Alarmists versus deniers, what's the disagreement really about?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Alarmists versus deniers, what's the disagreement really about?

Alarmists versus deniers, what's the disagreement really about?25-12-2015 17:46
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	In my opinion, it's a matter of ideology. Alarmists are naturalists who think humans are parasites on mother nature, that the world should go back to the natural way, no electricity, no running water, no sewage. Deniers are humanists who think humans must not submit to nature, that humans must master nature. For instance, deniers say increase of CO2 is good for humans because Iowa, the farming state, would have longer growing seasons due to a warmer and wetter climate and increased crop yield due to increased CO2 fertilization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2vxE2CTeCM Edited on 25-12-2015 18:00
RE: alarmists versus deniers, what's really the disagreement about?25-12-2015 17:55
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Alarmists hate it when humans change nature in any way, shape, or form. Deniers are proud of what they can do to nature, to transform nature like no one else can. This is the fundamental difference in ideology between the two.
25-12-2015 18:04
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	I am neither. I am a skeptic. I am extremely affronted by being called a denier/liar. I am not that. Edited on 25-12-2015 18:04
25-12-2015 20:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: Alarmists hate it when humans change nature in any way, shape, or form. Deniers are proud of what they can do to nature, to transform nature like no one else can. This is the fundamental difference in ideology between the two. This is a binary argument, and a fallacy. 'Denier' is a derogatory term created and used by alarmists, as if to paint them mentally unstable. Most people realize that nature is both there to appreciate and to use. The 'denier' isn't out to change nature any way they can in and of itself. Most people know that nature is a composed of many resources that can be extracted and used without necessarily destroying anything overall. They also realize that nature is tougher than is painted by the alarmists. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-12-2015 00:22
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Into the Night wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: Alarmists hate it when humans change nature in any way, shape, or form. Deniers are proud of what they can do to nature, to transform nature like no one else can. This is the fundamental difference in ideology between the two. This is a binary argument, and a fallacy. 'Denier' is a derogatory term created and used by alarmists, as if to paint them mentally unstable. Most people realize that nature is both there to appreciate and to use. The 'denier' isn't out to change nature any way they can in and of itself. Most people know that nature is a composed of many resources that can be extracted and used without necessarily destroying anything overall. They also realize that nature is tougher than is painted by the alarmists. You make a good point. Alarmists say fresh water from melting glaciers added to the northern Atlantic can shut down the conveyor belt. Little do they realize fresh water compared to sea water is like a drop in a bath tub.

26-12-2015 01:24
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: In my opinion, it's a matter of ideology. Alarmists are naturalists who think humans are parasites on mother nature, that the world should go back to the natural way, no electricity, no running water, no sewage. Deniers are humanists who think humans must not submit to nature, that humans must master nature. You do not understand the issue. Global Warming is a religion. As such you have believers and non-believers. Believers place a religious faith in an unfalsifiable dogma called "The Science." Non-believers simply do not adhere to this theology. I am in the non-believer camp. Of the believers of the religion there are two primary competing denominations: "warmizombies" and "climate lemmings". The difference between the two is superficial at best, but they are forever at each others' throats over that one insignificant difference: The warmizombies simply drone on and on with their incessant and ridiculous prophecies of doom. Otherwise they both believe all the main tenets of Global Warming, i.e. "greenhouse effect," "climate forcings," and all the other proscribed nonsense. Both groups regurgitate that the unfalsifiable "climate" is forever changing in mysterious ways and neither will acknowledge that, as far as anyone knows, the earth could be cooling right now. They both will death-struggle to their graves in vehement denial of the actual science that runs counter to their dogma. Additionally, they both will abandon their mutual hatred for each other and join forces if someone tries to inject actual science into the discussion. Science is what makes any religious faith feel the most threatened. Can you determine who's who on this forum? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-12-2015 02:23
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	IBdaMann wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: In my opinion, it's a matter of ideology. Alarmists are naturalists who think humans are parasites on mother nature, that the world should go back to the natural way, no electricity, no running water, no sewage. Deniers are humanists who think humans must not submit to nature, that humans must master nature. You do not understand the issue. Global Warming is a religion. As such you have believers and non-believers. Believers place a religious faith in an unfalsifiable dogma called "The Science." Non-believers simply do not adhere to this theology. I am in the non-believer camp. Of the believers of the religion there are two primary competing denominations: "warmizombies" and "climate lemmings". The difference between the two is superficial at best, but they are forever at each others' throats over that one insignificant difference: The warmizombies simply drone on and on with their incessant and ridiculous prophecies of doom. Otherwise they both believe all the main tenets of Global Warming, i.e. "greenhouse effect," "climate forcings," and all the other proscribed nonsense. Both groups regurgitate that the unfalsifiable "climate" is forever changing in mysterious ways and neither will acknowledge that, as far as anyone knows, the earth could be cooling right now. They both will death-struggle to their graves in vehement denial of the actual science that runs counter to their dogma. Additionally, they both will abandon their mutual hatred for each other and join forces if someone tries to inject actual science into the discussion. Science is what makes any religious faith feel the most threatened. Can you determine who's who on this forum? . Alarmists make a big fuss about everything. They say temperature will rise sharply. It will not. They say glacier will melt. It will not. They say hurricanes will blow. It will not. They say the conveyor belt will stop. It will not. They say the ocean will become more acidic. That's true, to a certain extent. But we are talking about H2CO3, carbonic acid. Most lay people hear the word acid and get a knee jerk reaction. Not all acids are the same. Sulphuric acid, H2SO4, the stuff in your stomach and acid rain, can burn a hole on your hand. Carbonic acid, the stuff in coca cola and other soft drinks, is benign and does nothing when you drink it or put it on your skin. Even if CO2 is at 1000 ppm, the concentration of carbonic acid in the oceans will be nothing compared to that in coca cola and will not pose any harm to marine life. In fact, marine life evolved at times when CO2 were well over 1000 ppm. I quote. Nearly all carbonated soft drinks contain carbonic acid, which is moderately useful for tasks such as removing stains and dissolving rust deposits (although plain soda water is much better for some of these purposes than Coca-Cola or other soft drinks, as it doesn't leave a sticky sugar residue behind). Carbonic acid is relatively weak, however, and people have been drinking carbonated water for many years with no detrimental effects. http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/acid.asp Edited on 26-12-2015 02:36
26-12-2015 02:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: Alarmists make a big fuss about everything. Hence they are "alarmists." Since their "alarm" is predicated on Global Warming they are "warmist alarmists." Since they mindlessly attack those who are not climate undead themselves, they are "warmizombies." Tai Hai Chen wrote:They say temperature will rise sharply. It will not. They say glacier will melt. It will not. Big deal. Do you believe in "greenhouse effect" and "climate forcings"? If you do, then you should not be mocking anyone else for his/her silly beliefs. Tai Hai Chen wrote: They say the ocean will become more acidic. That's true, to a certain extent. No, it's not. You should take a moment and learn some chemistry fundamentals. The oceans have never been acidic. NEVER. The oceans are firmly alkaline and the overall ocean pH is not changing. Yes, precipitation falls through the atmosphere, lowering its pH (making it technically acidic) and that acidic precipitation enters the ocean. That water then evaporates, releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere. It's a cycle. Nothing is continually lowering in pH value. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-12-2015 03:12
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	IBdaMann wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote:They say temperature will rise sharply. It will not. They say glacier will melt. It will not. Big deal. Do you believe in "greenhouse effect" and "climate forcings"? If you do, then you should not be mocking anyone else for his/her silly beliefs. The greenhouse effect is complicated. To date, no scientist understands it. If it were only CO2 or only water vapor, then yes, of course they are greenhouse gases and will cause warming to a certain extent. If we speak of clouds, then we do not know if increasing CO2 will lead to warming, or cooling, or neither, because no one knows the feedback, and the science simply does not exist for the time being. IBdaMann wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: They say the ocean will become more acidic. That's true, to a certain extent. No, it's not. You should take a moment and learn some chemistry fundamentals. The oceans have never been acidic. NEVER. The oceans are firmly alkaline and the overall ocean pH is not changing. Yes, precipitation falls through the atmosphere, lowering its pH (making it technically acidic) and that acidic precipitation enters the ocean. That water then evaporates, releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere. It's a cycle. Nothing is continually lowering in pH value. Interesting indeed. I stand corrected. Edited on 26-12-2015 03:14
26-12-2015 04:19
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Tai Hai Chen wrote:The greenhouse effect is complicated. To date, no scientist understands it. Nope. "Greenhouse effect" doesn't exist. It's not complicated; it's convoluted. No scientist understands it because it's religious dogma and is not science. Please glance at this thread: http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/just-how-many-greenhouse-effects-are-there-d6-e811.php Tai Hai Chen wrote: Interesting indeed. I stand corrected. It's easy to become confused when others are abusing your trust and intentionally lying to you. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-12-2015 04:45
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	IBdaMann wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote:The greenhouse effect is complicated. To date, no scientist understands it. Nope. "Greenhouse effect" doesn't exist. It's not complicated; it's convoluted. No scientist understands it because it's religious dogma and is not science. Please glance at this thread: http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/just-how-many-greenhouse-effects-are-there-d6-e811.php If there is no greenhouse effect, then how can you explain temperature increase from -17 C at 16,000 feet to 15 C at sea level? What causes that to happen? http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html Edited on 26-12-2015 04:45
26-12-2015 06:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Tai Hai Chen wrote:If there is no greenhouse effect, then how can you explain temperature increase from -17 C at 16,000 feet to 15 C at sea level? What causes that to happen? If there is no God, how do you explain life on earth? You can't. It must be God who did it as described in the Bible. I only say that to show that you have framed a completely invalid argument. No response is needed. You are just wrong. The answer to your question is rooted in atmospheric pressure. Have you ever been swimming in a deep swimming pool and felt the pressure in your ears? The weight of the water above causes that pressure. The same goes for the atmosphere. Atmospheric pressure down at the surface is greater due to the weight of the air above. Air, unlike water, compresses easily and so air at sea level is more dense than air the top of K2. There is more thermal energy per unit volume at sea level. Air at the very top of the atmosphere will become as hot as the daytime moon's surface, but will register as very cold because there is so little of it at almost zero pressure. Did you review this thread? Do you understand it? http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/just-how-many-greenhouse-effects-are-there-d6-e811.php . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist Edited on 26-12-2015 06:18
26-12-2015 06:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote:The greenhouse effect is complicated. To date, no scientist understands it. Nope. "Greenhouse effect" doesn't exist. It's not complicated; it's convoluted. No scientist understands it because it's religious dogma and is not science. Please glance at this thread: http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/just-how-many-greenhouse-effects-are-there-d6-e811.php If there is no greenhouse effect, then how can you explain temperature increase from -17 C at 16,000 feet to 15 C at sea level? What causes that to happen? http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html The troposphere is primarily heated by conduction and convection from the heated surface of the Earth, which is much more efficient absorbing incoming energy from the sun than the air is. There is no 'greenhouse' effect in play here. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-12-2015 13:29
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Tai Hai Chen wrote:If there is no greenhouse effect, then how can you explain temperature increase from -17 C at 16,000 feet to 15 C at sea level? What causes that to happen? http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html This is not in any way the greenhouse effect. This is the basic physics of gasses. For each 100m rise in altitude the temperature will drop 0.5c. Nothing to do with any complex greenhouse effect. Temperature is the speed at which atoms are bouncing off one another. When the air is forced together it means that the atoms are forced to coollide more frequently and more quickly. If the air is allowed to expand, say by floating upwards to where the pressure is lower, the average speed of collision is less and the rate at which they hit each other is less. Thus the capacity for that air to smash water droplets to pieces is less and the water molecules are far more likely to be going slow enough that they stick together rather than bounce off each other. Thus rain forms.

Join the debate Alarmists versus deniers, what's the disagreement really about?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
A personal experience for climate change deniers	230	29-09-2023 14:37
THREAD VERSUS THREAD! A REAL climate debate.	123	30-03-2022 23:42
There are some paid climate deniers in this forum to spread false information, ignore them	133	17-02-2020 07:16
Naomi Klein: 'Big Green Groups Are More Damaging Than Climate Deniers'	3	13-08-2019 14:20
Reddit's science forum banned climate deniers. Why don't all newspapers do the same? (2013)	9	21-11-2017 19:25