I will pick the best answer from the skeptics camp (i.e., Trevor, et al., you are welcome to answer, but you will not get best answer). It should be cogent, logical and not rely on anecdotal or irrelevant evidence.
As an aside, Y!A's first choice for suggested category was "Science & Mathematics > Alternative > Paranormal Phenomena" lmao.
Thank you.
2010-12-22T23:10:33Z
Trevor: You realize that I promised not to give anyone named "Trevor" best answer, don't you?
Koshka: You seem to be a fence sitter. That's what cats do, right? I'm not sure that your heart is pure enough to be considered part of the skeptics camp. But I love that quote: “Entropy knows it must increase in order to balance out the system”. Puts everything in perspective.
Eric c2010-12-22T14:12:45Z
Favorite Answer
Because there is no hard proof. The AGW debate says that we have to cut back on our use of fossil fuels or else we are heading for catastrophe. Proponents are basing their theory on three theories that are connected but yet separate.
Theory #1: Co2 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing this greenhouse gas will increase the earth's greenhouse effect. According to climate models this will amount to a one degree of warming. This in NOT a controversial amount on both side of the debate.
More details:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
Theory#2: This initial one degree of warming will be amplified many time over by strong NET positive feedbacks namely clouds and water vapour. Both of these feedbacks have to be positive and strong. If they are negative or if they are weak then we are not going to get much warming. But clouds are poorly understood and we lack the technology to track its behaviour. So there is no proof of that.
Roy Spencer using that latest in satellite technology found that clouds act as a negative feedback.
The best indication of a strong water vapour feedback would be a tropical hot spot. All climate models predict that the troposphere 10km up in the tropics has to warm at a rate three time the surface rate. Winds would then redistribute this warm air to other parts of the earth. There is no hotspot. The data does not support a tropical hotspot. Proponents say that there is no hotspot because we have problems monitoring it but do not give proof that it actually exists. It is an asinine argument. It assumes that if we could monitor it, it would be there. No good scientists makes such an assumption.
Theory #3: This increase in global temperatures will cause climate change. Predicting climate change on a regional basis is paramount. If we get less rain in regions that already receive heavy rain then it is not a concern. It is only a concern if dry regions become drier. Conversely if dry regions receive more rain, that is a benefit. Many studies show that when it comes to climate models predicting regional changes is hard and off the mark.
Theory#1 is not in dispute. Whenever you see proof of global warming it is only to prove theory #1. But that only accounts for one degree of warming. If there is a catastrophe that comes from proving theory #2. But I have yet to see convincing evidence that proves theory#2. It is then assumed that if warming occurs theory#3 is a given. No proof is given. In other words your reasoning is that co2 will cause some warming, since we have had some warming, all of the warming must be due to co2 and this warming will be catastrophic. In the rare occasions when they do mention theory#2, what they do is give evidence and disguise it as proof. There is a difference between evidence and proof. Would you convict somebody of murder if certain evidence exists while other evidence does not. Proof is when all evidence points to the same conclusion.
But do not take my word for it. Study the subject on your own and draw your own conclusion.
I would say "deluded" is a bit harsh. There is a lot of good science supporting the AGW hypothesis. If you look at it from a simple-minded point of view, we are releasing gigatons of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere while chopping down Texas sized chunks of forest (carbon sinks). There will be an effect. We know the relationship between CO2 and temperature rise is logarithmic, linear temperature increase with every doubling of CO2 concentration.
So increased CO2 won't do it alone. If we see a catastrophic rise in temperature, it will be due to the effect of feedbacks, not CO2. And it's these feedback mechanisms which I believe are the weak link. Nobody really knows what all the feedbacks are and how they interact with each other. Nobody really knows the impact of the sun. Scientists really don't have any hard data, just models based our incomplete understanding of atmospheric dynamics. And so far, the models aren't doing so well. They are wiping egg off their faces over in the UK for predicting a mild winter, and finding a weather model to explain it after the fact. How many more weather models will climatologists need to develop after the fact?
But don't take my word for it. A number of prominent scientists agree. This is Joanne Simpson who has written over 190 journal articles in her career:
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”
Read the statement carefully. There is a lot to it, and others agree.
I think it's foolhardy to think the "science is settled" and the climate models are accurate when we are still getting climatic "surprises" like this winter in the UK. I can show you other surpises as well. Deluded? No, more like jumping to an unsupported conclusion.
I saw a program on TV about the Permian-Tertiary extinction event, the likely cause being massive volcanism in what's Siberia today. Lavas erupted and flowed for a million years, throwing up tens of thousands of times more CO2 into the air than all mankind has ever. It only killed off about 95% of all life on Earth. Cogent logic says that we'll be killing off less than that, and mankind will not be obligated to live underground for centuries. We'll just continue with our usual wars and famines, that's all, nothing we can't handle. A little overpopulation control isn't necessarily a bad thing.
They believe that a few years of hard data proves their flawed theory. It's the equivalent to having five days of temperature readings and claiming it's proof that the earth is warming because one day was much warmer than the rest. We only have a very limited amount of "accurate" data over a really short period. Digital thermometers have not been around that long thus those old relics that were relied upon were read with the best guess scenario. Not very accurate and even more so could be entered as 10 different readings by 10 different people. They are deluded into thinking that this theory is fact when it's nowhere near being proven despite the claims of the AGW society.
1. You can't legitimately do that. Kinda like discrimination little one. 2. I've already submitted to this trap once. It's old hash 3. Nobody has to denude or describe the warmers delusion...self explanatory. 4. It will not be me that reports the question. 5. The entire question is anecdotal...whats your point?