Question for Global Warming skeptics

[Predicto]

We have had multiple 50 page threads on this subject, where PeterMP (an actual scientist-type guy) discussed the issue with numerous sceptics.

After watching all of the sceptics' points get refuted, and then watching them respond by moving the goalposts over and over again, I have come to the conclusion that no evidence could ever convince them that man-made global warming is a real problem.

PeterMP has more patience than Job, but most of us will not even bother to try anymore.

[alexey]

from the top of my head, things that come to mind...

...

Thanks for sharing.

[Burgold]

We have had multiple 50 page threads on this subject, where PeterMP (an actual scientist-type guy) discussed the issue with numerous sceptics.

After watching all of the sceptics' points get refuted, and then watching them respond by moving the goalposts over and over again, I have come to the conclusion that no evidence could ever convince them that man-made global warming is a real problem.

PeterMP has more patience than Job, but most of us will not even bother to try anymore.

I honestly think that the majority of people who claim to not to believe in global warming actually do believe in it, but have decided that

A) it'll cost too much to fix and their wallets today are much more important than any of their grandkids' lives.

it's real and there's nothing we can do about it so better just to go on with business as usual.

I really think based on the arguments I've heard that the greatest percentage of people who say man doesn't have a negative impact on the environment do so entirely for selfish and scroogesque reasons.

[Springfield]

I believe that global warming is real. It's the man made global warming that I have a problem with. There isn't much people could say, with the current data, that could change my opinion either. I'll admit it.

So, here's my thought for the thread. If it wasn't global warming, it would be global cooling. Right? Would we rather the world be warmer or cooler?

This is a serious question.

[Predicto]

I really think based on the arguments I've heard that the greatest percentage of people who say man doesn't have a negative impact on the environment do so entirely for selfish and scroogesque reasons.

I don't agree. I think it is political. It has become an article of faith among conservatives that global warming is not real. All of the sources of information on which they rely reinforce that belief. Since climate change science is complicated, and few of us are scientists (and fewer are climate change specialists), all of us we have to rely on trusted third parties to interpret things for us.

* please note that liberals/leftists suffer from the same problem at times.

[alexey]

I honestly think that the majority of people who claim to not to believe in global warming actually do believe in it, but have decided that

A) it'll cost too much to fix and their wallets today are much more important than any of their grandkids' lives.

it's real and there's nothing we can do about it so better just to go on with business as usual.

I really think based on the arguments I've heard that the greatest percentage of people who say man doesn't have a negative impact on the environment do so entirely for selfish and scroogesque reasons.

There is also a view of GW simply being a liberal thing, and therefore wrong.

[Burgold]

I don't agree. I think it is political. It has become an article of faith among conservatives that global warming is not real. All of the sources of information on which they rely reinforce that belief. Since climate change science is complicated, and few of us are scientists (and fewer are climate change specialists), all of us we have to rely on trusted third parties to interpret things for us.

* please note that liberals/leftists suffer from the same problem at times.

I don't mind that as a C...

And yes, liberals/leftists do have their areas of oppositional blindness too. I do think that a huge amount of opposition to GW is tied to self-interest and not based on whether they think it is a real phenomenon or not. Maybe that's tied into political obstinancy too, but I think it's largely about money. The don't want to beieve in GWing because if it is real than it will require action and investment and probably sacrifice.

[Springfield]

I don't agree. I think it is political. It has become an article of faith among conservatives that global warming is not real. All of the sources of information on which they rely reinforce that belief. Since climate change science is complicated, and few of us are scientists (and fewer are climate change specialists), all of us we have to rely on trusted third parties to interpret things for us.

* please note that liberals/leftists suffer from the same problem at times.

It's definitely not political for me at all. I'm fairly liberal and don't believe.

My main problem is I don't really trust either of the parties on this subject. Problem number two is how it is touted by the global warming activists. I think there is so much more intricate detail in climate than something that can be summed up so easily by the term global warming. Lastly it's the fact that the earth's mean temperature has to go one of two ways, up or down. We'd have an even bigger problem if the globe were cooling, all of which could be so conveniently traced back to man's impact on the climate.

[alexey]

I believe that global warming is real. It's the man made global warming that I have a problem with. There isn't much people could say, with the current data, that could change my opinion either. I'll admit it.

That's fair, albeit unfortunate.

So, here's my thought for the thread. If it wasn't global warming, it would be global cooling. Right? Would we rather the world be warmer or cooler?

This is a serious question.

The problem is not as much direction, but the speed of change.

[Burgold]

I agree that "Global Warming" is a stupid name. The PR firm that thought it up really mucked up. It's easy to remember, but it isn't really descriptive or accurate. I also think that outside of the reality of human impact on the environment, there is a Political Global Warming which people love to grandstand and hyperbole about and play games that take us further and further away from constructive solutions.

[Springfield]

The problem is not as much direction, but the speed of change.

As a supporter of global warming do you believe that the rate of temperature change will increase exponentially? To the point where we are nothing more than a clone of Venus?

Is there no stopping it unless we completely cut out the greenhouse gases?

[Burgold]

As a supporter of global warming do you believe that the rate of temperature change will increase exponentially? To the point where we are nothing more than a clone of Venus?

Is there no stopping it unless we completely cut out the greenhouse gases?

I think it entirely depends on which "it" you are talking about.... are you talking about acidification of the oceans and their impact on sea life (an important part of our food supply), are you talking about ozone hole type stuff, arctic ice melt, shifting or diminishing agricultural zones, etc.

[twa]

I believe that global warming is real. It's the man made global warming that I have a problem with. There isn't much people could say, with the current data, that could change my opinion either. I'll admit it.

So, here's my thought for the thread. If it wasn't global warming, it would be global cooling. Right? Would we rather the world be warmer or cooler?

This is a serious question.

Warmer in my corner, I don't want to be a Popsicle.

I see too many flaws in the reasoning and projections from the AGW crowd...I certainly support gathering more data to improve them

[Smoot Point Really]

This is a question for people who do not think that Global Warming is a problem and we need to do something about it.

What kind of evidence would you need to change your mind?

I would probably need Al Gore to say it isn't a problem before I would start thinking it is one.

[alexey]

As a supporter of global warming do you believe that the rate of temperature change will increase exponentially? To the point where we are nothing more than a clone of Venus?

"believe" is not an appropriate word. I do not consider myself an expert on the subject, so I subscribe to the mainstream scientific thought.

I have not looked into this particular question. I'm sure the info is available out there if you are to look for it.

Is there no stopping it unless we completely cut out the greenhouse gases?

At this point there is no stopping it. The kind of weather you've seen this year (heatwavees, droughts, floods) is a preview of what's coming, and it will get much worse even if we completely cut out all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow.

[alexey]

Also note that scientists use theories to make predictions. Observations are then used to confirm or reject theories. They have been making predictions about GW for a while now, and observed stuff has been consistently WORSE than stuff they predicted.

[Predicto]

I would probably need Al Gore to say it isn't a problem before I would start thinking it is one.

Pretty much sums it up, right there.

[twa]

Also note that scientists use theories to make predictions. Observations are then used to confirm or reject theories. They have been making predictions about GW for a while now, and observed stuff has been consistently WORSE than stuff they predicted.

Examples?

[alexey]

Examples?

This is easily researchable, here is the first link that came up:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Climate-change-far-worse-than-thought-before/articleshow/5406955.cms

Let's not get side tracked herer please. I want to know what kind of evidence skeptics would find convincing.

[twa]

This is easily researchable, here is the first link that came up:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Climate-change-far-worse-than-thought-before/articleshow/5406955.cms

Let's not get side tracked herer please. I want to know what kind of evidence skeptics would find convincing.

Then quit sidetracking:)

Weak link btw

[alexey]

Then quit sidetracking:)

Weak link btw

It had some stuff that you were looking for... I didn't mean to side track, maybe I was just surprised that we've gone on for 5 pages with nobody saying stuff like "I'll change my mind if hard data confirms predictions made by IPCC"

[PeterMP]

from the top of my head, things that come to mind...

Evidence I would need is the following:

1. A valid explanation as to why Sun spots have no room in the Global Warming believers ability to contemplate rises and reductions in global temperature.

Solar activity, which sun spots as a measure of, does have a role in global temperatures. Nobody has ever denied it. The sun has a ~11 year cycle that can be seen as a reduction in sun spot numbers. In the context of the solar cycle, we see the Earth's global temperature going up and down (we are currently just on our way "up" between solar cycles so we ae actually seeing temps that are the result of "low" solar output). The question then becomes have there been longer range changes in solar activity that explain warming. The answer from numerous studies is that there were increases through the early and mid-20th century, but that hasn't been happening for ~30 years and doesn't explain all of the warming we have seen.

2. Why has Al Gore backed off the CO2 is the devil mantra and does now only say it plays a major role in it?

Because he is trying to more accurately represent the science?

3. When the IPCC and CRU starts considering all scientific viewpoints and not discarding those that don't agree with the overall goal, I will give more credibility to the Global Warming hysteria.

They don't. For example, ALL of the papers that people criticized in climategate and claimed that they would keep out of the IPCC report are discussed and references in the IPCC reprot.

4. Can anyone explain how we went from "The Coming Ice Age" in the 70s to the global warming scare we have been in? Forgive me if I'm skeptical on GW.

This has been addressed in multiple places, including by me here. There was minimal support in the scientific community for an ice age in the 70's. There was AT LEAST equal support that there would be over all warming.

5. Why has "Global Warming" turned into "Climate Change"? Was the first one not broad enough and now they had to account for the obvious cooling period we just went through? hmmmm....

The "cooling" period that we just went through (in which temperatures are still above average) was the result of changes in solar activity and the 11 year solar cycle as outlined above. Climate change was switched to because global warming doesn't reflect the whole story. There will be changes other than temperature with respect to things like precipitation, and not all areas of the world will warm. Some might cool.

6. Why hasn't James Hansen's 1990 First Assessment for the report for the IPCC that claimed wild temperature changes report not come true (or even on any trajectory to be true 20 years later?

In the 1990, the models didn't accurately take into account aersole affects (which cool the world and were partly responsible for the cooling that led some to talk about an ice age in the 70's). If you look at the global predictions for temperature and precipitation in from 1995, they are well within their margin of error. And of course, we expect that the models are even better than they were in 1995.

I've posted the predictions here before. My internet is slow, but I'm sure if you look you can find them.

7. Why in 1995 did James Hansen write the 2nd Assessment report for the IPCC with "no discernible human effect on climate" written in it 5 times? Why were those edited out in the final report by the same guy implicated in "Climate Gate"?

I'd like to see a link for this (again, my internet is being slow, and can't really search and go through links to find what your are talking about).

[Skins24]

At this point there is no stopping it. The kind of weather you've seen this year (heatwavees, droughts, floods) is a preview of what's coming, and it will get much worse even if we completely cut out all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow.

You do realize all that stuff has been happening since the beginning of time right?

Do you also realize weather is very much affected by short term events? This year if anything has seemed "unusual" it is because we've gone from a very strong El Nino and have now transitioned to a La Nina. The type of weather we've seen because of the transition would happen in year 100000 BC, year 2010, or year 560343 AD.

[Thiebear]

So you asked Global warming skeptics a question

and then you say stay on topic when i dispute it?

Nice.

(you did notice the TEMP was on there also? And it was the coldest its been in 300million years).

Its normally HOT over the last 500 million years compared to now... we didn't do that.

Are sea levels acceptable to use:

In the Cretaceous (144 – 65 million years ago), seas were as high as 300 METERS above ours

Would this indicate that we are abnormally low

so can i find my favorite charts to dispute it?

or do we have to use 100 years to stay within your scientific model?

anything short of a million is just lazy.

[Thiebear]

This one says its COLD outside....