Refute climate risk denier arguments

[Tom_Mazanec]

Since some half that the “Stupid questions” thread was inappropriate for anti-denier arguments, someone suggested I start a dedicated thread.
Here it is.

<Edited the title to make clear what kind of denier is meant. What it all boils down to, is that these people basically deny that AGW poses any risks at all, or that the risks are negligible. Hence my term 'climate risk denier'; N.>

[kassy]

Maybe it is not that thread per se but the whole idea.

Basically you see what they are doing or you don´t.
If you don´t you just have to read up on the arguments and study the actual science to see where they are misrepresenting stuff.

An interesting intro for basics is the discovery of global warming
https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

Then all the good old RealClimate stuff.

And this is the site for refuting denier stuff:
https://skepticalscience.com/

If it gets more technical then that read up on the field and possibly ask a pointed question.

On the other hand you can also wonder if it is worth it.

You will not convince everyone. People will disbelieve science if it does not jive with their believes. Of course this might change once their house burns down or something like that but no amount of well meant typing and actual proper arguments will sway them on the internet.

So why bother since it is mostly a waste of energy even if you could argue it all from memory.

If you want to invest energy try to get into some local activism. If your local kids go on strike join them.

[Pmt111500]

If they call themselves 'christian' ask them 'why the Pope is wrong according to their opinion'. Are they proposing a doctrinal dispute among Christians. If they're non-believers, ask them which alternate cosmological theory they support. I think most (if not all) of these still approve the experimental radiation laws governing the radiation - temperature - gas composition -relationship. Ask them why all measurements on this subject are wrong in their opinion. Ask them have they seen a spectrometer, ask them why they think a simple prism, or better yet, two made of different materials, should make specific wavelengths of light quenched. Ask them do they believe their God has distorted the neural pathways of people of all other religions. On this, the answer is probably 'yes' so you may ask if they think God lies. Then say 'you are wrong on this' and you have set a seed of doubt in them whether they are being lied to by their God. Hopefully.

There's little point in arguing with them.

[ArcticMelt2]

Since some half that the “Stupid questions” thread was inappropriate for anti-denier arguments, someone suggested I start a dedicated thread.
Here it is.

In General, the personification of climate change denial was Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear (2004)". The fact that this false book was published with a circulation of at least 1.5 million copies perfectly shows how strong the lobbyists of deniers are.

This book, written in a near-scientific style had a great influence on the deniers. Such books must be banned and the entire circulation destroyed.

[ArcticMelt2]

Deniers have been strong in the past decade when there was a pause in global warming. Most likely, it was caused by the growth of industrial emissions of sulfur aerosols in China. But now China has very radically reduced these emissions, and now the ranks of deniers are very small. Global temperatures show a significant increase over the past decade.

[ArcticMelt2]

If you look at trends in the 21st century until 2007, the year China's sulphur dioxide emissions peaked. You can see that the really strongest cold snap is observed near China-to the East of Japan.

[Juan C. García]

"Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago"
and other Exxon stories denying AGW, when they really knew all the true:
https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

[Tom_Mazanec]

Here is the latest denier meme..."tidalgate":
<snip, no links to climate risk denial material, thanks; N.>

So there is nothing per se wrong with PSMSL making adjustments in order to make the different datasets align.

What is wrong is the way that the scientists at PSMSL have adjusted them. In every case, they have revised them in order to make them produce a sharp upward trend in sea level rise – despite the fact that global records do not support this.

The truth, Parker and Ollier conclude in their paper, is that sea level has changed very little in the three sites examined:

Here is the paper:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z

Would this be because of the land slowly rising for some reason, making the sea level "level" at that part of the world?
Is it just a coincidence that the early records overestimated sea level before adjustment, and later ones underestimated it?
I really don't understand this paper very well.

[KiwiGriff]

I suggest you read this to get a backgound on the crank you are referencing.
 https://www.desmogblog.com/albert-parker

[The Walrus]

Here is the latest denier meme..."tidalgate":
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/12/06/tidalgate-climate-alarmists-caught-faking-sea-level-rise/

So there is nothing per se wrong with PSMSL making adjustments in order to make the different datasets align.

What is wrong is the way that the scientists at PSMSL have adjusted them. In every case, they have revised them in order to make them produce a sharp upward trend in sea level rise – despite the fact that global records do not support this.

The truth, Parker and Ollier conclude in their paper, is that sea level has changed very little in the three sites examined:

Here is the paper:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z

Would this be because of the land slowly rising for some reason, making the sea level "level" at that part of the world?
Is it just a coincidence that the early records overestimated sea level before adjustment, and later ones underestimated it?
I really don't understand this paper very well.

First off, ignore the comments by Breitbart.  It is politically motivated. With regards to the paper, the main contention is how adjustments are made to the tidal gauge records.  PSMSL keeps track of tidal gauge records and makes adjustments based on changes to the benchmarks, such as location, instrumentation, or analysis.  Since PSMSL rescinded and earlier adjustment, which increased SLR, back to the original, the authors bring into question other adjustments, claiming they are arbitrary.  Without looking closely at the individual adjustments, I can neither agree nor disagree with their claim.  However, dismissing all adjustments just because one was found to be in error seems rather rash.  The paper makes several claims, without concrete evidence.  Scientists are sometimes wrong, but do we question all their work, based on that?  Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics, but does that mean we should disregard his other works?