How can we get both sides of the global warming debate to use relevant facts to back up their arguments?

Question

Whether or not you believe human-kind is responsible for global warming, I am sure many of you have noticed really bad evidence to back up claims on both sides. How can we help people to learn about what good scientific facts are and how to use these relevant facts in a discussion?

Here are some poor examples I have seen:

"There were once trees in the Sahara"
"I have noticed it has gotten hotter out so it must be due to global warming."
"Because the scientists agree on it, it must make it true"
"There is a hole in the ozone layer so it must be causing global warming"
"The ice sheets are melting, so it must be global warming"
"We are so insignificant that we couldn't possibly be causing global warming"

Do you have any more bad examples? and how can we help people use credible evidence to back up their claims?

@rusty

I am not worried about global warming ;). I am just using this popular topic to help people learn about what good science is vs bad science because this topic has more bad science associated with it than almost any other one I've ever seen.

@lynlions below

You have mistakenly fallen into the bad science trap and done what I was talking about regarding the facts of good science.

You claimed the science was done. This is not true. Science is the quest for truth and is NEVER done. How can you claim the science is done? If the science was done we should stop studying the issue, because we already know everything about it. Do you see my point yet?

@RyVu

Excellent response! I agree reading scientific journals and going to conferences or presentations at Universities are an excellent way for self-education.

However I am a little skeptical of that particular conference because it mostly is dealing the "effects" and "solutions" of global warming as opposed to the "causes" of global warming which is where I believe the debate should be focused.

Also the reason I chose that particular phrase was because I want to point out that a POLL of scientists is still just a POLL and hence is subject to statistical bias. Where as a scientific EXPERIMENT is what really needs to be looked at for more conclusive proof.

@Keith P

Nice answer I see you have been paying attention. But I respectfully disagree with you that we can fully know the affects of all of these factors, then plug them into a computer and use said computer model to estimate that the temperature will warm up by X.X degrees. The world is very complicated as you know, and it is my belief that it is naive to think we can fully predict climate changes in the future. I saw a NASA study last week that claimed by 2100 we could be 10 F warmer than today due to global warming and the study used data from the 60's to today. I mean that is just terrible science, using X amount of data to project 2.5X into the future?

@everyone
I am highly interested in knowing of any STATISTICAL data based on accurate temperature data over at last several thousand years of warming and cooling that can show our trend of current warming is statistically significant. I have looked for some and really haven't been able to find anything.

@Keith P
I have read the first link you provided and I have to say I don't believe it has supported your position that we do in fact know the effect of solar activity well enough to accurately use it in a climate model. I believe this based on the following statements from the article, I know this may seem like cherry picking but I believe anyone who honestly reads the article will come up with my conclusion.

"Climate variability is a major issue and our understanding is still uncertain."

"The complicated internal processes that couple the atmosphere, the oceans, and terrestrial ecosystems are not well understood..."

"There are many uncertainties in our understanding of the internal processes"

"Several investigations have shown positive correlations of solar influences on climate change."

This one is important because the article goes on to suggest that solar influences over the last 100 years are more closely correlated with climate change than carbon emissions are:

"While the temperature data do show the enhanced greenhouse effect due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, it also shows a departure from this trend from 1940 to 1970. This occurs simultaneously with a decrease in solar activity as seen in the solar cycle length database. "

I would just like to point out again, I do not know if we are a significant contributer to global warming or not, and I remain skeptical because this is not something that is easy to prove and I believe it is foolish to believe in something that may not be true. It is better to say you don't know the answer in my personal opinion than to jump to false conclusions based on unknown variables.

@Keith P
I read the second article that you have provided a link to "Sinks for anthropogenic carbon" and that doesn't show any conclusive evidence that we fully understand that cycle completely either. I will agree that is does show we have a good understanding of it. It still isn't quite good enough to claim we fully understand the effects of the carbon sinks. The article fully admits this point throughout if you read it.

Answer 1

"Because the scientists agree on it, it must make it true"

This is probably the best answer that most people on here can give. The average person does not have the time, expertise, or resources to study this in depth. This is something that must be left to experts. Believe me, these experts have been debating this issue much longer than we have and they are a VERY skeptical crowd. If the idea of global warming stands the test of time (as it has, so far...) it will become more and more accepted. It is obvious that more and more people are, in fact, accepting this idea.

If you really want to talk to the experts and see current evidence for yourself, you could attend a research conference on the issue. The "scientists" are not pulling evidence out of their asses as many may think. Just do a search on global warming conferences and you should find several. I've provided one below.

http://www.globalwarmingnc.com/index.htm

EDIT:
Nickolassc,

Yes this conference may not be a good example, but it may be the case that global warming is already a well-accepted phenomena and work is now focused towards addressing the problem.

A scientist's opinion is (or should be) base on experimental evidence. When you poll a group of leading experts on a subject, you are basically polling the evidence that exists. Yes, there is always some conflicting evidence, but the ideas that withstand repeated scrutiny survive.

Answer 2

The simple solution is to base the debate on credible evidence, things that have been documented and can be shown to be valid.

On a forum such as this the majority of people contributing to the global warming debate aren't experts on the subject and many arguments are based on second hand sources such as internet sites and the media.

Here's some more nonsensical arguments that crop up...

> Volcanoes produce more greenhouse gases than mankind
> Global warming doesn't exist
> Global warming is a government conspiracy
> It's entirely natural
> It's entirely manmade
> First it was global warming now it's climate change
> First it was global cooling now it's global warming
> If global warming is real then why is it so cold here?
> It's just an excuse to raise taxes
> The world is cooling / has cooled
> Scientists can’t even predict the weather
> Global warming is caused by sunspot activity
> Scientists have signed a petition against global warming...
> Global warming is the result of solar activity
> In the 70's we were supposed to be heading into an ice age
> Mars is warming therefore global warming is caused by the sun
> The earth is nearer the sun than it used to be
> The Arctic / Antarctic ice caps are growing
> Glaciers always retreat like they're doing now
> Humans are too insignificant to affect the climate
> If the icecaps melt sea levels won't change
> Global warming stopped in 1998
> It's only a theory
> Satellite telemetry shows the world is cooling
> Global warming will be beneficial
> If the icecaps melt sea levels will fall
> Rises in carbon dioxide levels always follow rises in temperature
> Only the northern hemisphere is warming
> Thermometers weren't invented until 19??
> Carbon dioxide is good
> It's all about making money
> Sea levels are falling
> We're simply recovering from the Little Ice Age
> We don't have enough data
> Greenland used to be much warmer and free of ice
> There is no scientific consensus on global warming
> Most scientists don't agree with global warming
> It's caused by rockets punching holes in the atmosphere / ozone layer
> Oceans absorb all the carbon emissions
> Global warming will kill us all
> There is no evidence
> The hottest day recorded was in 1927 / 1937 so it was hotter then
> Changes in the earths orbit are the cause of global warming
> Temperatures were much warmer in the Middle Ages
> The Great Global Warming Swindle disproves manmade global warming
> Vineyards previously existed further north than now
> Scientists were wrong about global cooling
> Carbon dioxide is heavier than air so it sinks to the ground
> The stratosphere is cooling
> Global warming is a myth created by Al Gore
> Volcanoes are the cause of global warming

Answer 3

Global warming, death penalty, abortion, etc. There are always 2 sides to an argument so whether you choose to believe or disbelieve is again, your choice. That being said however, suppose a scientist discovers indications that global warming is real. The next thing you know, another scientist says the opposite. On the surface , it is a he said, she said thing. But suppose for a second that the first person was right. Changes to ease the effects of emissions are still a good thing aren't they? Developing cleaner fuels, technology is still a good thing, isn't it? 30 years from now better evidence arises that shows global warming was just a natural occurrence, then so what? We all are still better off. So if the first scientist is wrong, no harm is done but if we believe the 2nd scientist and do nothing and he is wrong, 30 years may be too late and even should the 2nd be right, we erred on the side of caution and are better of for the changes we make now.

Answer 4

I'll try to answer your questions as explicitly as I can. 1.Your knowledge on the subject. My knowledge is based on all that I've read and studied. And that is, that we're the rapid climate change we're experiencing is real and that we're the main driver of it. That said, I don't have a science degree or any related qualifications. I'm like most of us. But the 'source' that convinces me more than ANY other - more than all the climate scientists, authors, etc. is simply that the entire fossil fuel industry (Oil, Coal, Gas, etc.) agrees with that science and despite standing to lose FAR more than anyone else ($Trillions) and having the resources to produce compelling counter proof. In fact they're not even bothering to try to come up with any counter proof. 2.The references or websites where you can prove it. One one hand I believe the body of climate scientists are producing factual data - I don't believe they're all part of a monumental global conspiracy involving every country on the planet. And on the other side the acceptance from the 'public face' of the fossil fuel industry is entirely compelling. The two side by side is honestly all the proof I need.

Answer 5

Maybe we could convince people that even if they don't read climatological journals, that climatologists themselves do. Maybe then people might understand that:

1) Changes in solar activity are known, and accounted for in climate models;
2) Natural carbon sources and sinks are known, and are accounted for in climate models;
3) Volcanic effects are known, and are accounted for in climate models;
4) The effect of water vapor is known, and is accounted for in climate models;
5) Animal emissions are known, and are accounted for in climate models;
6) The causes of long-term variance such as ice ages and inter-glacial periods are known, and are accounted for in climate models;
7) All natural causes, when added together, are producing less forcing than all anthropogenic causes; AND
8) Natural causes alone cannot account for the current warmth without a significant anthropogenic component.

Maybe then people would realize that climatologists know what they're talking about when we say that the case for anthropogenic global warming is rock solid.

Answer 6

To me the argument is silly.

Most of the things that are believed to contribute to global warming make common and economic sense to remedy whether man-made global warming is real or just theory.

For example, reducing gasolione and fossil fuel comsumption will reduce CO2. But that can simply come from getting better fuel economy because CO2 emissions are in direct relation to gasoline consumption -- cut consumption 25% and you reduce CO2 emitted by 25% (assuming the same mileage driven). Plus you save 25% on your fuel bill.

Use CFL bulbs and you will save more than the cost of the bulb several times over plus you reduce CO2 emissions.

Get an air conditioner wtih a higher SEER rating, and you can cut your colin gbill by 40%, again saving money and cutting CO2 emissions.

Finding a way to cut dependence on decadent regimes that control oil resources is not just sensible in global warming terms, but critical in terrms of national security. Terrorists would have a lot less money to spend on their activities is the oil barons didn't have so much cash to pass around.

To me this is rather like the philosopher-mathematician Pascal's view about whether or not there is a God. He thought believing in God and being wrong (no life after death) had less downside than not believing in God and being wrong (damnation).

Actually, believing in global warming and being wrong has an upside. Acting as though global warming is real, we can get cleaner air, reduce our extravagent waste of natural resources and save money. Even if we are wrong, we still win.

So I don't ultimately care who is right or wrong. I am encouraged by the fact that we are starting ot move away from some of our more frivoulous behavior to fix a perceived problem. And not only is there no downside to taking the action, but lots of upside.

Answer 7

You've arrived at the impasse of convictions overriding any opening for relevancy. How would you convince Mormons that bigamy is acceptable. Or how about convincing India that their sacred cows would make great steaks. How do you convince Republicans to go Democrat and vice versa? Once viewpoints become entrenched they are almost impossible to dislodge. Cause and effect will always lean toward a connection that's convenient rather than relevant.

Answer 8

I try to live making what I believe are good choices for me and others. If you believe this and try your best to do what is right, then you too recycle, conserve, etc. because deep down you know it's the right think to do.

If not, then you believe there is no consequences to your actions. You think that humans cannot change the environment through pollution. Are you sure? With all of the nuclear waste, medical waste, human waste, toxic waste, chemical waste, plastic waste, styrofoam waste, CO2.

Is it really that hard to do the right thing?

Answer 9

It's really hard, because it requires actual study and time.

But the way is clear for those who actually want to know the truth, as opposed to wanting to feed their prejudices.

Go to the library and read the peer reviewed scientific articles referenced in these documents:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Answer 10

The Earth will survive.
There have been worse things than CO2 in the air over the last 8 million years.
Don't worry about it.