Are man-made global warming skeptics running out of excuses?

Question

This article has been linked 4 times in the Environment section today:

http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613

Skeptics seem to like it because this guy is the proported "father of climatology", or something like that, and is skeptical of man-made global warming.

My analogy for that is that Isaac Newton was the father of physics, but he may well have been skeptical of Einstein's theory of relativity, had it been presented to him. Not a perfect analogy, but this guy is 87 years old and a lot of the most convincing climate science has been done in the last decade.

In addition to Bryson providing zero support of his skepticism, there's this:

Bryson didn't see Al Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth."

"Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."

Very scientific of him - he's drawing conclusions about a film he never saw (which experts have said is very accurate, by the way).

Is this the best skeptics can do?

Answer 1

I think so.

But at least they're recycling excuses. Any form of recycling is a start! ;-)

Answer 2

Bryson seems to be quite certain on a number of subjects that are anything but certain. But he is emeritus which helps him speak his mind.

As a climate scientist myself I'd have to say 1) most climate scientists do not agree with Bryson and 2) climate science is anything but well understood, there needs to be room for appreciating that the outcome of adding CO2 to the atmosphere may well be different than what has been predicted. This is hard to do in a world of black&white absolutes. Most people want to know if adding CO2 to the atmosphere will or wont lead to warming. The best science can do is attach a probability to it (and right now most scientists give it a high degree of probability that added CO2 will lead to warming). Sort of like driving your car though a red light. I can't tell you that you will get into an accident, I can only tell you of the probability that you will.

Answer 3

So because a guy is old and hasn't gone to a movie, and doesn't agree with the latest fad from the left, his opinion is worthless? That seems somewhat small-minded.

Al Gore's (or more properly, Laurie David's) movie is basically March of the Penguins for Weather Channel addicts. Laurie has been pimping her spiel for years in the steady pursuit of fame and fortune, and found a very willing accomplice in Wooden Al. There are many notable scientists out there who don't happen to be chasing grant money who can objectively look at the crap being thrust upon us as "real science", and come to the same conclusion as any other level-headed individual; that there is not enough information out there to reach a valid conclusion.

The only valid conclusion to draw from this is to continue researching (objectively, hopefully) and try to figure out if the warming trend is just another cycle or manmade, and regardless of which it is, is there anything that could actually be done about it that won't cause more damage than adapting.

Answer 4

The "hockey stick" is basically right. And it has been proven.

The original hockey stick graph was subject to some minor statistical criticism. The National Academy of Sciences did a thorough study. Their conslusion was that the criticism was warranted but the graph was basically correct.

Since then it has been reproduced many times, and is in no way "rejected". Here's a composite of ten peer reviewed studies, using different methodologies.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

The graph also disposes of Ash's argument. No way is the present trend a part of the recovery from the Little Ice Age. The increase is way too fast and too far. The graph stops in 2004, if it went to 2006, it would be even more impressive.

By the way, give grzzbr1 the ten points. Great answer.

Answer 5

Al Gore's movie makes use of the Mann curve (the hockey stick).

This piece of global warming research was peer-reviewed. It is cited also in the 2000 IPCC report.

It has since been shown to be a load of crap that was concocted to make the medieval warming period go away. It is no longer cited by any warming scientists because it is an embarrassment to them.

Why should Bryson see Al's movie if Al's movie depends heavily on Mann's fraudulent research? Bryson knows all he needs to know about An Inconvenient Truth.

Bryson knows the other work cited by Gore and it is just as suspect.

The American Society of Statistitians is starting to weigh in on the GW issue. They wonder why they are being left out of the peer-review processes when global warming theories depend on data compilation. This group is almost unanimously skeptical because of the conclusions drawn on scant data.

Answer 6

They certainly are!

Global Warming is a Man Made Problem. That is a FACT!

There can only be a MAN MADE SOLUTION!

Thanks to advances in technology, we can counter the great threat of Global Warming and the increase of CO2 levels with our knowledge of chemistry. Pumping enough toxic chemicals into the air will definitely aid in curbing the problem.

Thanks to all the research on global warming, governments worldwide will now tackle the problem with chemical contrails:

http://www.airapparent.ca/library/full_text/discoverychannel_chemtrails.htm

Better to be toxic than to die from CO2 caused heat exhaustion or massive flooding. Keep up the good work, Dana! I'm routing for ya!

EDIT: Many people are routing for making a fight against CO2 at any cost. Check out:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i08/8508notw8.html

The problem of CO2 is the greatest issue of our time. Any means to tackle this will be necessary. Some solutions are chemical spraying or dimming of the atmosphere or stopping energy development in third world countries (which will be damaged the most by global warming) our great UN will come up with the right solutions.

Answer 7

archives have been leaked earlier interior the 300 and sixty 5 days from the 'unfastened-marketplace' Heartland Institute, revealing money to favourite climate-substitute deniers, a plan to create a fossil-gasoline-friendly curriculum for Kindergartners, and efforts to 'shop opposing voices' out of the media. there became no experience denying it by utilizing a favourite scientist, not looking forward to to get funded to propagate a fantasy from now on. yet one complicated element in case you pay attention to Muller, is that he's blaming others for the situation, like the chinese language and additionally suggested that if we gained't get the chinese language to attend to it, then that is not nicely worth it for us to do something.

Answer 8

I don't know anything about that story. But why does the historical and archaeological record show that Climate change is not static and has been changing constantly?

1300-1850 AD the temperature had fallen anywhere between 4-7 degrees from the previous centuries.

England prior too 1300 had been able to grow grapes in large quantities, Grapes require exact weather and climate conditions that are only available in warm dryer climates yet England was too cold and wet to grow grapes again until recently.

1300ad places the weather phenomenon well before the industrial revolution, so the dramatic weather shift was not man made.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

take a look at this information before you give me a thumbs down.

it shows information based on historical and archaeological facts.

This is science basted on facts not theories.

and facts show that climate is not static and dramatic shifts have happened before cars and carbon emissions.

ADD ON: thumbs down? did you read the information?

Answer 9

It is too bad some people insist on posting things from American newspapers. They are utterly incapable of giving depth to any story. They are written so that anybody with a 6th grade level can read them. Thus, they don't really do anyone any good when discussing anything more complex than the doings of Blondie and Marmaduke.

Answer 10

Hey Dana with friends like Harry "rout'n" for ya how can you miss.Nice hat Harry,NICE HAT. Cut and paste some of these.(How much ya' all pay for that hat Harry?

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
Canada National Post

Answer 11

Seeing "An Inconvenient Truth: has NOTHING to do with science. Seeing any movie has nothing to do with science...unless you're in grade school.

Grow up. Make up your mind as to whether AGW is synonymous with Al Gore's views or if it is not.

Weren't you the moron that posted a question asking why skeptics were obsessed with Al Gore? If he is meaningless to the debate, then quit bringing him up. If not, then he is fair game.