Can any global warming skeptics make a scientific argument?
The recent global warming skeptics/doubters/deniers questions have all been of a political nature (at best). They say scientists are in it for the money, it's all a big hoax, bla blah blah.
I can't even remember the last time an AGW skeptic made a scientific argument to try and prove that the AGW theory is flawed.
Is this because AGW skeptics on Y!A don't comprehend the basic science, because there is little scientific evidence to support their opinions, or some other reason?
Ken M2007-11-29T04:57:27Z
Favorite Answer
The biggest problem I see in recent work on anthropogenic climate change is a seeming lack in negative feedbacks.
Negative feedbacks are those processes that work to stop a process form going forward. One such case may be found in cloudiness. If the planet warms form GHGs, that would increase evaporation (and bring more warming since water vapor is a GHG - a positive feedback) but more water vapor in the atmosphere could also lead to increased clouds which may (depending on type) reflect more of the sun's energy back into space (a negative feedback). So far most of the research finds positive feedback after positive feedback. I find it hard to believe that a complex system as stable as the Earth has all these positive feedbacks with so few negative ones to counter the change.
And Mr. Jello, you are confusing weather and climate. Not that you care...
Sorry Dr. T. There is no analog for present conditions so you cannot use the historic record to refute AGW.
It's the uncertainties of the science that makes me skeptic. The fact that models used in the IPCC report do not agree. A difference of 1degree Celsius to 6 degrees Celsius. That's no agreement at all. That's basically garbage in garbage out. How about John Christy from the university of huntsville doesn't feel it is catastrophic. Also the fact that the Medieval Warming period was actually warmer than today, so I guess all the fires that people burned for warmth caused global warming then to. You could farm on Greenland so it had to be nice and warm for a long period of time for that to happen. How long will it take the tip of Greenland to thaw out again?? You don't know b/c you don't know what effect extra Co2 will have on our climate. Like I've said previously, cut pollutants, get less dependent on foreign oil, and find renewable resources to use all for creating a better life. Not curve the temperature. It just seems funny how this comes out a little bit before elections. There is a plan and an agenda, that the pros just don't see. There's people who have based there lifes work on making long-range forecast (year at a time) using the sun. There's new studies that suggest that sun did not die down 20yrs ago but it now starting to die down. Which refutes previous studies. That's one set of data that doesn't fit into your book. When I get on to my home comp I'll post the link. The debate isn't over. In science the debate is NEVER OVER!!! Things are always changing, you may think this is fact one year then the next year find out that was not the case. I guess I don't like scientist or politicians running their mouth saying the debate is over. Even if it was, why would the pro's care if we debate it or not, if there wasn't more to be found out!!
I'm just amazed at how the axiom "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." plays out continuously on this subject.
People on both sides can, and do, argue anecdotal data back and forth all day on this subject. A comprehensive review of ALL data shows a statistaclly significant effect of CO2 on global warming. (And given the relatively short time of data collection and great variance in weather patterns, this is really significant. )
Every argument against GW that I've seen has been based on biased data or limited and localized data. And none have shown any statistcal significance in their results, only throw doubt on GW, a much easier thing to do.
I am a research scientist and have studied this for decades (as a hobby). A thorough overview and understanding of the data and statistical evaluation of such (especially of type 1 and type 2 errors) leads to no other conclusion than man-made GW IS occurring.
The uncertainty of the effects is natural given the variation is the system but ALL conservative models show "scary" consequences. We can hope that our self-correcting system is adequate to prevent these but should we?
Every day there are fewer and fewer doubters, just as surely as the planets surface will slowly warm up over this century the ranks of AGW skeptics will thin out and the last of the recalcitrant nations will ratify the Kyoto protocol,Australia's new PM Kevin Rudd will ratify Kyoto in Bali probably before Christmas(details still a bit hazy i had my doubts because he was strangely silent on this during his Election campaign but today he announced he will definitely sign the treaty) that leaves only America who have not,but even if the Americans do not ratify the Kyoto treaty nobody can deny the sea change in thinking from the solar panel powered Christmas tree in Manhattan to small and big businesses all over the states who do care and are cooperating with each other in planning and designing and have a positive and realistic outlook on GW.
On the contrary. There are many experts who disagree with the AGW theory. Many times people on this forum people have provided links to their scientific reasoning as to why they do not believe in the AGW theory and asked to comment on these articles or speeches. Most people follow the alarmists golden rule: Do not discuss the science, attack the man (question his motives), repeat the mantra.
There are many sceptics on this forum who are ignorant of the science. But the same thing hold true for the believers. I have personally asked many believers some scientific questions and they do not know how to answer. They just say, well of all the experts say it is true, it must be true, and they quickly change the subject.
As for saying it is political in nature, we are providing an answer to the motivation about as to why would people lie.