blind rejection of science that makes you a Denier.
=====
edit --
>> Jeff M. I don't deny your science, and perhaps your right that I do not fully understand it, but even you admit that there are negative feedbacks, the difference between us is I believe that climate change will not amount to much, where you believe it will be damaging.<<
This is perfect:
1) You admit that you do not understand the science - but
2) You do not think being ignorant of the science affects your understanding of the science or lessens your ability to reach sceintific conclusions.
>>the difference between us is I believe that climate change will not amount to much, where you believe it will be damaging.<<
No, no, no, and no.
The difference between you is that Jeff understands science and you do not.
And THAT is why you are a Denier.
=======
edit --
Bullshlt. You have no interest in climate science and your every statement about AGW is political,
You ask pretend questions about something like PDO - but you have never - ever - cared about a scientific answer. If you really were interested in the science, you would not keep asking the same question when it has been answered dozens of times.
If you learned anything from the question, it would lead you to ask different questions. Why have you never inquired about the interconnections between any of the various SST functions?
Why have you never taken one second to think about what your claim that PDO might "drive" temperature even means? You don't even know what the PDO is - where it comes from - or what might be its cause.
What evidence do you have that PDO is even a real thing and not just a spurious calculation? The PDO is an empirically created variable? How do you know that the measurements and calculations used to invent it are valid? Is it valid just because climate scientists gave it a name?
And, since it was the very same climate scientists who discovered AGW that also discovered the PDO, what makes you think that you or some blogging-denier know more about what it is and how it works than they do?
After all, if it was not for those climate scientists, Deniers never would have heard of the PDO - just like they would never have heard of the AMO, NAO, El Nino, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Ice Cores, Tree-rings, solar-effects, climate cycles - and everything else that has been identified, defined, discovered, invented, and studied by the climate scientists Deniers accuse of making everything up.
Why do you choose to blindly accept and believe in some of things that climate scientists have discovered, studied, and formed a consensus on while blindly rejecting other things they have discovered, studied, and formed a consensus on - when you do not even know what the Hell any of those things are?
======
edit ---
>>I understand this a doubling of CO2 is projected to cause 3.7 WM2 (1C) warming (big deal)<<
That is absurd. And while it can be informative to mess around with those numbers and predictions during the course of experimentation, they are unknown - and there is verity as to their real worth.
Just because we have the ability to measure things and calculate things does not mean that they are important. For example, statistically significant does not mean statistically important. I have always argued that it was a mistake for scientists to casually use terms and concepts that do not mean the same thing is English as they do in math and science.
It's tricky because that is the way we talk to each other - and while we know what we mean when we say certain things, non-scientists not only do not understand what we are saying - they may easily, and incorrectly, assume that we are saying something that we are not saying at all.
Precision and accuracy are not the same thing and, unfortunately, some scientists forget that important point.
=====
Moe --
Scientific knowledge is not a function of "growing up."
======
edit ---
>>Gary F. what do you want to know about the PDO <<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/23/el...
Ahhhhhh!!!! You're killing me. I was there when the PDO only had one D and no one knew what - or if - it was..
I'm not asking for myself - and there is nothing that I or anyone can learn from WUWT. THAT was my point. If you want to understand PDO, you need to learn about it - and you cannot learn anything about it from WUWT. In fact, you cannot evaluate WUWT unless you know something about PDO that is independent of what WUWT says.
Your question does not give me enough information to answer it.
