By Mark Heyer – You’re a climate denier if:
– You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 17+ years despite rapid growth of CO2. 97% of real climate scientists acknowledge that it hasn’t. They call it the “pause” or “hiatus” although there is no scientific evidence that warming will pick up again or when.
– If you believe that Antarctica is melting. NASA satellite data shows that the sea ice extent around Antarctica in 2014 is the largest in recorded history.
![antarctic_seaice_sept19[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/antarctic_seaice_sept191.jpg?quality=83)
– If you believe that the observed West Antarctica warming is caused by warming of the atmosphere. Recent studies show that the heat is coming from volcanoes below the glacier. Besides, air temperatures in the area are far below zero. Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air.
![antarctic-volcano[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/antarctic-volcano1.gif)
– If you believe that 97% of climate scientists support the claim that global warming is driven directly by man-made CO2. It is true that 97% believe in climate change, which is the question they were asked, which is like asking them if the sun rises in the morning. Far fewer agreed with the man-made warming question and few of them agree on the details.
– You believe that climate models accurately represent the climate of the earth. They don’t. Even the scientists who run them and the IPCC agree that they cannot predict the future of the climate. This is now obvious to everyone since they totally failed to predict the leveling off of atmospheric temperatures since 2000.
– You think that climate models accurately model the behavior of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. They don’t. They are completely unable to model the behavior of 97% of the greenhouse gas, water vapor and clouds. The dire predictions of runaway global warming from CO2 were based on the conjecture that water vapor would amplify the effects of CO2. The lack of recent warming while CO2 continues to increase shows clearly that water vapor is either neutral or in fact suppresses the warming from CO2.
– If you believe that around 2000, CO2 magically changed its mind and decided to warm the oceans instead of the air. Some scientists speculate that this is the case but there is little or no hard science to support the notion. Some even speculate that the heat is going into the deep oceans, even though there is no way to measure it or find it.
– You believe that man-made global warming is causing climate disasters. The International Red Cross reports that natural disasters are at a ten year low. Tornado and hurricane activity have also been at near record lows.
Don’t be an anti-science climate denier.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mark Heyer, thanks. I enjoyed that.
I know it’s a Friday Funny, but the fact that it’d be summarily ignored by anyone who’d actually use the D-word makes me sad.
For me it’s more mad than sad.
Lose all the graphs and this it’d be a punchier article. It doesn’t need them.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/pick-your-targets-carefully/
~Pointman
Some people like visual stimulation.
And it does add impact to the contrast between: He said – I show.
de- nihilist pron
For a chap of your ability, no it doesn’t. But if you accept that those graphs provide the less-well informed with visual back-up to what otherwise would merely be a series of assertions, and that a picture paints a thousand words…
Disagree slightly. The graph of the model ensemble vs actual temperatures, overlain with the IPCC confidence trend is a beaut. Should be on every front page.
Yeah, and the 97% – 99% picture is pure art.
Pointman, one could argue to leave out the text and just leave the graphics. Antarctica would need to be replaced though with a graph of extent since 1979 though. A picture speaks a thousand words.
The IPCC says this is not supported by the science. Once of the founders of the IPCC agrees too.
Next time some idiot tells you about runaway warming tell them they are talking shyte. The IPCC said so.
I don’t agree mr.Pointman
But what I would like to see is better, and by that I mean uncluttered simplyfied graphs, and only one for each bulletpoint. Maybe complimented with links to the official graphs.
This article should be rewritten, not as a Friday funny, but something we can point to when asked to prove the globe isn’t warming. In my view it has that much potential.
PowerPoint Presentation or YouTube video.
I prefer the graphs. They speak a thousand words.
I’d say the first graph is too busy for many people. The less interested will switch off immediately.
Count me among the many.
Now if it wasn’t the very first graph, I would like it more. Further down, after other pictures have got my curiosity.
But it is too busy anyway. And the non zero referenced scale is fraudulent.
Now, this is the real dilemma, isn’t it, Michael? The strategy of head-nodding, warmist leaning MSM is to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator and appeal to the grade 6 level masses. If we, as denialists .. yeah, I’ve gotten comfortable with that tag … follow suit, eliminating meaningful graphs because they are too busy, we become just like the warmists. Not sure what the answer is, but it will be something in the initial delivery of the message that must catch the reader’s attention. The average reader wouldn’t even catch the satirical nature of this piece, unfortunately
I like the graphs! 🙂
Besides…what would we post on Facebook? ;-P
Well, you know the drill – all the warmists will call for the data if it isn’t spoon fed to them anyway, so perhaps
this just saves time.
All the warmists show us are projections and official homogenized graphical tamperings.
Actually, it’s nice to see claims about climate change backed up by facts.
Without the graphs they’re merely statements. I ALWAYS want the evidence shown – even for a humorous piece.
I must admit I do like the graphs, especially the one that plots confidence levels in the models.. ie. confident to increased confidence to likely to very likely to extremely likely. What is next?
Some of us prefer facts over opinions.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m partial to graphs, powerpoint slides etc having produced more than my fair share of them. The point I’m making here is that the contradictions being highlighted here are strong and amusing enough to stand on their own merits. Whether we like it or not and irrespective of whether we’re comfortable with them, the eye candy in the presentation will very quickly lose the average reader. If you compulsively need to have references, that’s what footnotes are for but we know very few people look at them anyway.
A simple list, intelligently and amusingly presented, would have done the trick and been accessible to a wider audience. eg.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/why-would-anyone-believe-a-single-word-coming-out-of-their-mouth/
Pointman
I learned a long time ago to never argue religion with a true believer. No matter how much information you have, it’s just beating your head against a brick wall:
https://www.facebook.com/david.gerrold/posts/10204085879399612
1014 should be 2014 in the sentence above the Antarctic Sea Ice photo.
[Reply: Fixed. Thanks. -ModE]
Not to mention the opening sentence needs fixed.
“You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 17+ years despite rapid growth of CO2.”
“despite” should be replaced with “because” or something along those lines.
Not to mention your opening sentence needs to be fixed.
Sorry… I used to work with a bunch of people who dropped their ‘helper verbs’, and another bunch of people who were severely irritated by it. It left scars.
Actually, all that is needed is to move a period and change a capital letter.
I love Mark’s turning the tables on the Anti-science Warmists!
I guess “1014” is a typo. 😉
Deniers? I’ve always been against those who deny the pause.
” It is true that 97% believe in climate change, which is the question they were asked, which is like asking them if the sun rises in the morning.”
Still can’t believe that one wasn’t 100%.
Maybe it fall under the “3% of people don’t read the question thoroughly before answering?
Dunno.
I’d sooner think that 97% are literalists, who took the question strictly as it stood. The other 3% were the ones who read into the intentions of the questioner.
“I’d sooner think that 97% are literalists,”
97% took question as: If you agree with the Mann, you will get unlimited funding from Taxpayer$.
Made my weekend, thanks!
“You’re a climate denier if:”
Uh, wait…
did any of those folks deny that we have a climate?
Just askin’.
I believe Mann denied [there] was a climate before AGW started. We just had ‘regional weather patterns’ like the Medieval
Warm PeriodClimate Anomaly.I believe that’s the Medieval Local Climate Anomaly.
Can anyone share what the definition of “Climate Scientist” is in the statement 97% of Climate Scientist?
I’ve asked elsewhere and cannot get a serious answer. I’ve searched on line and find that 97% of the results are not definitive? (Little joke here, but serious question. I’d really like to know)
Danny, the problem is that there is no one specific field of study that is defined as climate science at any institute of public learning. There a myriad of scientific fields that are involved in studying the climate and those things that effect it. So, the term “climate scientist” has been applied to any practitioner in any of those fields who submits hypotheses concerning the climate, so long as those hypotheses support the theme. Scientists who propose ideas contrary to to the them are just practitioners of their specific field (see Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke, Roy Spencer, etc.).
Well, if I remember correctly, the people who came up with that 97% consensus claim, defined a “Climate Scientist” as one who has more than 50% of his papers/articles published in peer-reviewed journals that purport to be concerned with climate issues.
I second what Keith W. just said. “Climate Science” includes such fields as Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Geography, Geology, Mathematics, and Physics. And probably a few more that I didn’t mention, But those are the main ones.
Therin lies my trouble with term. It appears to me that there are just as many “Climate Scientist” on the “other” side (I just can’t use the “D” word). Sounds like much of it relates to volume of “peer reviewed” submissions and to whom. Just a numbers game.
Helps me with developing a perspective.
Thanks to you and Keith for your feedback.
“Can anyone share what the definition of “Climate Scientist” …”
Sure, Money Grubbers.
Cut off all Global Warming / Climate Change funding, and watch how many jump all over next Govt. Funded Faux Crisis.
“I’ve asked elsewhere and cannot get a serious answer.”
You can’t because those people are not Scientists. No Scientist could continue to back or claim AGW; when original premise was increasing temperatures were result of increased Man-made CO2. Any Scientist would have to admit that was a false premise; being CO2 levels have defintely increased, while Global temperatures have not.
1985 First warnings of Global Warming – CO2 less than 350 ppm
1997 First AGW Panic Alarms go off – CO2 is at 364 ppm
2014 AGW Alarmists still crying Sky is Falling – CO2 reaches 400 ppm
Twelve years (1985-1997) CO2 goes up by 14 ppm – Global Temps rise 0.2C
Seventeen years (1997-2014) CO2 goes up by 36 ppm – Global Temps rise 0.1C first 5 years, then flatten for next Twelve years.
Conclusion CO2 does not effect Earth’s climate as claimed.
Scientist looking at that info would ask questions, do more research. But they sure wouldn’t continue to proclaim AGW was fact.
a climate scientist is anyone who is willing to back the IPCC’s version of AGW. As opposed to the heretical, racist denier, who believe in a flat earth, that the moon landings were faked, opposed civil rights reforms (Al Gore), that it’s better to have a dentist perform major surgery (Michael Mann) and that the AGW theory might be flawed. These deniers should have their books burned (San Jose State University) be summarily executed during childhood (10-10 No Pressure video) and be given three hots and a cot while locked up with the other war criminals (Robert F Kennedy jr).
Hope that helps
Denyingly yours,
Pat from Cork
I’d also add:
– You think the tropospheric hot spot that proves AGW is there, despite the fact the balloons and satellites can’t find it. (show graph)
– You think sea level rise is accelerating despite the fact it’s tapering off. (show graph)
Yes, according to the data compiled by the Sea level Research Group at Colorado University, sea level has a negative rate of rise since 1993 of 0.03 mm/yr²
Here’s a screen shot
http://oi39.tinypic.com/nr14bq.jpg
from a presentation by Dr. Nerem of CU from a few years back when it was -0.06 mm/year²
I forgot the link to Dr. Nerem’s slide show:
Why has an acceleration of sea level rise not been observed during the altimeter era?
R. Steven Nerem (University of Colorado)
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2011/oral/02_Thursday/Splinter%203%20SCI/04%20Nerem%20ostst_2011_nerem.pdf
Not so. They don’t even discuss it much less make any recent claims of a hot spot.
Out of sight…Out of mind.
If they don’t talk about it, it never existed.
Has anyone come forward and take responsibility for the damage caused by their claim that snow will be a thing of the past and our children won’t know what snow is?
They don’t talk about it.
It never happened.
Small quibbles:
“ice extent around Antarctica in 1014 is the largest in recorded history” – s/b satellite era?
“Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air” – it does sublime
Not only that but …
What’s happening at the bottom of the ice is just as important as the air temperature above the ice. Sea ice melts like crazy even if the air temperature doesn’t go above freezing. The thickness of the sea ice is a function of air temperature. In the spring, the sea ice goes from 10 feet thick to only a couple of feet thick as the temperature goes from -40°C to -10°C. You can’t tell without measuring because the appearance of the surface doesn’t change. My memory of the exact numbers is hazy but I do remember that the DC-3 wouldn’t come to take us out if the ice was too thin. I always suspected (but can’t prove) that the CO occasionally mis-reported the ice thickness. 😉
I do not doubt that sea ice varies in thickness over the seasons, and the reasons how that happens we have more speculation than theory on. The issue is that the climate scientists suggest that CO2 is forcing surface temperatures to rise and thereby causing ice to melt. To support that all scientists have to do is show ice melting in sea water at -10 C faster than at -40C in their freezer at home. Which is silly of course as is there claims.
IIRC, not at one atmosphere pressure.
You do not recall correctly. At any temperature where the relative humidity is less than 100%, water will evaporate, if in liquid form, or sublime, if in solid form. Technically there is an equilibrium process going on, and some molecules of H2O are going back to the bulk liquid or solid, but the net flow is a diminution of the water reservoir.
Ice cubes in my freezer sublime. Of course, I use them faster than it matters.
Okay. I preface this with I’m a non scientist newbie trying to understand the whole rigmarole of CC. I’ve visited here, there, and places in between.
But having said that, even I got this one. Dry ice? (Made that up in my itty bitty brain)
No, I recall correctly, just not completely. The triple point is at about 600 Pa of partial pressure.
The phase change you want is Sublimation.
Ice does not melt in -30 C, but it does evaporate into dry air, and more importantly, under the huge pressure, it flows towards the sea, where it does melt.
The question is how much mass loss there is and is that random variation or systematic loss, and do we have to do something on it. I do not believe we should, but lets not be ignorant about melting.
99,7% plus 0.5% equals 100.2%
You’re 100% right – that distracted me, too. Tut, tut.
ah.. you beat me to it.
It hurts my eyes.
Ok folks, I just scratched the surface of this concept. What else should be on the list? With all the great commenters, editors and fact checkers on WIWT, we should be able to come up with a really bulletproof list. Eventually people might even start to listen…
Not when the hidden agenda is something else…
Don’t forget that 3x forcing factor of increased water vapor.
Also, it has been colder with higher CO2 levels.
and, it has been warner with lower CO2 levels.
This is mostly well done. However I have this against the “denier” label being used in reverse. I have read plenty of vitriol on this site regarding the “denier” moniker applied to skeptics by the “warmists”. Mark, I will not assume that you are one who is offended by it since you include it in your humor but I do find it odd that many who are offended at being linked to holocaust deniers by the term would then be just fine with it being applied to the CAGW proponents. Just a thought. Taking the gloves off in a fight for ideas is a worthy cause. Reverse name calling, especially with a term that is as loaded as “denier” is seems to be beneath the skeptic point of view. The facts as you have presented them speak much more loudly than the headline and finishing sentence.
Mirroring an accusation is a pretty good strategy. It gets attention. Many warmists are also engaged in conspiracy ideation (such as a belief that Koch brothers behind every denial). Revealing this aspect produces a probably useless but entertaining torrent of denial.
Intelligent observers will realize that all normal human beings recognize or suspect the existence of conspiracy ranging from ordinary corporate boardroom strategy sessions to things more sinister.
The effect therefore is to “take it off the table” of argumentation. If a warmist cites Koch brothers, the automatic response is to take note of his conspiratorial ideation. Thank you Dr. Lewandowsky for a bit of entertainment.
I prefer not using the denier phrase. “Ignoramus” is much better because they are ignorant of the facts!
I’ve taken a shine to the moniker “cultist”.
I didn’t intend to reply at all, but this comment speaks to me.
I’m a denier. In fact I’m a sceptic, largely because the whole Global Warming sideshow just doesn’t feel like science to me, and never did. It feels more like the sort of politically motivated pseudoscience that I was always taught to distrust. But I find that even thinking about it makes me a “denier”.
I never intended to take sides. I resent it that there even are sides. My politics are left of centre, I’ve never been accused of being a libertarian, and if I’m in the pay of Big Oil I wish their cheques would come through some time soon…
All I ever wanted to do was look at the evidence and, once in a while, say “Hang on a minute…” And, boy, are there plenty of opportunities to use that phrase! Naturally. This isn’t the sort of subject where everything just lines up. (In fact the very monolithicality of Climate Research is one of the things that make me sceptical. They never seem to disagree with each other.)
There’s something here that the warmists don’t seem to get. I don’t believe they’re wrong. I just don’t believe, truly, deeply, fanatically, that they’re *right*!
“You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 17+ years despite rapid growth of CO2.
Huh?
Shouldn’t there be a a “hasn’t” instead of a “had” in that sentance ? Or can’t I read?
It is a difficult sentence to write right when there are 6 competing thoughts that need to be expressed through parady by exaggerating three of the six. I think you are reading it “straight,” as if you were the accused denier. Rather, the deniers are the CAGW catastrophysists who DO believe the atmosphere has warmed the past 18 years.
Over last 18 years, temperature has not risen. A CAGW climate science denier DOES claim that temperatures are now “the hottest week ever”, “the hottest summer ever”, “the hottestest decade ever”, despite the world-wide satellite evidence.
Over the last 18 years, temperatures have not risen even though CO2 has risen steadily. A climate science denier DOES believe as a matter of faith that any rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperatures.
Over the previous 18 years as CO2 rose steadily, global average air temperatures did go up slightly, but global average ocean temperatures did not go up.
Over the last 18 years as CO2 rose steadily, global average air temperatures were steady while global average ocean temperatures did not go up measurably. A CAGW climate science denier not only denies the “Pause” but also claims that ocean temperatures DID rise over the past 18 years despite the lack of measurements.
Read it with the introduction: ie “You are a denier if you believe the atmosphere has continued to warm”
That sentence is wrong, but because of the word ‘despite’. It should be replaced with ‘due to’ or ‘because of’.
[Again: remember the intent and dilemma of writing sarcasm and parody correctly: If it were easier, more people would be successful comedians than successful (ie, rich and powerful) politcians. .mod]
Plumbing the Depths: A new low!!
‘Paedophile’ anti-coalmining advert is pulled by climate change group after complaints
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2806024/Climate-change-action-group-forced-pull-proposed-billboard-image-critics-accuse-paedophilic-overtones.html
Oops – um, WUWT…
Forgive me. While you all are just getting up and thinking clearly, for me it is two beers past 10pm where we just rolled in to Singh Reap Cambodia, a place full of wats of the Angkor kind. Hard to keep it all straight…
The truth will out.
Well, we can hope, anyway.
Small correction. Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air, but it can sublimate (transition directly from ice to water vapor).
At atmospheric pressure?
Have you ever seen an ice tray that’s been in the freezer for a long time? It’s slow, but the ice cubes will shrink.
I think it does in climate models run on super computers which generate tons of heat.
Drum roll please…
I like this article, I’ve had many of the same thoughts myself. However I think it is oversimplifying things in a couple areas. Good point about the air temperature in Antarctica not being the cause of the shrinking Antarctic ice sheet, all areas of the Antarctic land mass have an average yearly temperature below freezing, the average for the continent is -37°C. However ice can melt in sub-freezing temperatures if it is in the sun (I think the dark soot on the Greenland sheet is causing an increased sun melting rate there, haven’t seen any evidence of that happening in Antarctica though), and ice can sublimate below freezing and lose mass also. And when people say antarctic ice is decreasing they are not talking about surface area generally, they are talking about land area volume or mass of ice since loss of ice mass on land sheets is what will raise sea levels. Antarctic ice volume is harder to measure, but NASA has a measurement here:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/
The mechanism that the ice is Antarctica is decreasing (if it really is, not 100% sure I trust NASA data, they are getting fat off climate change study money too) is something I don’t understand, it may be due to a warming ground beneath the ice, volcanically, as you say, but as with many things related to global warming issues the more I learn the more complicated it seems.
In addition, the last measurements by some antarctic meteolorogical stations show that the last winter temperatures have reached record lows. In the french Dumont d’Urville never a june month was colder since that station was settled than june 2014.
Mod– not sure why my last post is still in moderation. I can’t see anything in it that violates any of the rules regarding posting. Seems to me 30 minutes in detention is a bit long?
[No. It is what it is when life happens. .mod]
Got it–Didn’t mean to be a jerk… patience is not one of my strong points.. so says my ex-wife. 🙂 Thank you
Did you use the D-word?
Like it, Mark.