Climate Denier Manifesto

[Mark]

I happened to get into a conversation today about our Climate Emergency with a very clever chap I know (2 science based PhDs).
Turns out he's also a full blown climate denier - gave him all the standard climate science, IPCC, on-the ground observations etc....
I defo didn't want to 'fall out' with him, so I pulled my punches and agreed to differ....
He's now sent this e-mail, which he expects me to reply to....

The discussion we had this afternoon is very important to me. I am 100% for cleaning up the mess that we’ve made of this world. I just don’t want to make it bigger, or harder to fix. As a trained Engineer & Scientist, defending anything but the truth is complete anathema to me. I have no skin in the game other than trying to make the world a less corrupt place. Consequently, I’m always searching for holes in an argument. Copernicus, after all, was initially in a minority of 1. I seriously want to know where my thinking may be misguided. Do you have any YouTube suggestions on the MSM's IPCCs arguments from a data perspective?

I’m currently struggling to understand the following data in relation to the Global Warming debate. I can’t YET work out where the flaw in my logic is. Perhaps you can help and could suggest where I may have gone astray in my thinking and argument? Any thoughts? I’ve kept it quite simple.

A. H20 exists as liquid water at the equator and in solid form as ice and snow at the poles.

B. The Earth’s weather systems & subsequent climate are driven by a differential in temperature between the tropics and the poles; i.e., presupposing excessive heat at the equator and freezing temperatures at the poles.

C. IPCC Global warming models ALL predict that CURRENT CO2 levels are CURRENTLY responsible for melting the ice at the poles turning them to water; thus resulting in a differential warming of both the air and [subsequently] surface & water temperatures at the poles.

D. A REDUCTION in the differential of temperature between equatorial and polar regions should therefore (by all current scientific definitions) REDUCE the differential in the necessary energy dynamics driving weather systems. Thus, if the differential is reduced the weather systems we experience should be becoming LESS extreme, NOT more, as currently reported.

E. Visa-vis, whitelisted reporting of more extreme weather is scientifically an indicator of relative GLOBAL COOLING at the poles, NOT the global warming of them! The weather itself disproves the IPCC’s position.

Taken as a whole, the IPCCs hypothesis and position on this climate data is a full-blown & unscientific non-sequetour. Their argument simply goes around and around without ever joining up. Completely non-sensical. As Spock would say, it’s illogical.

What have I got wrong in my reasoning here? It seems like basic O’level geography and physics to me.

Speaking of non-whitelisted science experts, here is the scientist the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords chaired by Lord Wakeham chose to brief them on “The Economics of Climate Change:” Prof. Richard Lindzen (IPCC & Professor Of Atmospheric Physics at MIT). “The most distinguished living climate scientist on the planet.” From what I’ve seen of the current evidence we are both in the same ballpark - as is the founder of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore. Also, Lord Nigel Lawson (Chaired House of Lords 2005 Enquiry Into The Scientific Evidence for Global Warming). Jeremy Corben’s brother, Dr Piers Corben (Solar Physicist & Climate Forecaster), Professor John Christy (Lead Author, IPCC). Prof. Paul Reiter (IPCC, Pasteur Institute & IPCC whistleblower). Dr Roy Spencer (Weather Satellite Team Leader NASA). Prof. Frederick Singer (Ex-Director, US National Weather Service). Nigel Calder (Ex Editor, New Scientist). Prof. Tim Ball (Dept. Climatology, Univ. of Winnipeg). Prof. Syun-Ichi Akasofu (Director, International Arctic Research Centre) .. amongst others:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIRICfZOvpY

The actual scientific ice core data from Vostock in the Antarctic does indeed show that CO2 is directly correlated with increases in temperature. Indeed, just like Al Gore correctly claims in "An Inconvenient Truth." What he fails to mention is that the temperature rises first and then CO2 subsequently rises 800 yrs later. The link is the wrong way around.

[kenneal - lagger]

Firstly, the increased weather intensity is being driven by the increased surface temperature caused by global warming not by the differential between poles and equator.

Secondly his point about the temperature rise driving CO2 is true historically but the historic mechanism is different to the current mechanism. Historically warming was driven by changes in the Milankovic cycles when the earth's orbit, precession and tilt either increased the amount of insolation or decreased it and the CO2 followed. The current mechanism is man causing an increase in CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels and that increase in CO2 concentration is causing an increase in temperature. The increased CO2 has outweighed the forcing caused by the Milankovic cycle input, which only amounts to about 0.2C, and we are now facing warming instead of the more natural cooling at this stage of the cycle.

Your friend can get all the answers himself from https://skepticalscience.com/ where he will get answers directly from climate scientists who are doing the actual research now.

A man with one or two PhDs is a man who might be very intelligent but his detailed knowledge is confined to the specific areas of his studies. He probably has very little knowledge of the actual detailed science of climate change, certainly no more knowledge than you or I could assemble. Having obtained a PhD sometimes implies very little common sense! The two don't always go together so don't be overawed by his qualifications.

Nigel Lawson isn't a scientist he is an ex Chancellor of the Exchequer, a politician, whose knowledge of science in very low. Check the other scientists quoted in Wikipedia if you wish to see what their background is. Most climate sceptics have no background at all in climate science so their opinions on the subject are no more influential than yours or mine. People like Lawson and Corbyn let their politics outweigh the science because they see the political outcomes as more important than the environmental ones; Lawson is certainly in that category as he is more concerned about financial losses than environmental ones. Unfortunately he can't see that the financial losses will occur to an even greater degree if climate change is allowed to run amok. It is also interesting to see who they worked for before becoming interested in climate science or who they work for now because that sometimes reveals a conflict of interest as they are often ex employees of fossil fuel companies or have interests in finance which might suffer from climate change mitigation measures. It is always worth following the money.

I hope that helps. No doubt Chris can offer even more advice.

[Mark]

Thanks kenneal - much appreciated

I was going to send him the DeSmog profiles on all the people he's listed....
They make for interesting reading, for example:

Richard Lindzen
https://www.desmog.com/richard-lindzen/
Patrick Moore
https://www.desmog.com/patrick-moore/

Plus Nigel Lawson, Piers Corbyn, John Christy, Paul Reiter, Roy Spencer, Frederick Singer, Nigel Calder, Timothy Ball & Syun-Ichi Akasofu....
Think my friend's been visiting too many Alt-Right websites....

[BritDownUnder]

To me he is confusing the issue to energy (heat) transfer within different parts of the Earth, namely between the equator and the poles, with the fact that the Earth as a whole is retaining more energy (i.e. net of heat absorbed less heat radiated) thus warming than it used to in the past due to CO2 levels rising.

From what I can see the occurrence of more extreme weather events is due to the ocean and atmosphere above it being slightly hotter and thus due to increased partial pressure of water vapour being able to hold more water than when at lower temperatures. Extreme heat events are becoming more common due to movement of jet stream flows closer to the poles preventing dispersion of heat in temperate latitudes.

[UndercoverElephant]

C. IPCC Global warming models ALL predict that CURRENT CO2 levels are CURRENTLY responsible for melting the ice at the poles turning them to water; thus resulting in a differential warming of both the air and [subsequently] surface & water temperatures at the poles.

D. A REDUCTION in the differential of temperature between equatorial and polar regions should therefore (by all current scientific definitions) REDUCE the differential in the necessary energy dynamics driving weather systems. Thus, if the differential is reduced the weather systems we experience should be becoming LESS extreme, NOT more, as currently reported.

There''s a fundamental mistake here. Yes, the weather is driven by different temperatures, but it doesn't follow that the "amount of weather" is correlated only to that difference. It's also driven by the total amount of energy available, and if the temperature is going up everywhere then so is the amount of energy.

What have I got wrong in my reasoning here? It seems like basic O’level geography and physics to me.

He's got the physics wrong.

[Mark]

Your friend can get all the answers himself from https://skepticalscience.com/ where he will get answers directly from climate scientists who are doing the actual research now.

He doesn't seem to like that website.....

You appear to see CO2 as a pollutant. Ecologically, it isn’t. Skepticalscience saying it is, is quite simply mad. They use “Air pollution” as a pejorative surrogate for one of the most essential gasses required for life on the planet. It’s just like lobbying to ban chlorine. Wanting to ban a whole element vital for life. Their tag line: “getting skeptical about global warming skepticism” is by definition unscientific. How can anything on this website not be subject to confirmation bias?

As a trained scientist it’s immediately obvious that skepticalscience are being fraudulent with their use of this graph:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm

[Potemkin Villager]

You didn't mention anything about this clever chaps background or what line he works in which
is probably quite relevant.

It sounds to me there is something in his makeup which makes it impossible for him,
along with many others, to accept the reality and causes of climate change. I wouldn't bother trying as proselytizing
about climate change to true non believers is about as satisfying as banging tour head on a wall.

[Mark]

He's a very complex mix. He's one of the kindest, most generous people I've ever met and a very gentle soul, but I think he struggles to fit into the world, particularly the modern workplace. As a result, he has spent most of his life in academia gaining new qualifications and skills, which he rarely seems to use before he's on to the next project.....

He's a deep thinker and can speak knowledgably about many subjects, but as we can see, he's well off beam on climate change....
I think he's been quite taken aback that I've so forcefully challenged and contradicted his views...
I probably won't push it too much further, as I think I might upset him and I don't want to do that.....

[kenneal - lagger]

Sounds like he needs upsetting to me!

A pollutant is anything that there is too much of in the environment. Oxygen in too great a quantity could be a pollutant if the concentration were high enough to cause spontaneous combustion.

CO2 is now a pollutant because it is acidifying the ocean enough to interfere with the production of shells of sea creatures which form the basis of the ocean food chain. Then, of course, there is climate change caused not by CO2 but by TOO MUCH CO2.

Too much CO2 doesn't necessarily lead to more plant growth because plant growth also requires the correct temperature at the right time, the correct nutrients and the correct amount of water. Climate change is causing a disruption in the current distribution of these requirements. While human planted crops can easily be moved to find the correct growing conditions the natural environment can't move quickly enough to respond to the current rate of change. The insects which carry out many of the ecosystem services that our growing requires rely on having the correct environment to survive.

As a trained scientist he should explain why Skeptical Science are fraudulent in using that graph. There is nothing wrong with it as far as I can see. The vertical axis has been truncated and perhaps exaggerated a bit to make a point but that is acceptable.

[Mark]

In my own way I've made the all points you raise.....

I asked him a Q about his vaccination status - he isn't - guess that 'fits the profile'.....
For both our sakes, I need to leave it now....
It isn't my job to convince him....

[kenneal - lagger]

Did you tell him you weren't surprised at his lack of vaccination status? I would have ribbed him a little. Then you could agree that you are one of the sheeple and he is someone who disbelieves everything, except the science which he has relied on since childhood, which amuses you. It might make him think about his mental attitude. On the other hand it might not.

I have a long term friend, 50 years or so now!!, who is a really great "bloke", I know him through the rugby club, but is so right wing that he stood for the local council for the National Front a few years ago. I think that they got a bit too right wing even for him as he doesn't say anything about that anymore even if ribbed about it! He will often post his daft ideas on Facebook posts about the environment or climate change and we have an exchange of views and usually agree to differ! On a public forum like that I don't mind his interventions as it gives me a chance to show how daft those ideas are and I enjoy a good argument. I sometimes think that he does too which is why he is such a contrarian!