So exactly who are the "deniers"?

As I’ve written before, one of the places I like to go to antagonize alarmists is the “Conversation” site.  On of the topics today was, And what if nothing happens at Durban?  I’m in awe of this.  The second paragraph start with this…..

In 2009 in Copenhagen, parties to the UN Climate Change treaty (UNFCCC) agreed to aspire to limit global warming to below 2ºC.

Apparently, oblivious to the recent paper, http://www.princeton.edu/~nurban/pubs/lgm-cs-uvic.pdf  Which stated,

“In summary, using a spatially extensive network of paleoclimate observations in combination with a climate model we find that climate sensitivities larger than 6 K are implausible, and that both the most likely value and the uncertainty range are smaller than previously thought.”

The paper set the rise in temps from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 at about 2 – 2.5° C. (I think its less than that)  So, in order for the target to be successful, they don’t have to do anything. 

The article also made no mention of the recent emails, nor did they bother to mention that the atmospheric CO2 hasn’t effected the temps in the last decade or so…… which pretty much makes our climate sensitivity to CO2 set at about 0°. 

Here is the climatic temp response to the recent CO2 rise……

image

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/scale:75/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/scale:75/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-335/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/trend/offset:-335

See how it correlates?  LMAO!  Maybe increased CO2 causes a decrease in temps……..  It certainly has correlated like that for over the last 10 years now!

I tried to point all of this out on that thread, but, sadly, they would have none of it and   deleted my comments.  These guys are in textbook, clinical denial.  Reality has slapped them so silly, they simple refuse to look at facts.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to So exactly who are the "deniers"?

  1. nofreewind says:

    This reminds me of an exchange I had with a high school physics teacher who is completely taken in by the renewable promise of a smart grid. I explained and then linked him to a dozen wind output graphs which showed that wind blows mostly at night. esp in California! the big exception are the turbines on the Texas coast. even after showing him official graph after graph, he would have none of it, and eventually he go flaming, crazy mad at me. I guess he got mad when I commented that our education system is systematically teaching our children to be “stupid”. I didn’t want to say like him, by completely ignoring absolute evidence and data.
    p.s. – you are truly a terrific job with this web site, keep going.

    • suyts says:

      Wind energy has to be the crappiest idea to generate electricity ever imagined. I’ll probably do a post on the power generation on wind farms sometime in the near future. The problem when communicating these thoughts is that the people must first have an understanding of some basic concepts, such as “base load”, and “peak demand”, and where and how wind generated energy would or could come into play.

      NFW, I really appreciate the compliment. Thanks! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s