Question

What further proof do climate deniers need?

Answer 1

No amount of proof will convince them.

They’re like Covid deniers in the hospital, claiming to the end it’s all a conspiracy.

Answer 2

To start with, I’ll give kudos to this answer to the question, what scientific proof do we require that the situation is so emergent as to justify wholesale imposition of a regime of curfew, candlelight, and curtailment, to be implemented now, today, this instant.

In addition to which, I require proof of good will. And that’s going to be nearly impossible for the AGW alarmists to provide. For they have demonstrated bad will through:

Hypocrisy - taking advantage of all the things they would deny to us, and refusing to pay any of the price they demand we pay.

Empty virtue signaling - trying to persuade us that we ought to love them for what they do and for giving us such timely warning. (“You just want to persuade the people that you love them so much that they ought to love you back!” - Actor Joseph Cotten in Citizen Kane .)

Sheer, unadulterated spite. The man so many people call Sleepy Joe, I call Snarlin’ Joe. He is the current booby-prize example. I didn’t think anyone would exceed Barack Obama or Christiana Figueres for such spite. Now I know better.

Unscientific methods, that would have gotten me thrown out of Yale College had I tried them. “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick…to hide the decline” is the booby-prize example of that . Or describing their inability to account for a lack of a warming trend as “a travesty.” The real travesty here is of science.

Answer 3

Proof for what? That climate changes? I already believe that. 800 years ago there was a megadrought that deprived lakes of so much water that they had entire forests growing on the exposed land. Since the rain returned, those lakes have re-filled, and the trees are well preserved in their oxygen free depths.

There have been ice ages and all sorts of changes in the climate. The Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice age. There was a time when Vikings lived in Greenland, because there was less ice.

What I need proof for is that current change is being caused by anthropogenic CO2, and that the consequences will be catastrophic. I need evidence that the bad consequences of anthropogenic climate change will outweigh the good we get from burning fossil fuels, as well as the benefits of a warmer Earth with more CO2 for plants to thrive.

In the climate change debate, people often forget that under all but the most catastrophic scenarios, the future generations who will benefit from our current mitigation efforts will be much richer than we are. For example, Nigel Lawson points out that even under one of the worst case scenarios studied by the IPCC, failure to act would simply mean that people in the developing world would be “only” 8.5 times as wealthy a century from now, compared to 9.5 times as wealthy if there were no climate change.

Although it is probably true that the “best evidence” suggests a connection between human activities and a warming globe, this fact about the natural world does not automatically justify aggressive government interventions into the economy. Given the historical corruption of governments and the demonstrated resilience of free entrepreneurs, proponents of such measures have a much harder case to make.

EDIT: I am also being told, in the comments, that the climate change we are experiencing now is unprecedented, that we are causing a temperature rise at a rate that has never happened before, except in catastrophes. I need to see evidence for this. I am shown graphs of thermometer readings, usually with a lot of processing to combine readings from a large number of weather stations. This data is on the scale of several decades, maybe a couple centuries going back to at most the late 1800’s, showing a strong upward trend. Problems and accusations of cooking the data to create the desired conclusion aside, these are thermometer readings. They are then compared to proxies like ice core data and tree rings. Not only are these incompatible data sources, they are put on entirely different scales. Many thousands of years are compressed into the same space on the page as a hundred years on the thermometer readings graph.

Worst yet, the thermometer readings are combined on the same graph, as if they are the dame data source, to create the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph.

If the proxy data was valid and accurate, then it should be good up until today. Ice still forms, and trees still grow. Why combine it with thermometer readings, which may be giving us temperatures in entirely different locations.

But the most important thing is the scale. We need to be able to see that there has never been warming as fast as we see now. Show us what the proxies say about the last 100 years, and what they say about the last hundred thousand. Put them on an interactive computer graph, available on the internet, so anyone can scan it, adjust the scale, and see how fast temperatures were changing over any 100 year period.

If I can scroll through such a graph, and not find proxy data for a temperature change as fast as we are seeing now, I will be convinced that human activity is changing the climate.

SHOW ME THE DATA!

Answer 4

What do you want to give?

The global average temperature has not increased in 120 years:

Even during those periods that it has, nobody has ever provided any proof that it’s manmade. Even NASA claims that it is not.

Answer 5

When you deal in faith, proof is irrelevant.

Climate denial has become an political badge and an article of faith. Evidence is poorly prepared to counter that.

No matter what evidence you provide, they'll move the goalposts, again.

Answer 6

What further proof do climate deniers need?

None. No one denies the climate. Climate is definitely real and observable.

Answer 7

I’m guessing you ask this question because of recent weird weather and fires, which the media insists as presenting with only such historical context as makes it seem “record”. Usually, it isn’t. All time heat records are declining in frequency, not rising, and for the US, records set in the 1930’s still stand, or have been exceeded only modestly of late. Some particular areas have received record rainfall recently, but the longer term trend for the globe has been only a slight increase in frequency of rainfall over half an inch over the past century. And the warming trend for the globe since we got a satellite record for it beginning in 1979 (the first true global measurement of the temperature of the lowest level of Earth’s atmosphere, which the greenhouse effect is supposed to warm) has been a whopping 0.14 degrees C (0.25 F) per decade . You would not notice a warming of 0.25 degrees F sitting in a room from one minute to the next. That warming is half of what the climate models show should have happened to temperatures in that period, on average, and way below the high range forecasts often used to scare us.

Weather has always been very weird and variable from time to time, and will always be. Uptrends in variability for the whole world are pretty much non-existent. Hurricanes happen. We seem to be in an active period right now, but just before 2014, the US went through its longest spell without a landfalling hurricane of Category 3 of greater on record - over 12 years. Hurricane counts over multi-year periods are tremendously variable, with an apparent high point in the 1940’s. And don’t trust counts further back than that, since before lots of aircraft we knew very little about hurricanes that stayed out at sea.

Breathless reporting on every storm or drought or fire from the media does not count as evidence for an anthropogenic climate crisis.

Answer 8

Not a change denier - change happens.

Am a catastrophe denier. Have been watching catastrophic predictions fizzle for a half century. When I read the research behind the catastrophic projections in the (what is now called click-bait) press, I discover that the catastrophes are always least likely, worst case scenarios. The most likely scenarios are always incremental multi generational change like the measured rise in sea level that works out to a foot over the next century. I am confident that my grandchildren who are now starting their families can move their grandchildren uphill away from the beach at that pace or faster. If that risk keeps you up at night, then move to the mountains or Northern Plains. If every cubic centimeter of naturally occurring ice on the planet melts, St Louis will still be miles from the beach. That is Not likely to happen Ever but if it helps you sleep at night, rural real estate in Missouri is inexpensive So Far.

Answer 9

Climate change is cyclical. They used to teach earth sciences at college and show actual cutaways to expose changes in geology and climate over time. It is similar to looking at tree rings. Drought years, good growth years, etc are obvious for everyone to see.

We are in a warming trend and it's not done yet. The tectonic plates are moving more freely and holding more liquid that obviously gets heated through natural occurrence. Look at science journals from a decade or so ago before it became insanely more profitable to talk climate crisis.

We are gonna be warm for a while. The earth is just shedding fleas, to half-way borrow a George Carlin reference.

Answer 10

First a little history on how climate change and the fear of, has preoccupied mankind.

But, first, there are many who are not going to like how this ends up.

So, in America the concerns over climate change goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson who, in his book, Notes on the State of Virginia , in 1787, had this to say on the topic;

"A change in our climate however is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory even of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep. They do not often lie, below the mountains, more than one, two or three days, and very rarely a week…”

Jefferson continued, “The elderly inform me the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now. This change has produced an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold, in the spring of the year, which is very fatal to fruits. From the year 1741 to 1769, an interval of 28 years, there was no instance of fruit killed by the frost in the neighbourhood of Monticello."

Noah Webster, yes, the same Mr. Webster of Webster's Dictionary fame criticized Jackson in a work titled, A Dissertation on the Supposed Change in the Temperature , published in 1810 .

Briefly, Webster claimed Jefferson had no concrete evidence on climate change;

"Mr. Jefferson seems to have no authority for his opinions but the observations of elderly and middle-aged people," Webster’s, lengthy rebuttal, not only went after Jefferson but, attacked other climate critics of the era such as Samuel Williams, who also advanced the argument that clearing trees “caused the land to become warmer and drier.”

Sound familiar?

Now to the present and I am certain there will be many people who are not going to like what follows.

However, no one will be able to refute the science presented here.

First off, there is no argument the earth is warming, but, according to the chart below, cooling is next. The evidence is clear and based on Ice Core samples/information from the Antarctic dating back Four Hundred Thousand Years.

Note, the temperatures, in the graph below, for the first 200,000 years before humans appeared in this epoch. The following 200,000 years are delineated by the Blue line.

Now, you will NOTE that the lines of the first 200,000 years fit perfectly over one another and nearly follow the exact same pattern and as you will note, yes we are warming , but, according to the chart, a cooling trend is on the horizon.

I can recall in the early to late 1970s scientists were sounding the alarm for a new “Ice Age” and the devastation it would soon bring upon us. Never happened and quite frankly, I believe this to go the same route as the “Ice Age,” warnings of the 70s, much ado about nothing.