Skeptics: is AGW bad science, or liberal conspiracy?

Actually, Dawei, it *can* be both.

Why?

Because the definition of “Global Warming” is fluid and changes depending on what the Alarmist is trying to achieve.

We constantly hear the Alarmists saying that “The consensus of scientists agree on AGW.” In this case, the definition of AGW is simply that…

A) The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by around a third since the Industrial Revolution, and mankind is the major cause of that rise.

B) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

C) Given A) and B) above, we should expect to see some warming.

And that’s it Go beyond that and the consensus is far less clear. And once you arrive at the nonsense about Catastrophic Global Warming, including 20’ of sea level rise, mass extinctions, etc, etc., there is no consensus at all.

Thus, some scientists *are* making statements that are ‘pushing the limits of scientific certainty’ and making emotionally charged, but (scientifically) baseless, claims in an effort to whip up public concern about global warming. This, of course, then results in more funding for climate science.

These scientifically baseless claims fall into your category 1) (assuming that the scientists making them actually believe what they are saying and are not simply lying through their teeth. How would we tell the difference?).

The resulting commotion falls into category 2).

Thus it is both.

As I’ve said many times; the main reason that I’m a CGW sceptic is because I am honest, and far too many of the claims made about GW are suspect, exaggerated or downright wrong. Why is it that those who are pro-GW (such as yourself) pounce on the tiniest of mistakes made by the sceptics, but remain suspiciously quiet when it comes to correcting the mistakes of the faithful? I call that hypocrisy, and it makes me suspicious.

Second, given that it is far from proved that we have anything to worry about from GW, should we divert funds from other projects into combating GW. We are constantly told that we should start spending billions *now*, just in case. But, should we do this if those billions are being diverted from other projects that are saving lives *now*? My favourite example is the lack of clean drinking water in the third world, that is killing millions of children every year. With enough money, we could fix the problem completely.

So, here’s your challenge…

Should we let the children of the third world die, in their millions every year, to prevent the *possible* problem of GW?

However, to return to the spirit of the question; I believe that there is *FAR* more of option 2) going on.

Mostly 2. They fudge the science to support their agenda and suppress anything that doesn't fit the template. I'm surprised that most don't see that.

Oh wait, maybe more are seeing through the fog. The latest polls show only about 30% still believe humans cause climate change. Maybe the truth is finally getting out.

I noticed a funny thing with some of these answers. The self proclaimed "geniuses" on this subject now say that anyone who doesn't believe in this unproven hair-brained theory must suffer from a mental aberration or something.

Now they're psychiatrists? LOL !!

It's fun to pretend, isn't it? Y!A allows the insignificant moron to become a scientific genius.

I don't think it started out bad but somewhere along the line the goal was no longer science but ensuring the results showed as much bias to support the AGW theory as they could get away with. Information is being cleaned up for the most dramatic presentation possible.

It is unproven science that has been latched onto by activists that are far to the left of 'liberal' as a pretext for an agenda that long outdates the IPCC.

It's also group-think. Before its political significance, global warming theory didn't have a whole lot of money being funneled into it. Usually, with scientific theory, either there's an open-ended search for knowledge or at least there are 10-12 different groups, competing groups, with varying theories as to a single question or slightly different but related questions, and while each scientist or group may be looking for proof of his own pet theory, the fact that there are 10-12 such competing groups may yet result in accurate science. Peer review uses this competitive process - to get theory X published, you have to get the signoff of other scientists, most of whom don't already believe in theory X.

That is NOT the case with global warming - with global warming we had an agenda in search of a theory and then a theory in search of proof, and the only competition is among various groups looking to go further in proving man-made global warming and catastrophic results. Global warming theory is not the result of an open-ended search for understanding about how the climate works - it is the result of a massive, government-funded effort to prove that activities that certain groups sought to be limited cause a specific harm. It was a search for proof of that thesis, rather than a weighing of all the evidence to see where it led.

Even if you believe in the ultimate conclusions, even if you agree with the end result, no honest person can possibly justify the means. No honest and informed person can deny that this has been a conclusion in search of evidence - even if you think they found the evidence, you can't honestly deny which came first.

A little bit of both when you look at all the facts. It is based on a invalid poorly done experiment that falsely shows co2 as a contributor to global warming instead of water vapor9humidity0 that is the real contributor. The other main basis is the Mann/Hansen graphs which are also based on poorly understood factors that when run through a poorly written computer program gave slanted incorrect results.

this was all then picked up by an international group looking for a bill board cause to run a world wide political movement to globalize government. climate crisis even if it could not be proved using real science was picked because it provided a save the world agenda that only the best educated were able to see through and they were not concerned by such a small minority seeing through it to the truth.

The debate on the cause of the observed warming trend is over. There is still plenty of scientific debate on the effects of global warming as well as plenty to debate on the course of action or even if we need a dramatic change in course, but these fanatics on the far right won't settle for logic and instead deny that it is occuring outright.

It is obvouis that global warming denial is a politically motivated position that has little to do with reality and the deniers themselves make no secret of it. Jim Z and bravozulu can't go 3 sentences without referencing liberals and leftists. One has even changed his/her name to Lucifer "Hussein" Satan, no doubt in reference to Barack Hussein Obama.

I'm realistic enough to understand that scientists don't exist in a vacuum and they do have to deal with the real world concepts like getting published and getting funded.

When a scientists speculates about something (for the most part, AGW should be regarded as speculation as not many people claim to be able to prove that there is significant AGW), they are doing what they need to do to get published and justify further funding.

Your very question exposes an option that you have overlooked.

The factor that HUBRIS plays in the human condition. How can you be sure that we have all the bases covered when it comes to all salient data necessary to predict climate.

If we were at that stage the models would reflect reality more accurately. What we see now is Hansen and Company adjusting the models AFTER the fact when they conflict with observation (Ice levels in Antarctic)

It's all well and good to argue the data compiled, but how is it that you are so sure that all the variables are correctly quantified, and that includes both positive and negative feedback.

You are aware that these computer models have been crafted since the Rio Conference on Climate Change in 1991 (predates Kyoto by approx 7 years). These models continue to undergo revision, as we learn more, guess what?...Every major revision has REDUCED AND EXTENDED FURTHER INTO THE FUTURE THE PREDICTED GLOBAL WARMING RATE.

The complex and multi-variable matrix that is Climate is far from being a simple "Greenhouse" Anthropogenic Warming (A.W.) is not established to the extent many think. A consensus is not a substitute for a proved event. The probabilistic modeling used to predict climate changes are scenarios and only as good as the parameters & defined variables in the model.

Do you see how this allows a reasonable person to be skeptical?

The sloppy work with this past summer's Siberia temperature readings was discovered by skeptics. Is that not what science suppose to do?

Do you see Scientist as some sort of sacrosanct priesthood that is sacredly infallible?

You are aware that at one time there was a vast consensus for the:

Ptolemy model of the Universe...Piltdown Man...Social Darwinism...Lamarckian evolution.(My personal favorite...Set Soviet Biological Sciences back 50 years) Human history is littered with discarded Scientific consensus.

All this and I haven't even addressed the wretched politics that a Debased & Corrupt Multi Billion Failure, called the U.N. desperately clinging to the Global Warming issue in order to justify it's reason to exist...

Tee hee. It's a floor wax and a dessert topping!

One of the best questions posted here.

Think about it.

Career scientists who have pledged their lives to advance human knowledge - willing to spend a lifetime of work in duplicity to maintain a lie.

Huh?

Thank you. It appears that the people have completed a full come around on the AGW issue. When it first was introduced by the "sky is falling people" many flocked to the cause, a stampede, to fight this dreadful AGW. I can see by the answers here that people looked, learned and decided this yet another environmental phenomenon by the radical left is in fact a hoax or what is called "the greatest scientific swindle of all time". They see the flaws in the data, they see the flaws in the big picture. Al Gore fooled everyone, but as always in these cases, reason and logic always wins. Those of you who have studied science see immediately the flaws in the left's data and those of you are believers give very little proof other than blind faith that AGW is happening. You call those who don't believe, deniers. This is the trait of the far left lunacy that has been going on for a long time, calling names if we do not believe in their newest fad.

I am glad to see the people are finally learning that this is just another hoax by the liberal left to promote their agendas. Believe it or not, these liberals have made a lot of money on this issue and also believe that scientists do have political overtones and urges to make money and they most certainly made money on this issue.

Keep studying science and logic. You all did very well.