Part of me says “Hear hear” to putting deniers behind a wall of click; the smarter part of me says that whatever is repressed in a system (a person, a society…) finds its way back into the system. If not allowed in conscious ways, it will be in unconscious, often sabotaging ways. Other posters have suggested ignoring the denying and despairing people but that is the worst thing we could do. If you listen to the far right, one thing you hear constantly is complaints about not being heard, and how intolerable that is for them. (in the form of diatribes about the “liberal media” e.g. ) It is a basic human need to be seen, heard and reflected back. (Saying to a toddler “Oh, I know you really want that candy” (in an emotional tone like what is being used by the toddler) is a much more effective way of dealing with strong desire for bad things than some intellectual explanation: “We’re having dinner at blah blah o’clock blah blah…” The response from the child, not rational in a hyper-rational “scientific” way but absolutely central in human developmental psychology, is to ‘think’ (unconsciously, the way 90% of what goes on with us is): “Mommy/Daddy isn’t hearing me; I have to get louder and more emotional to get my dire (felt) need across”. When words don’t work, actions will follow—pounding, kicking, throwing things, running… It’s not about the candy; it’s about the psychophysiological pathways by which we create ourselves through interaction with others. None of us get all of what we need, when it causes us or others problems it needs to be addressed later in life.

We (by that I mean someone) need/s to listen to and compassionately interact with the climate-denying scum (just joking) and address their deeper needs and desires—especially the ones they don’t know about themselves—in order to stop this acrimonious, distracting and counterproductive ‘debate’. This is a hard, hard job and takes putting aside our personal reactions, conscious and un-, emotional and visceral. Do it if you can. Otherwise, do what you can to help other people do it. Like all real human interaction I don’t think it can be done on the internet—only in person. I’m envisioning public ‘debates’ in which the needs behind people’s questions are answered by psychotherapists and other capable and willing people—the modern equivalent of the public healing function of a shaman. Arguing ain’t gonna get it done. ‘They’ have more money and more media than we do and can always find ways to destroy and derail what we do. ‘They’ have to be brought on board, not sequestered and ignored.

The results stated in the paper “Sudden considerable reduction in anthopogenic CO2 by the East/Japan Sea” are certainly interesting but hardly catastrophic. The problem is that the results are not statistically significant at a high level. That is, there is about a 9% probability that the mean value of antropogenic CO2 take up in the 1999-2007 period actually exceeded the same takeup in the 1992-1999 period (this result comes from taking the figures noted in the abstract and running simulations based on those distributions). An interesting but not compelling result.

As the authors note: “The rapid and substantial reduction in accumulation in the more recent period is surprising, and is attributed to considerable weakening of overturning circulation”. However, can the weakening of overturning circulation in the Japan Sea be attributed largely or solely to human activity? It is entirely possible that much or most of the change observed in the paper (assuming it is in fact real) is the result of natural circulation. Afterall, the amount of human activity in the Japan Sea is relatively low since the major cities in both Japan and Korea do not face this sea.

That said, it is interesting to note that surface temperature anomalies in the Japan Sea are overall currently dramatically positive:

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ PSB/ EPS/ SST/ data/ anomp.1.15.2009.gif

However, to say, as Professor Lee states that ‘“Our result … unequivocally demonstrated that oceanic uptake of CO2 has been directly affected by warming-induced weakening of vertical ventilation,”’ and Lee further adds: “In other words, the increase in atmospheric temperature due to global warming can profoundly influence the ocean ventilation, thereby decreasing the uptake rate of CO2.”

This is nonsense. To take a result (which is, statistically, somewhat marginal) for a shallow ocean sea and project it over the deep ocean over the entire planet is ridiculous. There is no question that an increasing level of atmospheric CO2 will result in a transfer of heat energy to the earth’s oceans. There is also no question that warmer oceans will reduce the amount of additional anthropogenic CO2 that will be taken up by the earth’s oceans. But to say that: “This previously undocumented finding may be an indicator of future changes in the global ocean during the coming period of global warming” as the authors of this paper state is pure speculation and no truly rational, skeptical person should do anything more than note that this is a potentially interesting result.

[JR: They (and perhaps you) seem unaware of the other research showing the saturation of the ocean sink. Had they included it in their paper, their case would have been stronger.]

If we save their sorry butts along with everyone else’s they can thank us later….

The “deniers” – from everything I can see they are a very small and declining minority. In fact, it seems that there are fewer and fewer BS posts on climate forums. (Or maybe just better forum mods. ;o)

Some people will continue to believe in “flat earths” regardless of the data presented to them. It might be time to simply start ignoring them.

One strategy to do so might be to limit their voice on forums. We could, for example, start putting their posts behind a separate click. Leave their post so that they can’t complain of censorship, but take them out of the active discussion.

We need one very excellent site that deals with all the denial arguments (and is kept up to date). Just replace their posts with links to the “real stuff” site and a click to show their buried post as is done with Digg.

The denier posts should be fed to the maintainers of the “real stuff” site so that all denier arguments can be covered there.

Equally ominous, many existing carbon sinks are increasing their emissions because of global warming — and the major climate models are missing these key amplifying feedbacks, which include

Don’t you mean ‘carbon sources’? Permafrost, as far as I know, is not a carbon sink unless new permafrost is consistently being made.

[JR: The permafrost is a (former) carbon sink.]

http://www.ntsg.umt.edu/files/5StagesClimateGrief.htm

One site has revised these steps as
1. Denial,
2. Skepticism (anger for dealing with grief)
3. Delay (bargaining)
4. Depression
5. Activism (acceptance)

http://getenergysmartnow.com/ 2008/ 04/ 12/ the-five-stages-denial-to-determination/

> What deniers deny is that CO2 levels drive climate change.

Some do. Others deny that it’s significant. Others deny the urgency. Others deny that it is harmful. Others deny that we can do anything about it. Others say the economic cost of change outweighs the ‘theoretical’ benefits. Others firmly believe that it’s all some commie / socialist / Marxist / New World Order conspiracy to steal their SUV.

The denial stretches the entire spectrum of the science. And some of these Deniers aren’t sure what they deny – they just *know* that ACC is not true and, any day now, they’re going to find the evidence.

The Deniers think the proclamations of a cherry-picking, radio weather presenter or some B-grade economic pundit are the equal of a PhD climate scientist.

Trying to argue against these people is near-impossible – partly because it’s so difficult to address what each individual believes. If you do, they’ll ultimately claim the source that disproves their position is unreliable or ‘just one opinion’.

And while it seems that all of our leaders are saying the right things about climate change, their actions don’t match – http://www.guardian.co.uk/ uk/ 2009/ jan/ 15/ bbaaviation-theairlineindustry This makes it clear that some of our leaders are either ignorant of or in denial of the science.

@Barry – it would be nice if stages of denial were being followed. I don’t see any sign of that – the Deniers become more firmly entrenched as the evidence mounts up. They can go to echo chambers of stupidity (ClimateAudit, WattsUpWithThat, the Telegraph, the Australian, etc.) to confirm their belief that the ’science is still undecided’.