Friday, 21 March 2014

Are you a denier?

As someone said before, is it reasonable to deny Santa Claus exists, or the tooth fairy? No, as they never existed so there's nothing to deny? Can you deny committing a crime? Yes, if a crime has been committed but someone else did it and not you. Can you deny a scientific theory? Only if it is testable and repeatable. Is AGW either? No, as it hasn't happened yet, not to the degree they mean at the UN, a rise of over 2C and if by 2100 then it's void as we can't know that either way so they have set a faulty experiment.

There is a strict process before anyone can be termed a denier:

1) Something has to be known to exist

2) The person then claims it does not, even though it does and can be proved to do so.

There are no other conditions.

So, for example there is no possible doubt about who died in the holocaust. We have the bodies, names and records as well as photos and reports from soldiers who liberated them and many survivors. But plenty of people deny it happened, so they must be deniers as no other term can apply to them. That is the meaning. 


The church denied the earth was round and travelled round the sun, we learnt it is both, anyone who
still claims otherwise is a denier.


Man made global warming was a two part theory, one most people accept, adding more CO2 probably (it is not certain, for many reasons) warms the surface temperature through its insulating properties. Some scientists claim it is not true, as it is not 100% certain then they have plenty of maths to suggest they may have something, so it is a slightly open subject (as air pressure and the fact
 CO2 can also be seen to rise as a consequence of warming, not a cause) that is still a debate. The dangerous warming is another matter. That requires a 2C rise in temperature before the actual advantages of warming may be outweighed by the problems. That's the official definition like it or not. When does the UN place this event? 2100. The experiment cannot be completed, so UNLESS THE LINE FROM THE PRESENT CAN BE EXTRAPOLATED TOWARDS 2C it is void.

Therefore as the CO2 alone can only supply 1C at 520ppm and has supplied around .4C at 400 (the rest of the rise is natural), what could make it suddenly start adding more to exceed 2C? We don't know. Therefore those claiming we do are exaggerating based on no more than one of many possible alternatives, although given over 150 years to observe, none of them have happened, in fact the water vapour required to cause the added rise has reduced, instead forming clouds which cool, as demonstrated in the negligible warming in response to a 50% rise in CO2.

Therefore no one is or can be denying anything in dangerous global warming if they don't agree it's 
happening. That is because it has not happened yet, and by the UN assertion directly will not be known for certain till outside our lifetimes, unless the current line appears to be reaching that point already,  which it is not.
I hope this explanation will explain the difference between uncertainty and denial of the certain, as whatever names someone calls you, unless they are accurate they cannot stick.

No comments:

Post a Comment