Why do global warming skeptics suddenly require "proof"?

Question

If you give a doctor your symptoms and he gives you the most likely diagnosis, do you require him to prove it? Maybe in some cases, but what if it's something that can't be directly and conclusively proven?

The fact is that it cannot be proven that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming. It also cannot be proven that "natural" causes such as solar variations are the primary cause of global warming. The probability can be calculated to a high likelihood, as is the case with human CO2 emissions, but skeptics require "proof", which is impossible to provide.

All scientists can do is gather the data and make models such as this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

which shows pretty clearly that greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of GW over the past several decades. Why do GW skeptics require proof that's impossible to provide, especially when they accept that GW is due to "natural cycles" with no proof?

Galt - prior events are not proof. They are evidence that perhaps that is the case now, but not even close to conclusive proof. Evidence that GW is primarily caused by humans is far stronger than that, so if prior events are all that's convincing you that it's primarily due to "natural" cycles, you need to review ALL the evidence to realize you're wrong.

Trillium - question was in the last sentence.

Answer 1

Because it conveneintly fits their line of thinking - basically reject and dispute anything that doesn't support their viewpoint and accept without question anything that does.

Tell a skeptic that Mars is warming but it's got nothing to do with the Earth or solar variation and that Venus is cooling and what do they do - run around telling everyone that Mars is warming and conveniently reject everything else.

How many times have you heard the 'Mars is warming' argument and yet this comes from the very same NASA reports that catagorically state that only parts of Mars are warming, others are cooling and it is in no way related to global warming on Earth.

Many skeptics will not accept proof even when it's demonstrated to them. It's not all that hard to rig up an experiment to demonstrate the insulative effects of greenhouse gases, this can be done in pretty much and university science lab. Conduct such an experiment that shows nitrogen or helium or other gases do not have any heat retentive properties and they beleive you, preform the same experiemnt with carbon dioxide and demonstrate how it retains heat and they don't believe it.

Answer 2

I don't require proof; I've done the research. I did, however, post a question yesterday asking what structure people belief this is or isn't a problem on. As I suspected, no one stepped forward with a susbstancial answer as to why they don't believe global warming is real. So, I can only conclude that they are uneducated about certain findings and want to remain in denial.

There has never been a 'natural cycle' such as what we've experienced worldwide in the last decade. We've had the warmest weather on history in these last few years.

Scientists who have pulled 'plugs' from ice masses have found the CO2 concentration to be highest in the newest formations (upper part). I think that speaks volumes.

Answer 3

Are you seriously asking this? Of course real scientists require proof. Why don't you study the scientific method and get back to me on that.

Science is the quest for truth and until it can be resolved 100% ANY issue will be up for debate why don't you understand this?

When a scientist states the issue is settled in my opinion he losses ALL credibility. The fundamental nature of science is to keep studying everything because we can never be sure that we know everything!

And by the way there are more ways to do a scientific study than to just make observations, that is where experimentation comes in--which I find to be severely lacking in most of the global warming "science"

One last thing. I challenge your statement that, that graph proves CO2 is responsible for the warming trend. Do you understand the difference between causation and correlation?

Why do you think I asked about the money spent on the cost of US disasters and global temperatures? It was to get you to realize that correlation and causation are 2 different things!

@trevor above,

Why don't you mention that water vapor is responsible for 95% of the green house effect? Or perhaps you could include methane in that study too as it also traps heat. Seems a little bit conveniant that you talk about leaving out facts and then you go and do the same thing?

Answer 4

Because you want to limit otherwise free activity and this is supposedly a free society.

Your doctor tells you to quit smoking, he can't MAKE you quit smoking. He gives you information and you voluntarily act on it.

You're not asking me to move closer to work.

You're telling me that we have to have MANDATORY emissions reductions.

That means either I HAVE to move closer to work, I have to pay taxes that will be an incentive for others to move closer to work (I like my job and live at the beach so no, I'm not moving), or I have to spend more on my next car.

If you claim that "proof is impossible to provide" I'll take that as an admission that you can't provide any.

CASE DISMISSED!!!!

And it's not sudden - - you should have to prove that my commute does harm in some way that's not already addressed by government intrusion for the same reason Pat Robertson should have to prove that gay marriage would harm others - - if the burden of proof were on the person wanting to engage in the activity to disprove every assertion, you could just sit there lodging false claims about any activity you didn't like, and force its participants to stop.

And if there ever were a time when the burden should be reduced, it would have to involve limit-seekers with a great deal of credibility, which the environmental movement just doesn't have - - for every burning river or acid rain there's a Monsanto butterfly or Patagonian sheep.

Answer 5

I find this rather interesting.

We put out 30,000,000,000 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every year.

To put that in perspective, that's 38 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of air. It would take 5 years to change that 38 molecules to 39 molecules at the above rate.

Interesting, huh?

Answer 6

There have been hot and cold cycles throughout the history of the world. There are many things that can be causing this warming cycle either man-made or natural.

Answer 7

Proof or Disproof
who cares it will not make any difference
Climate change is not a textbook problem in school ,it is a reality whether we like it or not.

Whether we accept it or we dont
Whether we try to be positive and want to do some thing about it or we dont
And is it important whose fault Global Warming is?
If it was Gaia who is fed up with the virus infesting her ,
If the Sun is having a stroke .?
If God (Jehova) is having a tantrum?
If humanity caused it ?
If it is Natural regular phenomina?

One thing is for certain apart from green house gasses ,Al Gore ,skeptics ,the motor car ,energy production ,Sun spots ,Earthly climatic cycles etc etc
Humanity has definately had an effect on local climates and now collectively on the whole

The Sahara used to be forrests (,but you cant deforrest on the equator because you cant replant under that hot a sun.It is now growing 7 miles per year burning the edges .
IN THE PAST
The building of Spanish Armada made Spain a dessert country as the Phoenicians deforested Lebanon for their trading fleet.

Ghengas Kahn burned everything(cities ,agriculture,forrests ) and filled all the wells with sand ,turning vast teritories into desserts.
TODAY
Large parts of the world are turned into deserts because of irresponsible farming,overpumping carbon Aquifers ,over grazing ,deforestation,all causing desertification.

I have been in the jungles of Oaxaca and discussed with the Natives the mountain before us ,Mostly deforrested ,scarred by landslides and dotted with madly steep corn patches (which only produced for 3 years ),and devoid of clouds.

They all agreed that the days were hotter ,there was less rain ,And the river was dry part of the year.

When they were boys ,the river was bigger and ran all year around,the mountain was always covered in clouds with daily rains .And the days were more bearable .

Their actions in the desperate plight to feed their enormous families of avarage 12 kids per family ,often much more ,had destroyed their home ground with indisputable climate changes.

In Africa I have seen lush wooded lands change into dessert within a few years by large invading comunities ,who devoured the trees for building and firewood ending up in a dessert with out water
and with a hot sun under which no new plantation was possible.

Granted the climatic changes are local ,but effects neighboring areas ,there is less rainfall, rivers dry up ,

BUT these things are happening ALL over the world and nobody can convince me that COLLECTIVELY this does NOT effect the Global climate
Global precipitation,Global temperatures,Global water supplies ,Global everything.

Millions of hectares are lost because of the roads systems ,expanding population and the resulting settlements.

Mexico looses half a million hectares per year in the quest for Ethanol and this is happening in Africa ,Borneo,Malasia,etc and will become much much more ,when America passes a new bill about the production of Ethanol ,

Humans ARE contaminating ,the Air,the Soil and Waters.This evidence is for all to see all over the world ,
And cannot be whitewashed with claims that humanity is inocent .

OVERPOPULATION puts pressures on all Natural resources and increases all the bad side effects of Humanity such as deminishing the overall bio mass and wide spread polution

Why dont they want to look after Nature ,it is where all the conditions that makes life pleasant and possible for us comes from ?Air ,Food ,Water to grow food and to make beer with ,and most of all a bearable climate ,not to mention the absorbsion of harmfull gasses.

Answer 8

The proof is in the polar ice cap studies. They have shown warming/cooling cycles. How much CO2 did the cavemen put off? It couldn't have been much.
Perhaps the proof is impossible to provide because it does not exist?

Answer 9

Sorry, but is there an acutal question in there, or are you just ranting? LOL If they can't prove something or disprove it, the skeptics always require proof. This is not new. They're just yelling louder now. All I say is look out the door, and see the world and what's acutally going on. Something's happening here. And if we don't stop it soon, or alter what we're doing, then there is going to be something potentially catastrophic on our hands.

Trilli

Answer 10

Because fixing pollution problems doesn't conveniently fit into their schedule, between their denial time, and their time for sticking their heads in the dirt.

I am skeptical of how much man really effects climate change on a global scale, but I am not skeptical about how much our pollution harms the environment.

When you argue against global warming, you aren't just arguing against whether or not man is causing global warming, but also whether or not we need to quit polluting our environment.

This falls lock-step into corporate agenda of making environmentalists out to be the bad guys, that are trying to destroy the economy, just so they don't have to find ways around heavily polluting the environment, because it might cost them a few hundred thousand off of their record profits.
How could it possibly harm the economy by people saving money by conserving energy? using biofuels?
they save, they pay more of their bills, they have more money to spend? doesn't sound so economically destructive to me.

but they require proof, because it is the only argument that hasn't been completely trashed by real science.
if you notice, most of them don't require proof of God's existence. but that doesn't require lifestyle change either.
They would rather cling to the words of people who still deny smoking is linked to lung cancer, than people who haven't been completely disproven, time and time again.

What they should be doing, is proving that pollution doesn't cause environmental damage, or adverse health conditions. When they can do that, I will concede that we don't have to worry about any of this stuff.