Who are the real global warming skeptics?
Another way to test your belief is to look at the myriad of hypotheses put forth by any denier or any denier blog. There is no cohesiveness, no robust theory to compete with AGW. They will just blast away with any idea that is counter to the physics of greenhouse gas and long-wave radiation. * The has been no warming * There was warming up until 1998 but then it stopped * There is warming but it within the normal rate * There is unusually rapid warming but it is caused naturally by ice age cycles * There is unusually rapid warming but it is caused by solar energy * There is unusually rapid warming but it is caused by solar activity * There is unusually rapid warming but it is caused by clouds * There is unusually rapid warming but it is caused by water vapor * CO2 does not cause the greenhouse effect * CO2 does cause the greenhouse effect but only by an exact amount unaffected by the amount of CO2 * CO2 does enhance the greenhouse effect but the extra it comes from volcanoes * CO2 does enhance the greenhouse effect but it comes from the ocean * Global warming is good * We don't know anything because all scientists are socialists * Man is too small of a factor to affect climate You'll hear the same person cycle through all of these, and not be bothered by the lack of scientific evidence for any. Anthonony Watts continually pats on the back anyone who presents any of these arguement and he appears totally unconcerned that they conflict with each other so badly. What the public does not understand is the science researchers have to take a specific hypothesis and test it. The ameteurs just pick their own belief and assume it is right while never testing it and never researching whether others have tested it.
Why are so-called global warming "skeptics" not skeptical of other "skeptics"?
Apparently the deniers have been missing my questions http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... So I guess I should ask one. Recently there was a report published by an Argentinian environmental group called FEU. The report was mostly on climate impacts on food production, but they also had a "key finding" that the planet will warm about 1.5°C between now and 2020. This is quite obviously wrong, and was based on two errors - ignoring thermal inertia of the oceans, and anthropogenic cooling effects like aerosols. Richard Lindzen periodically publishes articles in the media making the same errors, only he uses them to (incorrectly) conclude that we haven't seen as much warming as we should have by now, therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. The FEU mistake was dumb, but it was unintentional. Climate scientists, bloggers, and journalists jumped all over it, attempting to correct the errors before the paper was published, and then correcting them in the media after it was published. Lindzen on the other hand has been writing articles making these same errors for over 3 years. Other climate scientists have pointed out his errors, but Lindzen continues to make them, most recently publishing a media article containing the mistakes on January 15th (republished by WUWT on the 17th). WUWT criticized the FEU study for making the errors, and criticized Scientific American for originally running an article with the FEU errors. Scientific American ran a new article correcting the errors just a few hours later. Meanwhile WUWT ran the Lindzen article containing the same errors, and has not corrected them to date. http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-case-s... Clearly the climate scientists and bloggers and journalists in this case behaved appropriately. They saw an error, and even though it was made by "their side", they corrected it. Meanwhile the "skeptics" continue to propagate the exact same errors made by a fellow "skeptic". This makes me wonder, why are so-called global warming "skeptics" not skeptical of other "skeptics"?
Some quick questions for global warming skeptics?
I don't give one word answers. 1. The average global temperature may not even be a relevant number, thermodynamically speaking. But to conform to the limits of the debate as set by the UN and the IPCC, I agree that global average temperature is increaing. 2. Any global temperature may or may not be due to any number of cycles and man, none of which are mutually exclusive of the others. 3. Mars is not the only planet that is warming. That warming may or may not be due to solar irradiation. It could also be due to magnetic changes in the sun allowing more cosmic rays into the solar system, among other potentials cuases. 4. Only a few scientists ever talked about global cooling. The media, however, was busy wearing their asshats on this one. 5. On the whole, volcanoes should be a net cooler (as demonstrated by small drops in temp after Mt St Helens and Pinatubo). 6. GHG's are increasing, but that could be due to natural factors (decreased gas solubility in liquids at increases temps), man (industrial growth), or some combination of both. In summary, I think the interactions between the oceans, land, atmosphere, sun, galaxy, and man are still poorly understood. I also think that they are not mutually exclusive of each other, thus it can be a combination of any or all of the factors that are out there, % attribution is not yet possible. Therefore, imposing solutions to a problem that is NOT understood is folly of the most arrogant manner.
How helpful is the "skeptic" claim that "It's been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age" ...?
... how helpful is that claim in informing us about man made global warming? The implication being of course, that some or perhaps all of the warming since then, must be natural! How helpful is that line of reasoning? Clearly it's not wrong, but isn't the most likely explanation the increasing levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?I Please don't get me wrong; I'm not claiming it is all down to GHG's, but is there any reason to believe that, in the absence of human influence, the world would still be warming naturally today? If there is such reason, what is it? Or, if we don't know, isn't cooling equally likely? What does the data say (instrumental and proxy) and what is the best explanation? Can you do better than simply stating some variant of "warming after the Little Ice Age"? ... which, I would suggest, is of no help at all!
How do the two sides in the global warming debate compare?
Several questions, sometimes the answers only require an opinion rather than a factual response. I’m using the term “side” to identify those who are sceptical of manmade global warming and those who accept it is happening. Please try to answer accurately, rather than giving the answer you would like to be case. 1) Which side is most likely to rely on politics rather than science? 2) Which side makes the most convincing arguments? 3) Which side is most likely to resort to name calling, ad hominem attacks and other non-argumental techniques? 4) Which side is most likely to avoid the issue of climate change by using distraction techniques or simply avoiding the issue? 5) Which side relies most on science, evidence and fact? 6) Which side relies most on pseudo-science, supposition and opinions? 7) Which side is most likely to rely on copying and pasting from their favoured websites (asking what’s already been asked elsewhere or using someone else’s comments/responses). 8) Which side displays the greater levels of honesty and integrity? 9) Which side is the most knowledgeable about climate change? 10) Which side is best able to verify the claims they make?
Which of the climate change skeptic’s arguments have not been debunked?
Just been talking to a friend about why some people are skeptical of the theory of manmade climate change. Whilst we were able to recall many arguments that have been presented by the skeptics, there were only three we could think of that had any real validity to them. • Which of the skeptics arguments are genuinely valid? Not what you think are valid, not what you wish were valid, but those that have not been reliably debunked and therefore merit serious consideration. Feel free to list as many arguments as you wish but be sure to explain them, in context, and with suitable citations, sources, links etc.
How do you conclusively convince a skeptic that anthropogenic global warming is not a hoax?
Q: How do you conclusively convince a skeptic that anthropogenic global warming is not a hoax? I expect as an answer to this question a non-partisan, non-opinionated, fact-based summary of scientific analyses that conclusively reject the null hypothesis that human activities do not have a significant impact on global warming.A: It turns out that there is a non-partisan, fact-based summary of the scientific analysis that should be sufficient to conclusively convince a skeptic that global warming is not a hoax. It’s called the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC, and it’s over 2000 pages long. Much too long for a Quora answer. In fact, it simply isn’t possible to answer your question in a way that meets the conditions you’ve set, in a concise enough manner for it to fit any reasonable parameters for an appropriate length of a Quora answer.Here’s the next closest thing that I’ve come across - this list from Wikipedia of the world’s leading national and international scientific societies and academies, and their official positions on the climate change issue. There are nearly 100 such organizations that have taken a position, and here are the results: 4 take a neutral position, all of the rest concur with the scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is real. There are none that oppose the consensus view. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists had been the final holdout on the opposing side, but in 2007 they switched their position to non-commital. All four of the neutral organizations are dominated by geologists heavily dependent on the fossil fuel industry for jobs.Scientific opinion on climate change - WikipediaIt would take some kind of amazing global conspiracy to pull off such a massive hoax that it could either fool, or include, all of these diverse scientific organizations cutting across a wide range of countries and scientific disciplines. Any reasonable person should be able to see that a hoax that could accomplish such a thing is not really within the realm of possibility.The above addresses what it would take to convince a “skeptic”, but convincing a “denier” is another matter altogether. Deniers typically are concerned far less with the truth of the science, and far more with the political ramifications, or with the economic consequences to the fossil fuel industry. It’s unlikely that anything focusing on the science could convince such a person.