Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

D wrote:

  On Sat, 21 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
 

>
I've looked at everything the denialist world has to offer.
>
They have no evidence.
>
I invite you to supply some.  Actual reasoning, that is. Don't bother cut-and-pasting some page you don't actually understand yourself.

 I will give you 5.

General comment.
You should read the IPCC "Summary for Policymakers", a non-technical description of the work done.  It would save you much embarrassment.
And you would know what your "opponents" are actually doing.  At the moment it's like you're playing Kriegspiel, and they're playing chess.

 Natural Climate Variability One of the primary arguments against man-made climate change is that
Earth’s climate has always experienced fluctuations due to natural
processes. Rationalists have explained that the warming observed in recent
decades could be part of a natural cycle rather than a result of human
activity. They point to historical climate data showing periods of
warming and cooling over thousands of years, suggesting that current
changes may not be unprecedented.

This was, of course, one of the first things proposed as an alternative by the actual scientific community.  It was rejected for several reasons:
(1) There is no analog to this in the record of natural climate variability.  The speed of this warming is unprecedented in moderate climates.  By orders of magnitude.  Note that above you say "thousands of years".  We're seeing changes of the same magnitude over decades.
(2) Natural variability is not without cause.  No such cause is apparent. Variations in clouds, solar output, current, albedo, and other causes have been examined.  Even changes in sea-salt aerosols. Nothing accounts for the current change.

 Solar Activity Influence Another argument is that variations in solar activity are responsible
for the observed changes in global temperatures. Increased solar
irradiance correlates with rising temperatures and natural
solar cycles have a more significant impact on climate than
human-generated greenhouse gases.

Wrong on several counts.
Variations in solar constant are not nearly large enough to account for the current warming, as the excerpt you posted a few days ago in response to Paul showed.  And the warming has continued even when the sun was growing cooler.
The current warming would imply an increase of average solar radiation at the surface of the earth of several watts per square meter, much larger than the solar variability you cite, but in line with the forcing due to greenhouse gases.
An increase in solar output will produce more warming in areas that receive more sunlight.  More warming at low latitudes than high, more in summer  than winter.  The opposite pattern, predicted by climate models as early as 1980, prevails.
An increase of solar output would warm the stratosphere. Instead the stratosphere is cooling, in line with the physics of global warming and as predicted as long ago as 1965.
The solar argument is refuted.

Questionable Climate Models The climate models are often flawed or overly reliant on assumptions
about human impact. These models have failed to accurately replicate
past climate conditions and therefore cannot be trusted to forecast
future scenarios reliably.

These models have done a good job of simulating past climates, from the ice ages to Eocene warmth, to Pangean Monsoons and Holocene lake levels in east Africa.  Your source here is simply incorrect.
They have also made the above correct predictions (do I have to repeat them for the tenth time?).  Neither of the ideas you propose above have made any correct predictions.
"Flawed" has become a word which means nothing more than "I disagree".
It is meaningless without being able to point to an actual flaw.

Oceanic and Atmospheric Absorption Earth’s natural systems, such as oceans and forests, can absorb
significant amounts of CO2 emitted by human activities, mitigating
potential warming effects.

So what?
This is accounted for in the simulations.  If we didn't include  these effects the models would be calling for a 10C warming by 2100, rather than 2 (or so).
Do you actually think we're stupid enough not to account for CO2 absorbed by the oceans even though this has been known for well over a century?  Or both stupid and dishonest?
If the oceans absorbed no CO2 they wouldn't be acidifying.  Can I really be stupid enough to think  that all CO2 stays in the atmosphere, and yet that a dangerous amount goes into the ocean?
Really, if I was running a conspiracy to fool the public I'd be much more clever than that.
  This perspective suggests that the capacity

of these “carbon sinks” could offset any potential anthropogenic
emissions, reducing their overall impact on global temperatures.

Except that we've gone from 280 to over 410 ppm. So the offset, while welcome, is clearly not sufficient.  Are you reading that which you are posting?

 Historical CO2 Levels and Temperature Correlation Studies indicate that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have
historically followed temperature rises rather than preceding them. This
correlation suggests that CO2 may not be a primary driver of climate
change but rather a response to other climatic factors.

It is well known that CO2 can function as both a forcing and a feedback.   A climate which warms for other reasons will result in a different biosphere, which may produce more warming and hence C02 will increase the original signal. This happened in the ice ages, which were magnified but not caused by C02 variations.
But in our time the C02 began to increase before the warming, not after.   C02 (and other ghgs we produce) is the forcing.
As C02 and CH4 leach from Arctic soils it will also become a feedback, with very bad consequences for us.
Zero for five.

 

You don't even try.  And your declaration of closed-mindedness is disturbing.

>
Likewise. See above.

>
Not likewise.
>
I can explain why the pattern of warming we see is distinct - more warming in higher than lower latitudes, more in winter than summer, more by night than day, cooling in the stratosphere.  These are all predicted consequences of increased greenhouse gases, predictions that were made decades ago.
>
Can you explain this pattern without invoking greenhouse gases?  Can you explain the warming at all?

 See 5 points above. Natural variation most likely.

Nowhere in your five points did you even try to explain the above pattern, nor did you have any explanation that works for the warming.

 

No, we are not alike at all.
>
>
I seek reality, you seek factoids to support that which you believe already. You are a creature of politics.

 Now you are insulting me. But I'll let that pass, since this is an
aynchronous medium. I have not insulted you in this post.

You fail to comment on facts presented, as you did in our previous discussions.  You use the common political trick of posting "refutations" which are only superficially valid ("my opponent says he's tough on crime, but his son got a speeding ticket").  You demonize opponents.
You even posted:
"scientists are scrambling to support the
narrative in the hope of becoming part of the nobility of the future
authoritarian society politicians are steering us towards."
which is utterly deranged.  Is James Hansen up for a dukedom? Can I get at least a barony?
In this context, calling you a political creature seems more like a description than an insult. If you think it is an insult that may be a good sign for you.
But I still think you are making a political error. In your flailing against established fact of anthropogenic greenhouse warming you waste effort you could be using in pushing your program of dealing with the issue by doing nothing. "Do nothing" is generally an easy sell, but you can't leave the field entirely to your opponents.
Though, in your insistence that people could live at a density of several per square meter you paint yourself as a troll.  No sane person could believe that. So say I and the ten other people in this room with me.
William Hyde