UHI Deniers

There appears to be a large contingent of UHI deniers on both sides of the climate debate. I think we need to start classifying the science deniers.

  1. UHI deniers
  2. Data tampering deniers
  3. Solar minimum deniers
  4. Satellite deniers
  5. Warming hiatus deniers
  6. Broken climate model deniers
  7. Climate history deniers

There are many more. Please add to the list.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to UHI Deniers

  1. jmrsudbury says:

    Hid the decline deniers
    antarctic record sea ice deniers

    John M Reynolds

  2. SMS says:

    Nothing unusual in the weather deniers

  3. MrX says:

    People who deny we are still in an ice age.
    People who deny that plants like higher CO2 levels.
    People who deny that CO2 is not a pollutant.
    People who deny that humans are essentially immune to CO2.

    This last one is something you don’t hear on skeptical sites because it’s just so dumb, but liberals actually believe that if CO2 levels get high (around 1000+ ppm), that humans will die. They don’t get that the levels are higher inside buildings and no one notices. It’s the oxygen level that’s important. High CO2 can reduce the amount of oxygen percentage wise and that’s where the problem comes from and this only happens in closed environments because humans drain the oxygen supply and create more CO2. In submarines for example, they often have CO2 levels of 40,000 ppm. They still live because they pump oxygen into the air. Liberals continue to deny the fact that CO2 is not harmful to humans and still call CO2 a pollutant.

    • MrX says:

      Comparison of cowpea plants in normal vs. elevated CO2.

      • Gail Combs says:

        When you think about it. A higher CO2 concentration is a major advantage if the earth gets colder. More root mass/length plus more drought resistance plus faster growth means the shortest time to harvest.

      • gator69 says:

        Back in the seventies, I performed the same experiment with soybean plants. The results never varied.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “People who deny that humans are essentially immune to CO2.”

      Not only are we immune, but CO2 is absolutely essential to human breathing !

      Having a normal level of CO2 in the lungs and arterial blood (40 mm Hg or about 5.3% at sea level) is imperative for normal health.

      Hypocapnia (CO2 deficiency) in the lungs and, in most cases, arterial blood is a normal finding for chronic diseases due to prevalence of chronic hyperventilation among the sick.

      • Alan Poirier says:

        Let’s give them all paper bags to breathe into.:)

        • AndyG55 says:

          The Butako method for asthma control, does basically that.

          Teaches to control breathing to avoid low CO2 levels.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Denying deniers – Those who you would otherwise have thought would be against something like CO2 enrichment – http://www.naturalnews.com/039720_carbon_dioxide_myths_plant_nutrition.html

        • Gail Combs says:

          Mike Adams often comes up with decent information but you need to fact check.

          Given the earth is AT the time period for glacial inception, we should be making an effort to put as much CO2 back into the atmosphere as possible. Even if we do not end up in full glaciation it is still going to be cold and snowy.

          href=”http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf”>A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records
          Lisiecki & Raymo
          We present a 5.3-Myr stack (the ‘‘LR04’’ stack) of benthic d18O records from 57 globally distributed sites aligned by an automated graphic correlation algorithm. This is the first benthic d18O stack composed of more than three records to extend beyond 850 ka,…

          …the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence….

          No matter which way you slice it increasing CO2 is the correct approach.

          MIS 11 was 427 thousand years ago. This interglacial is supposedly the most similar to MIS 1, the present Holocene. As this graph shows the temperature was not exactly stable during MIS 11.

      • Dave N says:

        “..hypocapnia causes cerebral vasoconstriction, leading to cerebral hypoxia and this can cause transient dizziness, visual disturbances, and anxiety”

        That explains everything about alarmists: they’re depriving themselves of CO2.

      • Robert B says:

        We are not immune. Very high concentrations of CO2 will put people in a coma and could cause death. That’s 9%+. Continuous exposure to 40 000 ppm might give you a headache and the lethal dose is supposed to be continuous exposure to 15%+. 25% causes rapid unconsciousness and eventual death.

        Dropping O2 levels by 9% from 21% is 19% which is like climbing a small mountain of 700m. The concentration of O2 in Mexico City is like having the percentage of oxygen drop to 16%. If you replaced a third of the air with CO2, rather than just the O2, it drops the concentration to the levels at the 68 Olympics.

        I so hate it when you hear lectures on fire extinguishers that they say that suffocation rather than the CO2 will kill you.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “In submarines for example, they often have CO2 levels of 40,000 ppm”

      I think you need to fact check that one.

      iirc, 8000ppm is the maximum generally accepted in subs.

      “We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.” – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer,

      • He didn’t say maximum acceptable. He said “they often have.” No straw men please.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Check your facts please! 40,000ppm, is what we typically breathe out.

          Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003).

        • Neal S says:

          To AndyG55 please explain how mouth to mouth resuscitation has helped some people at times and not killed them?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Now where did I say 40,000ppm was deadly?

          The argument was about what submarines generally max at. They aim for a maximum of about 8000ppm, but it can sometimes reach 12,000ppm or there-abouts.


          Mouth to mouth is about getting oxygen in, still plenty of that, so even 40,000ppm CO2 can be very helpful if you are not breathing at the time,

          …. but prolonged exposure at 40,000ppm can make you feel pretty unwell.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The point is that humans and most other animals can easily cope with levels of 10,000ppm plus, with acclimatisation.

          Anyone who thinks that any amount of CO2 that we can ever pump into the atmosphere is in any way dangerous to human health, is an ignorant raving loonie !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          And please, I am very much on the sceptical side of the argument, as anyone will attest.

          CO2, the gas of life !!!

          Towards 700+ppm !!!

      • MrX says:

        I think you made my point for me.

    • PeterK says:

      MrX: I think I’ve read somewhere that submarines are usually in the 5,000 to 8,000 ppm range. I could be wrong but I think 40,000 is too high.

  4. Donna K. Becker says:

    Arctic sea ice rebound deniers.

  5. Denying they are deniers.

  6. myrightpenguin says:

    Deniers that even if plant food emission concerns are genuine the solution lies with natural gas and nuclear, not wind/solar that they advocate and have marginal impact on CO2 emissions.

    If alarmists accepted that then everyone could move on bar scientists genuinely interested in the truth in this multidisciplinary area, with plenty of time for the science to play out because the best route for reducing anthropogenic plant food emissions would be in place anyway (even though the aim is arguably pointless). Won’t happen of course because perpetual alarmism is important for not letting imaginary ‘crises’ go to waste.

    That leads to another one: fuel poverty deniers (and deniers of deaths due to fuel poverty).

  7. Deny being part of a Marxist conspiracy

  8. Climatism says:

    – 1970’s “Global cooling” scare deniers.

    – Climategate deniers.

    – Debunked 97% consensus, deniers.

  9. omanuel says:

    AGW promoters painted themselves into a corner and now hope to use Bill Clinton’s form of verbal defense:

    What is ‘is’?

  10. Menicholas says:

    Hoax Deniers!

  11. Some of these are repeats but this is the list from my web page:

    Denying that warming ended 14 years ago.
    Denying that the south pole never warmed at all.
    Denying that CO2 lags and never leads warming cycles.
    Denying that water vapor is one or two orders of magnitude more important a greenhouse gas.
    Denying that sun cycles play a part in earth’s climate cycles.
    Denying that the thermometer readings are inflated by the urban heat island effect.
    Denying that the hockey team committed scientific fraud and malpractice.
    Denying global cooling alarmism in the 1970s.
    Denying that global warming is political.
    Denying that global warming started in 1800.
    Denying that sea level rise is still linear.
    Denying that they make money off of government grants.
    Denying that glaciers started melting in the 1700s.
    Denying that Greenland ice cores are a hemispheric proxy and claiming it’s only local.

  12. dom says:

    Boolean Algebra Deniers
    Categorical Imperative (CI) Deniers
    Dogma Deniers
    Natural Cycle & Selection Deniers
    Lotus of Control Deniers

  13. Beale says:

    Deniers that they want to destroy civilization. To be sure, there are some warmists, like John Holdren, who don’t fall into this category, but openly declare their intention.

  14. You forgot the hey one: “Pause deniers”.

    Also there’s some new ones
    “<a href="http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/02/15/toward-a-new-theory-of-ice-ages-xiv-putting-it-all-together/"thermal crustal expansion denier“>” (Those who deny that the crust expands in the warmer inter-glacial)
    Those who deny sceptics are well educated

    Then there’s the “snowmen deniers” – those who deny that children still know what snow is
    “Birdmincer deniers” – those who deny that windmills kill 1000s upon thousands of birds

    Sustainability deniers – those who deny that being a CO2 zealot isn’t sustainable and that being sustainable doesn’t mean destroying our society and the economy.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Many farmers highly resent the Progressives stealing and twisting the word ‘Sustainable’

      It use to mean taking good care of your farmland so it would continue to produce for your grandkids. Now the big corporate farms don’t care if they ruin a farm. My farm lost two foot of the best topsoil in the county because it was a rented farm and those farming it didn’t care if the winter rains erroded the topsoil.

  15. Gail Combs says:

    Bistable non linear chaotic climate deniers

    The IPCC says:

    …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible

    IPCC 2001 section page 774

    The climate (at least in the last three million years) is bistable and COOLING:

  16. cheshirered says:

    Fraud deniers.
    It’s so achingly obvious that great swathes of the climate debate have been so egregiously distorted by deliberate cheating and exaggeration that no sane person, or at least no one who doesn’t stand to benefit from the nonsense, can look at the evidence and continue to deny it.

  17. GEEKAY says:

    ‘Why? Why? Why? Denier!’ (with apologies to Tom Jones)

  18. gator69 says:

    Freedom deniers.

  19. Peter Yates says:

    The ‘alarmist’ side of the debate shows signs of cult-like influences. These influences appear to be when the scientific method, and the scientific need for extraordinary evidence, are often largely ignored. The technical term for this is ‘cognitive dissonance’. The alarmists feel uncomfortable when they discover that their beliefs don’t match up with reality.

    One of the ways they reduce the cognitive dissonance is by ignoring or *denying* any information that conflicts with their existing beliefs. Also, they may justify the behavior by changing the conflicting cognition (eg. the warming has just paused and is sure to return at a later date, or the missing warmth is hiding in the deep oceans – where we can’t measure it).

  20. Douglas Hoyt says:

    Loschmidt Effect deniers.

  21. skeohane says:

    ‘Nature Deniers’ doesn’t seem to be listed.
    ‘Natural Deniers’ might work as well.

  22. DD More says:

    Earth – Sun Orbit the Barycentre Deniers
    Solar Chord Length Deniers


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