Do "skeptics" have a single popular theory to which they attribute global warming?

Again, first we need to define “Global Warming”. In this answer I’m assuming you mean Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Dana asked a similar question to this one a while ago that I’d have liked to have answered, but, since he’s blocked me, I couldn’t. So, your question gives me the chance to answer it.

For me, it’s not about offering one single ‘Eureka’ cause that immediately proves the theory wrong. Clearly, in such a hugely complex and poorly understood area of science, I doubt there is one answer.

Rather, I suspect that the whole Global Warming ‘bubble’ will burst due to a multitude of little things.

The global temperature trend itself, for example, has a 15% variation in the trends since 1980 (Highest (RSS) compared to lowest (UAH)). Some of the data is controlled, and “adjusted”, by people who have a vested interest in the resulting trend in that adjusted data – and people who have a disturbing reluctance to share the methods / reasons behind those adjustments. On top of that, we know (via M&M) that these adjustments *have* in the past contained errors and those errors have been in the direction of exaggerating the temperature. Given all this, I feel that it is reasonable, indeed sensible, to maintain a healthy scepticism regarding the temperature data. It may well be warming, but how much? And should I be worried?

Furthermore, a common ‘proof’ that the climate models are correct is that the only way they can get the right results (i.e. the same as the global temperature data) is if they include the effects of CO2. But if the global temperature data is exaggerated, then so are the climate models’ estimations of the effects of CO2. Yes?

So this is one example where the ‘Alarmists’ may be slightly wrong. But there are other examples.

So, I expect that the whole Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming bubble will burst, because, once it is accepted that the planet has failed to warm as fast as the ‘Alarmists’ predicted (as is happening currently, of course), then the whole scare-fest will unravel fairly quickly and it will suddenly be ‘discovered’ that some, or all, of the below were true:

a) The global temperature record was exaggerated.

b) The effects of CO2 on temperature were exaggerated.

c) The effects of positive feedbacks were overestimated.

d) The effects of negative feedbacks were underestimated.

e) The negative effects of warmer climate were overestimated.

f) The positive effects of warmer climate were underestimated.

g) The costs of mitigating anthropogenic warming were underestimated.

h) The costs of adapting to anthropogenic warming were overestimated.

Also bear in mind that all these issues have a *compound effect* on each other. So, for example, if the effects of CO2 on temperature have been overestimated, then there will be less warming as a result. *But*, if the effects of positive feedbacks on temperature have *also* been exaggerated, then there will be *even less* warming, because less CO2 induced warming will result in less positive feedback, which itself is causing less warming. So the overall effect is *greater* than the sum of the two errors individually.

If we compound the 15% variation in temperature trends to all six of the above areas, we get the following...

a) 15% error.

b) 33% error.

c) 52% error.

d) 75% error.

e) 101% error.

f) 131% error.

g) 166% error.

h) 206% error.

So, based on this example of everything being out by just 15%, our estimations of the need to act on CO2 are overestimated by more than 200%!

And the best bit? No individual can be held responsible for an error in their work as small as 15%. So no one will ever be held accountable!

For what it’s worth, that’s my “theory” on what is ‘causing’ “Global Warming”

In twenty, thirty, forty,... years, when people are asking the question “How did they get it so wrong?”, the above will be the answer.

The reason that so many are skeptical of the Warmers claim of catastrophic man-caused global warming, is the lack of credible, unmanipulated scientific data supporting such a notion.

Too many so-called 'climate scientists' have been caught falsifying/manipulating data in order to further their careers/reputations.... etc.

The IPCC has been busted as well.... distorting scientific reports in an attempt to further their political agendas.

Remember ..... many people may not understand the 'science', BUT .... most people know what a Cheater is.

I think people in general get confused about equilibrium, imbalance and balance. I do, and have to apply the meaning directly to context of intent. Sometimes its a discovery process, other times I beat myself up, and on a few occasions I'm way ahead of the curve.

@ AMP; I hope you don't mind a personal observation? You among a very few others, and some skeptics seem secure in your knowledge base. Why in the world worry about TDs?

ed: mentalism though I like mentatlism better: Dook & Dana...Oh boy! What a surprise with the TDs. They don't affect my life one way or the other.

the answer is a definite NO.

most people on the warmers side agree that global warming is happening and is man-made.

on the other hand....

whew boy...

-"Al Gore got it wrong"

-it's cooling

-it's not warming

-it's warming, but it's natural

-scientists fudge the numbers

-the science is flawed

-the science is uncertain

-it was warmer in the past

-it's warming on Mars

-measurements are inaccurate

-scientists are corrupt

-warming is a good thing

et cetera, et cetera...

No one talks about the uncertainty behind Global warming denial theory because there is no solid theory. If there *is* a solid theory, it is hidden behind the huge amount of other rubbish theories that are just plain wrong.

so deniers...

All I'm asking is that you agree with one *solid* theory that can be scientifically backed and is within the realm of reality.

agreeing that Al Gore is a fool does not count.

Just as you will find people who jump on the alarmists bandwagon and start posting their undying belief in global warming, they are just regurgitating the alarmists viewpoints that they really don't understand themselves.

The same is true for the skeptics side of the issue. A % of the people are just repeating what they have heard without having done much studying about it on their own. NEITHER side has a monopoly on this aspect of human behaviour.

I think you will find though that most of the "thoughtfull" skeptics do not claim there is no climate change at all. Rather, their position is that the anthropogenic impacts on climate change are not nearly as drastic as what the alarmists would have everyone believe.

Now the question that I would pose to you is this. Assuming that everyone finally accedes to the alarmists views, what then is the alarmists solution to the anthropogenic components of climate change. BUT, not only what is the solution, but what is it going to cost to implement that solution and whether or not the US could even survive the economic burden that the solution would bring to bear. Is it worthwhile to place a crushing financial burden on the US to solve a global problem when the developing nations of the world (primarily China and India) rush forwards with building more and more coal fired power plants that within months will have completely undone any climate benefits that was accomplished with the financial ruin of the US? You had better come up with something better than that. You manange to crunch the numbers and build computer models to support your climate change views and claim to have a high degree of accuracy in doing so. Turn a portion of that number crunching and model building to the financial impacts your solution is going to have and just maybe it will be YOUR eyes that are finally opened.

No. The only thing AGW "skeptics" have in common is their certainty that AGW must somehow be wrong. I've long said if you ask a dozen different "skeptics" why they think AGW is wrong, you'll get about a dozen different answers which all contradict each other. Skeptical Science even has a database of "skeptic" contradictions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/contradictions.php

Personally I think there's only one remotely plausible "skeptic" alternative theory to AGW - Spencer's "internal radiative forcing". I think it's exceptionally unlikely to be right, but it's plausible. I discussed it here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-we-know-recent...

Ironically, very few "skeptics" seem to support Spencer's hypothesis. Frankly I think it's too complex for them - they prefer simple arguments like "it's cooling" or "it's the Sun". Problem is, those arguments are demonstrably wrong. Sadly, Republican politicians seem to universally deny that the planet is even warming too:

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.ph...

At least they agree on something, even if it's undeniably physically wrong!

I suspect it is the same thing that caused the warming that resulted in the Midieval Warming Period. I suspect it is the same thing that warmed the earth in the last 300 years with the possible exception of some in the last 50 years that theoretically may include a human contribution. The MWP and the warming from 300 to 50 years ago certainly wasn't caused by our CO2 emissions.

It may be a combination of the things you listed plus things you didn't list and things that are unknown. I wonder why you didn't provide an all of the above in your list. Surely it must have occured to you. I suspect because deep down you know that you don't know and it is more convenient to try and get a skeptic to suggest just one thing.

The idea of a "unified denier theory" is as far out as a unifying theory in physics, although a unified theory of physics exists but is yet to be discovered.

The problem is (as you quite succinctly point out) that the deniers don't really give a damn about the science. They don't care what published studies show, they don't care how strong the theory behind AGW is. All they care about is spouting their politics.

It really isn't anything more than that.

As you point out many will claim that it isn't warming and then claim the warming is caused by the sun. Sometimes in the same sentence even. They love to play little games constructing strawmen about climate change vs global warming and global climate disruption, but they're all distraction tactics.

Slight of hand. It worked on them, they bought it, now to spread the misinformation.

Yes, it's called the "anything but CO2" theory. The extent of this particular theory is really just the title, and as long as you can check that box, no matter how logically or physically ludicrous the idea, it's acceptable.

Al Gore and G.E. and the millions they made with the biggest hoax ever .