A question for global warming / climate change skeptics?

Question

There's several global warming skeptics on this site, I'd like to know to what academic level you have studied global warming / climate change / climatology or other relevant subject(s).

Thankyou.

Thanks to all who have answered.

FLOOD NINE... I was referring to those skeptical of AGW. It's interesting you consider we may have caused a rise earlier, am I correct to deduce that you beleive we are no longer causing a rise?

ANDERS: The Q was primarily aimed at the skeptics who frequnetly post on this forum.

ERIC C: You are an educated person and whilst I do not agree that action to combat climate change would be economically catastrophic I do appreciate your viewpoint. I beleive it would be more economically viable to mitigate climate change than deal with the consequences.

I am open minded in respect of climate change, for many years I have studied the evidence to refute it and found most of it to be fundementally flawed or inconsequential. I do not want a group mind set, this stifles debate and ultimately progress.

BYDERULE: A good point you make about studying errors or misinformation, this can be evidenced by some of the answers posted on this forum.

SNOONYB: I was asking what credentials you had, I am suitably qualified and experienced.

JJ: A long and detailed answer there and it appears our stances are very similar. I started studying climatology in 1983 at which point it wasn't a political issue, over the years the increasing involvement of politics has caused unwarranted interference and in some ways has attempted to slew the science one way or another.


EN TU CABEZA: The question isn't about the qualifications I hold, I was trying to establish the credentials of some of thos who vehemently oppose AGW. I regularly speak with many equally qualified skeptics and value their intelligent input, what I don't particularly appreciate are people who purport to be experts on the subject then introduce nonsensical arguments.

Joe J: You may want to check the credibility of the petition you have linked to. Pick some names at random and Google them. The petition is known as the Oregon Petition and it's instigator is Frederick Seitz - Google both of these as well.

Answer 1

although I do believe the factors attributed to global warming are very real threats, I do not disagree that climate change predictions may be a very real possibility, and find a good laugh in the irony of scientists who try to be the lone crusader against the great "global warming myth", constantly overlooking facts in their own fields of expertise to do so, I consider myself a skeptic.
Afterall, Global warming is a myth. however, myth does not mean it isn't a reality. what makes it a myth, is there is no way to prove it without allowing it to occur. But if that happens, and it is indeed an accurate prediction, there won't be anyone around to accept the hypothisis as sound scientific fact. CATCH 22
As a scientist, it is my duty to remain skeptical of all ideas, until a hypothesis stands the test of repeat attempts to discredit it.
With that being said, I am not skeptical that pollution does in fact cause environmental damage that man, not nature, plays the biggest role in that environmental damage. Nature, not man, is the only force that can correct the damage that is done once we make a choice to actually reduce that pollution.
Afterall, if we truelly knew how to repair ecosystems to their previous state prior to pollution damage, the biopshere experiments wouldn't have been given up on, because they would have worked. we simply don't have the knowledge to repair the environment, only nature can do that, but we can reduce our damage.

although I agree with "Mr. Population Biology's" statement above that "we are overdue for a mass extinction", based on the probability created by our growing population creating a higher chance of it occuring, I do not believe all organisms are overdue for it, and should meet that fate by the hand of man, when we have the ability to prevent our own actions from causing it. since mass exinction caused by pollution may eradicate organisms that may have actually survived a natural cause.

"Mr. Econonics" above mentioning how bad reducing pollution will be on the economy, better get out of his house once in a while and keep up with the economy a little. Because he must have not noticed how much better reduced emission autos are doing in the marketplace than our American built gas guzzlers.
not to mention, he should take a look at how the people who produce our food, that were once struggling in the past are making far more money growing corn and soybean for the ethanol plants that seem to be making brokers plenty of money.
Solar panel production is cretaing jobs, ethanol production is creating jobs, and upgrading our homes to be more environmentally friendly is again, creating jobs. The only economy that is going to suffer from reducing dependance on fossil fuels, is the fossil fuel industry loses their power, arab nations loses their power, and terrorist organizations that are supported by oil producing countries lose their funds.

now back to my explanation of my skeptism since I got a little side-tracked:
Most scientists can agree that greenhouse gases trap heat. I don't think anyone would refute that, at all. After all, some greenhouse gases cycling through our atmosphere is responsible for our hospitible climate. But to what extent does increasing that concentration, above what naturallly occurs, have an effect on our climate? How can anyone say for sure? It would seem to me, that this one factor acting alone would not be significant enough to make a huge impact on global climate. But like any chemistry reaction that transfers energy, in biological systems, the energy transfered would be quite insignificant unless coupled with another reaction; this factor of global warming is likewise insignificant standing alone.
BUT, when you couple this situation with deforestation, which reduced tree population of an area, has been proven to cause increased temperatures, it becomes a bit more significant for many reasons that are too numerous to mention here.

Now allowing both of the above situtations to occur when natural cycles may indeed be present, it is basically the same as pulling a pin on a grenade and not throwing it. you know the act is harmful, but you aren't doing anything to avoid the inivitable result of standing there holding it.

I believe politicizing the idea of global climate change was a bad idea. Not only might it corrupt research, but it also prevents scientists from coming together to discover the exact mechanisms of the problem, as well as explain it in a realistic manner.
this situation allows blabber mouths who have no scientific background, or who do, find more incentive to overlook facts presented in their own feild, to find weaknesses or gaps to strengthen their stand trying to discredit a problem we all know exists....POLLUTION.

one more factor that I have yet to see figured into the calculation is microorganisms. It hasn't even been touched upon, and it should. Afterall, we know microorgansisms outnumber all other living things. We know that a slight change in environmental parameters can drastically change the population concentrations of microorganisms to a much higher degree than all other organisms.
we also know that microorganisms are responsible for our atmosphere, our ecosystems, and the existance and stability of all life. We also know that higher concentrations of CO2 and H2S is detrimental to many beneficial microorganisms, while beneficial to potenitally harmful* species (*if present in too large of concentration).

So I guess what I am attempting to say, that while not being skeptical of the fact that we need to do somethng about the anthropogenic factors attributed to global warming, I am highly skeptical that any difference can be made by polticizing one or two minor factors. All that promotes, are people who have no understanding that the atmosphere of Mars is almost entirely composed of greenhouse gases trying to debunk the problem, because "Mars is warming to", even though Venus is closer to the sun, and isn't exhibiting any abnormal weather patterns other than its typical seasonal changes.

Answer 2

I have the same level of education as Al Gore. How about all of those Greenpeace members who are going around campaigning for reductions in co2, have they studied climatology?

I have studied economics so I do know how much of an economic impact reductions in co2 levels will create and I am very concerned about that. My professor, who is an adviser to the government, also mentioned governments love going green for the extra taxes.

I have taken courses in sociology, so I do know that the issue of unanimity is important to create a group set mentality. Oreskes study is for that purpose. She claims unanimity in peer review journals, without one decent. I have seen countless journals from climatologists who oppose the theory, so that is a lie. Why would she say that? And then you have the journal who published this article who refuses to publish a rebuttal. So I do not believe in the issue of unanimity.

In my sociological studies I also learned how two groups of people can look at an event and come to different conclusions and be absolutely convinced that the other side is wrong. You fall into that camp. There are many people who also study climate who disagree with you. But you are so convinced that you are right that you are willing to believe the other side is willing to destroy the earth for $10 000 ( your answer to a previous question). That is also a tactic that you use to achieve the group mind set, that I mentioned above.

But many of your opponents, and I, on the other hand are campaigning against the notion that the "evidence is overwhelming" and that we must act now rhetoric. Such actions would be catastrophic economically. We are also trying to raise awareness that there is decent, contrary to what you, or others might say.

Edit: If JJ below has a right to criticize economists who disagree with him, even though he never studied economics, then why do people who have not major in science not have a right to criticize climatologists? Double standard.

Answer 3

Not studied much from books
Only been in the field for 35 years +
never studied any of those things you mention
Studying can be dangerous
what about if you study errors or misinformation
you will become an expert of those

I have studied Nature by watching it
My teacher Bill Mollison told me that Observation
was the truest form of education

But then I am hardly a skeptic.

Answer 4

I have a B.S. in U.S. History with a minor in Economics. Then I earned a Masters in Education. I don't really think that the education is all that important though. Probably what you are going to say is that because you have more degrees in science you are right and anyone else is wrong that disagrees with you. I think that is a logical jump into the dark. By that logic Al Gore would be at the bottom of the heap. He flunked out of Seminary. I didn't know you could flunk God!
Cool dude I didn't know where you were coming from.

Answer 5

I'm sorry, but to which skeptics do you refer? Skeptical of global warming/climatic change existing? or skeptical of it being a naturally ocurring process? Or of it being man-made?

I guess I would fall under the latter group. Albeit, I do not doubt human activities has played a hand, I do find it incredulous to try to blame humans for it altogether. Granted, we may have caused increase earlier, but it was a peak in a cyle long-time running now and to try to do anything to stop or prolong the nature of the cycle now is not advisable. We are understandably panicked, but we are due (overdue) for a mass extinction. Frankly, I welcome it.



Interdisciplinary Sciences Major 13yrs B.A.
Environmental Conservation Minor 7yrs B.A.
Entomology Major 9yrs Ph.D
Physics Major 2yrs A.A.
Microbiology 5.5yrs Master

Answer 6

I have attached a link with some 19,000+ degreed individuals regarding the effects of CO2

Answer 7

flood_nine_annihilation, I believe he referred to the ones who actually have posted on the subject before. You have posted one (1) answer in global warming and that was twelve minutes before your answer here.

Answer 8

"I'd like to know to what academic level you have studied global warming / climate change / climatology or other relevant subject(s)."

Liberal or conservative?