Do anthropogenic global warming (AGW) 'skeptics' have any scientific data to support their skepticism?

Favorite Answer

The problem is they generally can find one or two papers that will support their position. That there may be half a dozen subsequent papers following up showing there was an error in the original paper (e.g., the MSU2 tropospheric temperature record, corrected by Fu et al., but *still* trotted out as demonstrating a "huge problem") or that the original analysis provided an overly simplistic picture of the problem (e.g., the original studies of Lamb concerning the MWP, originally thought to be a synchronous hemispheric warming yet which subsequent, more detailed analysis has shown to very different than that, with warming in different regions in the hemisphere experiencing warming decades after others). But the skeptics reject any sophistication of the data as "manipulation to obtain a desired result." They similarly reject any advancement in understanding for the same reason.

They are not skeptics, because a true skeptic would accept that science progresses, and that as understanding of a subject increases, the picture can become more certain AND more complex (see note 1). These "skeptics" instead use any uncertainty to throw the doubt on the entire subject.

Anyone wishing to see the relevant scientific literature on what I am talking about above need only read the IPCC AR4 and the NRC tropospheric temperature reconcilliation document. It's all out there in very reliable sources. Objections that the IPCC and NAS are somehow biased are stupid and pure right-wing paranoia. The same people who make those claims probably use loaded terms like feminazis and environazis straight off of right-wing talk radio.

note 1: (A good example of this is hurricane intensity, where the interplay between shear and SST is difficult to predict in terms of cyclogenesis, and intensification is very poorly modeled at present, yet available analysis indicates that warmer water will lead to stronger tropical storms, so a reasonable person ought to be concerned about the subject, despite the uncertainty (a professional guess on my part is that we will see maybe fewer storms on average, but they will do different things like two cat 5's following the same track in the same season and storms rapidly intensifying in unusual situations). But this uncertainty in what will happen to tropical storm intensity and frequency does not imply that people are unable to predict with reasonable accuracy what will happen to climate.)

Edit: Jorge, before you call me a liar, I suggest you read the IPCC reference below. You probably won't, because you don't want to know, but those who do will see I am not lying. I'm repeating something from an authoritative document. This is what I mean about you skeptics not willing to look at the details. You all are getting skewered, and I mean just completely raked, intellectually because you can't understand the science and the progression of understanding. I'm obnoxious but in terms of the science I am rock-solid. A lot of climate science is simply common-sense extrapolation from basic physics, which is why guys like Hansen were convinced 25 years ago....Show more

Eric: The problem with posting a rebuttal to the nonsense found in your links is that you won’t bother to read it or respond. The article that you keep linking time and time again is mostly make-up garbage with a few half truths. Again, I challenge you to account for a few of the errors in your “article”.

See previous question and answer:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiHZFHB0yKn1lQN.sbNXfVbty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080302114605AAztDIg&show=7#profile-info-f4ea9d0acf7f303967937c90c15dc1eaaa





Edit:
Netidol: Your list of Right Wing Think Tanks is hilarious. This is hardly the place I’d look for credible scientific information, right?

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists IS the only major dissenting scientific organization on climate change.[1] However, the AAPG is in the process of updating its current statement on global warming because the "current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members."[2]...Show more

It's funny that a 'doctor' would consider NASA and the IPCC to be 'liberal sources'. Funny as in you're a joke. I used to be in denial just like you. It's time to admit that we were wrong and accept AGW....Show more

Larry - As long as your temperature didn't drop to -173 C, you can rest assured that the greenhouse gases were present doing their job.

Dana, those of us that read the scientific literature have long known there's no science to support the doubters. They're weapon of choice is confusion and obfuscation, not the presentation of any superior theory. It's the same tactic used by young-earth creationists in the 80's, as they sought to discredit the theory of evolution (along with every dating technique used by science).

You identified correctly, the one crackpot Russian (his own National Academy of Sciences doesn't consider him credible, so I'm not sure why he's the hero of the doubters around here) who still claims it's all the sun. The sun was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis 10 - 20 years ago, but the past few years have conclusively shown that it's only been a minor factor the last half of the 20th century.

I know most doubters don't read links to credible scientific journal articles or respected scientific research organizations, but here are a few nonetheless:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/10/3713
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003.../2002JA009753.shtml
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf...Show more

Just because the source doesn't support your conclusion doesn't mean it's a bad source, Dana.

Just because a scientist doesn't support your conclusion doesn't mean he's not a "reputable" or "legitimate" scientist, it doesn't mean he's a "crackpot," and his nationality (actually I thought it was Hungarian) is not relevant.

We've put up plenty of science.

And it's not just one cold month.

Those who have attempted to re-write the MWP out of the climate history have never explained how a single example of the countless events to which Lamb pointed happened if not for a warmer climate.

Some have falsely dismissed these events has having been limited to Europe or the North Atlantic - but it's well-known that that was not the case. Even you asked a question about the droughts that forced the Anasazi to leave their homes in 1270....Show more