# Why don't climate change deniers publish? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811 "2014-01-14T20:28:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/121 "2014-01-19T16:17:08Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > Lots of missing components in **watchwolf’s** energy balance. [Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget) is a bit more complete discussion of full energy budget. That is what I suspected, it is the great tragedy of contrarian Science — continuing to endure the slaying of their beautiful hypothesis by the ugly facts. This BTW is one of the main reasons why deniers don’t publish, IIRC there were times were even skeptical researchers told Anthony Watts to drop the idea to publish, because what Watts was missing was so clear and it would be a pain to the few remaining skeptical scientists to support him. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/122 "2014-01-19T17:52:20Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > Lot[Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget) is a bit more complete discussion of full energy budget. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/123 "2014-01-19T21:30:04Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > The 1300 W/m2 flux you mention here is the total incident solar radiation to the earth, and the outgoing flux you mention here is the longwave radiation emitted at the earth’s surface (I think - your numbers are close, but don’t exactly match the literature). Both flux and forcing are vector values, incoming flux is parallel, outgoing flux is spherical … I come up with around a third of the area available for income flux, thus it’s vector magnitude needs to be about 3 times larger … when using unit area. I understand the arithmetic isn’t adding up, but it’s tax season and, well, you know … different rules apply. Thank you for your comments … I’m sure it’s clear to you just how peripheral my understanding of climatology is by now. I very much appreciate your input. I’m curious: for a 10ºC temperature gain, over 10,000 years, wouldn’t the average forcing be extremely small compared to the total budget numbers? ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/124 "2014-01-20T00:39:53Z")
Yeah, geometry makes it complicated. Radiation changes in time as well, which adds another layer. When you’re looking at the total energy budget, the easiest way to do that is to integrate the components of the energy balance over the entire globe (a non-trivial but feasible geometric exercise) and consider just the rate of energy transfer (watts). Radiative forcings in the sense that they’re used in climate change studies can also be normalized to surface area, because they’re global phenomena, but the incoming solar radiation can’t be handled the same way. The earth’s temperature is an equilibrium system - the energy fluxes are determined in part by the temperature, so as the earth’s temperature rises the radiated energy increases until the incoming and outgoing energy fluxes reach a new balance. So if you’re looking at a particular temperature change, it doesn’t make much difference whether you’re talking about a timescale of 10,000 years or 100 years. [Here](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008746/abstract) is an article that puts the equilibrium sensitivity of the earth at 0.3 ± 0.14 K / (W/m2)\*. To drive a 10 K increase in global average temperature, you’d need a radiative forcing of ~33 W/m2 (23 - 63 W/m2 considering the uncertainty). As long as you allow enough time for the system to reach equilibrium (that article suggests ~5 years), it doesn’t matter how long a time it takes to exert that radiative forcing. When it’s integrated over the entire globe, the incoming radiation is ~340 W/m2, so you’re talking about a forcing that’s roughly 10% of the total energy budget. If you do that over 10,000 years, then it’s 1% per 1000 years, but we’re driving radiative forcings on the order of 1 W/m2 in timescales of decades rather than millenia. \*chosen purely because the number right there in the abstract so you can read it without online access to AGU’s journals. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/125 "2014-01-20T02:42:29Z")
Thinking more about that sensitivity calculation, I’m not sure it holds for a change of 10 °C. The sensitivity estimate was based on records from 1880-2004, during which time the global average temperature increased by roughly 1 °C. Longwave emission scales with fourth power of temperature, so a linear sensitivity estimate might be ok for a relatively small variation in temperature but not usable for a larger change. Take the back-of-the-envelope calculation above with a cellar of salt. This is why scientists need peer reviewers. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/126 "2014-01-20T04:24:05Z")
So, I’ve ran the numbers myself and have determined I’ve had a few too many high-balls this evening. I have 10,000 hectopascals per liter of forcing … which sounds a bit off … I either didn’t carry a two someplace or underestimated the volume of the typical baleen whale … I’ll look tomorrow morning when I’ve sobered up some. How would I find out about the rates of longwave radiative transfers, I need some for them Joules for a vortex but I don’t know how to limit the absorption of the water vapor and carbon dioxide. I can give the Joules back after a few days, so I’m not wreaking your climate or anything. I just need to them to do some work I’ve got. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/127 "2014-01-20T04:32:50Z")
Sounds like you’ve had just the right number of highballs - you’re just trying to do the wrong amount of math! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/128 "2014-01-20T09:13:32Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > [Here](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008746/abstract) is an article that puts the equilibrium sensitivity of the earth at 0.3 ± 0.14 K / (W/m2)\*. For the record, that equates to an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.1 deg. C which is wildly incorrect, and explains why that paper has received so much criticism (but of course has been much celebrated by the oil-funded astroturfers). It’s an unfortunate incidence of a good atmospheric scientist venturing outside his primary area of expertise. The main problem with the paper is the use of an overly simplistic model and, in particular, the implicit assumption that the climate system responds to forcings on only one timescale, and an exceedingly short one at that. Good rebuttals can be found [here](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/) and [here](http://julesandjames.blogspot.ca/2007/08/schwartz-sensitivity-estimate.html). The general consensus in the climate science community is that equilibrium climate sensitivity is in the range of 1.5 to 4.5, but more importantly, it is tightly bounded at the low end but not on the high. The probability density function is a highly skewed distribution with a very long tail towards the high end. I find it particularly amusing that the second rebuttal to Schwartz’s paper that I linked comes from James Annan, who has long been a proponent of low climate sensitivity, but even he isn’t buying what Schwartz is selling. > [@Enginerd](#): > > As long as you allow enough time for the system to reach equilibrium (that article suggests ~5 years), it doesn’t matter how long a time it takes to exert that radiative forcing. Ummm… no. This is part of the fundamental problem of that paper’s single-timescale assumption. The time it takes to reach equilibrium depends on the forcing and the associated feedbacks, and in the real world is not 5 years but thousands of years. This is why the metric of [transient climate response](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Equilibrium_and_transient_climate_sensitivity) was invented… > [@](#): > > A model estimate of equilibrium sensitivity thus requires a very long model integration; fully equilibrating ocean temperatures requires integrations of thousands of model years. A measure requiring shorter integrations is the transient climate response (TCR) which is defined as the average temperature response over a twenty-year period centered at CO2 doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/129 "2014-01-20T14:33:55Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > Sounds like you’ve had just the right number of highballs - you’re just trying to do the wrong amount of math! 😃 I found my mistakes, I was using cubic feet for volume and kilometers for length … duh … and now I’ve corrected these and come up with 3.1 x 10^-6 W/m^2 average forcing, or +0.0000031 W/m^2, to wit: The atmosphere is 5.2x10^21 g, times the dry specific heat of 1.0 J/g-ºK times 10ºK gives 5.2x10^22 J. Dividing by 10,000 years (or 3.1x10^13 s) and the surface area of the Earth (4.1x10^14 m^2) gives 3.1x10^-6 J/s-m^2 (or W/m^2). As a staunch climate change denialist, and insisting that water vapor is the primary driver of average global temperatures, the actual average forcing is more like 3.2x10^-6. As I suspected, a very small amount indeed. This is absolute non-disproof that indeed baleen whales are stripping the oceans of photoplankton, reducing the ocean’s ability to sink carbon dioxide, thus we see a spike in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Perhaps I go to far in stating that they are doing this by intent, but it doesn’t matter, human’s only hope of survival is killing every last whale. Herman Melville was a prophet. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/130 "2014-01-20T14:35:42Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Herman Melville was a prophet. OK now I like you. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/131 "2014-01-20T15:16:19Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > As a staunch climate change denialist, and insisting that water vapor is the primary driver of average global temperatures,… …You’d be dead wrong, of course; water vapor is a feedback loop, not a driver. > [@](#): > > the actual average forcing is more like 3.2x10^-6. As I suspected, a very small amount indeed. This is absolute non-disproof that indeed baleen whales are stripping the oceans of photoplankton, reducing the ocean’s ability to sink carbon dioxide, thus we see a spike in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Perhaps I go to far in stating that they are doing this by intent, but it doesn’t matter, human’s only hope of survival is killing every last whale. > > Herman Melville was a prophet. …You lost me. You do realize that sarcasm registers very poorly over the internet, right? And that Poe’s Law is in full effect when it comes to climate deniers? > [@FXMastermind](#): > > OK now I like you. Why am I reminded of Dawkins here… Oh right - “that’d look good on your CV, not so great on mine”. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/132 "2014-01-20T15:35:47Z")
Indeed, the denialists are like captain Ahab and they eventually could not slay the current understanding of what is going on. > **[EarthSky | Water vapor has role in global warming](https://earthsky.org/earth/andrew-dessler-says-water-vapors-role-in-warming-now-understood/)** > [@](#): > > Dessler said data from AIRS, a NASA satellite instrument that measures water vapor across the world, confirmed this feedback. > > Andrew Dessler: You get twice the warming with the water vapor feedback than you would without the water vapor feedback. > > In other words, water vapor makes carbon dioxide twice as effective at warming the planet. Dessler has been studying the role of water vapor in the atmosphere for the past 10 years. He said today, the science of water vapor is well understood, but the public is still confused about it. > > Andrew Dessler: If you go back 20 years, there was some credible arguments that there were holes in our understanding. But over the course of the last 20 years, we’ve really nailed down some of these problems. But for whatever reason, the knowledge that we’ve really solved a lot of these problems hasn’t made it into the public debate. > > He said that almost all of the water vapor in the atmosphere comes from evaporation off oceans, not from human activities. Dessler added that water vapor doesn’t act like most other greenhouse gases. > > Andrew Dessler: The important thing to realize with water vapor – it is the biggest greenhouse gas – but it’s tied tightly with surface temperature. If you know what the surface temperature of the planet is, you know how much water vapor is in the atmosphere. But it acts like a feedback, not a forcing. So it’s correct that it’s the most important greenhouse gas, but it’s not correct to think that therefore carbon dioxide is not important. > > Dessler broke down the numbers for the common scientific assumption of 3 degrees Celsius of future warming. > > Andrew Dessler: Most of that warming turns out to come from feedback, not the direct warming of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide alone would give you one degree, and then the water vapor feedback gives you another degree, and then there are a bunch of other feedbacks give you the last degree. But of the feedbacks, water vapor is the most important one. Oh, contrarians will spit their last breaths at the researchers, but when going to publish their work they are more likely to go down with their ships. > **[Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again](https://skepticalscience.com/spencer_ocean.html)** > > Whenever some of the more credible 'skeptics' come out and talk about climate change, they usually focus on a subject known as climate sensitivity.  This includes Dr. Roy Spencer, who has frequently argued that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is low... ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/133 "2014-01-20T16:16:08Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > OK now I like you. [Beams] Now will you call my ideas “hare-brained-crackpotism-at-its-worst” ??? > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > …You’d be dead wrong, of course; water vapor is a feedback loop, not a driver. Water vapor is a gas, in the chemical sense. It’s positive feedback mechanism has bearing in the energy transfers _within_ the system. The fact remains that the infra-red (longwave) spectrometers orbiting _outside_ the system show that 60% of the Earth’s flux is due to water vapor, thus making it the primary driver of this flux. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > …You lost me. You do realize that sarcasm registers very poorly over the internet, right? And that Poe’s Law is in full effect when it comes to climate deniers? I was wondering about that … I honestly thought you have been trying to feed into the sarcasm and was just terribly inept. I understand a lot of people log onto humor websites without their sense of humor, but I am not one of those. You should probably ignore everything I post then, treat me like white noise. I don’t mind, indeed I try to make sure my posts are short so as to not burden the other discourse. I’m a sweet kind of guy that way. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/134 "2014-01-20T16:28:46Z")
Rush Limbaugh is that you? 😛 There is no problem for me with jesters, after all the saying goes that only they can tell the truth, but [Rush](http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/12/19/rush-limbaugh-climate-change-misinformer-of-the/185495)is not like Jon Stewart. The problem with some jesters out there is that they tell others that they are just entertainers when in practice they are influencing and helping the worst agents of denialism. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/135 "2014-01-20T17:06:34Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > …You’d be dead wrong, of course; water vapor is a feedback loop, not a driver. In the spirit of dispelling ignorance, not spreading it, let me show you why the claim “[water vapor is a feedback loop, not a driver](water vapor is a feedback loop, not a driver)” is a made up and false statement. Of course to be fair it might be the exact phrasing, so let’s look at “[water vapor is a feedback loop](https://www.google.com/#q=%22water+vapor+is+a+feedback+loop%22)”, which is the really wrong part of the claim. Note that the first two sites below the **No results found for “water vapor is a feedback loop”** message are skepticalscience, which is to be expected, as it is a main source of so much bad science. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/136 "2014-01-20T17:24:11Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > In the spirit of dispelling ignorance, not spreading it, let me show you why the claim “[water vapor is a feedback loop, not a driver](water vapor is a feedback loop, not a driver)” is a made up and false statement. Of course to be fair it might be the exact phrasing, so let’s look at “[water vapor is a feedback loop](https://www.google.com/#q=%22water+vapor+is+a+feedback+loop%22)”, which is the really wrong part of the claim. > > Note that the first two sites below the **No results found for “water vapor is a feedback loop”** message are skepticalscience, which is to be expected, as it is a main source of so much bad science. Your first link is no good. [Wikipedia:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor_feedback#Role_of_water_vapor) > [@](#): > > **Role of water vapor** > > Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds.[18] Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. The atmospheric concentration of vapor is highly variable and depends largely on temperature, from less than 0.01% in extremely cold regions up to 3% by mass at in saturated air at about 32 °C.(see Relative humidity#other important facts) [84] > > The average residence time of a water molecule in the atmosphere is only about nine days, compared to years or centuries for other greenhouse gases such as CH > 4 and CO2.[85] Thus, water vapor responds to and amplifies effects of the other greenhouse gases. The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that more water vapor will be present per unit volume at elevated temperatures. This and other basic principles indicate that warming associated with increased concentrations of the other greenhouse gases also will increase the concentration of water vapor (assuming that the relative humidity remains approximately constant; modeling and observational studies find that this is indeed so). Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this results in further warming and so is a “positive feedback” that amplifies the original warming. Eventually other earth processes offset these positive feedbacks, stabilizing the global temperature at a new equilibrium and preventing the loss of Earth’s water through a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect.[86] That sounds to me like “a feedback loop, not a driver.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/137 "2014-01-20T17:26:01Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > In the spirit of dispelling ignorance, not spreading it, let me show you why the claim “[water vapor is a feedback loop, not a driver](water vapor is a feedback loop, not a driver)” is a made up and false statement. Of course to be fair it might be the exact phrasing, so let’s look at “[water vapor is a feedback loop](https://www.google.com/#q=%22water+vapor+is+a+feedback+loop%22)”, which is the really wrong part of the claim. > > Note that the first two sites below the **No results found for “water vapor is a feedback loop”** message are skepticalscience, which is to be expected, as it is a main source of so much bad science. As usual on a Google vomit, there are more sources that confirm what "skeptical Science’ is reporting (third link): > **[Water Vapor Feedback Loop Will Cause Accelerated Global Warming, Professor Warns](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219152132.htm)** > > Here's yet another reason to hate humidity: it expands global warming, says a professor of Atmospheric Sciences writing in the journal Science. He says that warming due to increases in greenhouse gases will lead to higher humidity in the atmosphere.... > [@](#): > > “For years, there was a debate over this mechanism, with some even questioning if the water vapor feedback existed at all. But recent work on this feedback has moved its existence and strength beyond argument,” Dessler adds. > > Predictions of significant global warming over the next 100 years by climate models require a strong water vapor feedback. Recent estimates suggest the earth will warm from 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (4 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit) over the next century – a scenario that could have devastating long-term consequences. > > “Everything shows that the climate models are probably getting the water vapor feedback right, which means that unless we reduce emissions, it is going to get much, much warmer on our planet by the end of the century,” he adds. > > Many scientists believe such warming rates are already happening. > > They can point to the summer of 2003, when a prolonged heat wave gripped Europe. According to the Earth Policy Institute, more than 35,000 people died that summer, with France recording over 14,000 deaths and Germany more than 7,000. > > Additionally, warmer temperatures are having an adverse effect in the Arctic, where rapid loss of ice is now occurring. > > “The only possible way future warming won’t be significant is if there exists some sort of off-setting negative feedback, which has yet to be discovered,” Dessler notes. > > “Most scientists, myself included, judge that to be a pretty unlikely possibility.” Maybe FX is relying on the 5th link, but that is old captain Ahab himself, Roy Spencer. But just like the link FX claims to show that it is a made up false statement, it fails to load any page. There goes Ahab to the depths of the warming ocean dragged down by the mighty white whale. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/138 "2014-01-20T18:16:39Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That sounds to me like “a feedback loop, not a driver.” The problem is, when people make things up, like “Water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing”, there isn’t any evidence that such a statement exists, except where somebody made it up. You won’t find it [in a textbook](https://www.google.com/#q=%22Water+vapor+is+a+feedback+and+not+a+forcing%22), or [any scientific paper](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Water+vapor+is+a+feedback+and+not+a+forcing%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C10&as_sdtp=), or even on a real climate science page. Instead you get blogs, where people say all kinds of stupid things, but don’t back it up with science. Evidence. Note that the 9 hits are all blogs. If you type any [real phrase](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22water+vapor+is+the+main+greenhouse+gas%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10) into Google scholar, or Google, you get real sources right away, not a few blogs. Like “Water vapor acts as a greenhouse gas”, which returns real science sources, like [www.upi.com](http://www.upi.com) carnegiescience.edu/news/water\_evaporated\_trees\_cools\_global\_climate‎ [https://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/climate/‎](https://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/climate/%E2%80%8E) Same for [Google scholar](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Water+vapor+acts+as+a+greenhouse+gas%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C10&as_sdtp=), so it’s easy to see it’s a real phrase, from science. Not bloggers. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/139 "2014-01-20T18:26:15Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > The problem is, when people make things up, like “Water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing”, there isn’t any evidence that such a statement exists, except where somebody made it up. What are you talking about? I posted a Wiki link that essentially says that. Are you questioning the reliability of the footnoted sources? ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/140 "2014-01-20T18:27:53Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Perhaps I go to far in stating that they are doing this by intent, but it doesn’t matter, human’s only hope of survival is killing every last whale. Have we not learned anything from _Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home_? From [Memory Alpha](http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Ocean) : > [@](#): > > In 2286, the Whale Probe, with its call, was converting water from Earth’s ocean into cloud vapor, which increased the cloud cover over the planet. This process, if it had continued, would have meant the end of life on the planet. Fortunately, the process ended when a pair of humpback whales brought from the past convinced the probe to stop. (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home) We ignore the link between whales and water vapor at our own peril! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811.md?page=8)