Do you base your global warming opinions on evidence or labels?

Question

I find this "question" and the subsequent "answers" amusing:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070619154713AAUaZsF&r=w#RsR4WTC1UGLXAOZlOfd26Pr22G__DAD6hVJeJW5TpX.ayPFJ4ZHX

Guy discusses (half of) an article in which the so-called "Father of Climatology" (no explanation of how he got that title or who gave it to him) claims that global warming isn't caused by humans. He just gives his opinion, providing no evidence. Guy fails to mention that the second half of the article was devoted to scientists providing evidence to support their arguments that the current global warming is primarily caused by humans. Answerers eat it up with a spoon.

So now that you know the truth of the article, which would you be more likely to believe?

87-year-old scientist who somehow got the title "Father of Climatology" who gives his opinion that global warming isn't caused by humans.

Other scientists who provide evidence to support their argument that it is.

Evidence or Label?

Quite possibly the most amusing part is that the Questioner didn't link the article. He didn't provide any evidence that this so-called "Father of Climatology" said anything, and Bryson didn't provide any evidence to support his opinion. Then you get Answerers saying things like

"facts don't matter to libs, they're sold on it."

Just goes to show, irrational people will believe whatever they want to believe.

If I claimed that the "Grandfather of Climatology" said that global warming is definitely caused by humans, do you think anyone would be convinced by that? Of course not, because those of us who are convinced that humans are the primary cause of global warming are convinced by the evidence.

Skeptics are convinced by whatever confirms what they want to believe. Even some random guy on YA who make some claim with no evidence to back it up.

Answer 1

Evidence. And if there is any uncertainty, then a preponderance of the evidence.

It is undisputed that human activity is pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than at any time in the last several million years (yes they do know how much CO2 was in the atmosphere for the last several million years)

It is undisputed that CO2 is a green house gas and acts to trap radiant heat in the atmosphere.

It is undisputed that the earth is warming and Glacier and polar ice is melting.

The preponderance of the evidence suggests that we, humans, are warming the planet with our industrial activity.

The preponderance of the evidence suggests this is more bad than good. Higher temps mean higher sea levels. The fast majority of the people live close tot he sea in low lying areas.

It is undisputed that we can curb these carbon em missions.

It is undisputed that the best way to do that is to use less fossil fuel. Conserving expensive fossil fuel and developing more efficient lower carbon energy sources benefits everyone except the fossil fuel industry.

The preponderance of the evidence suggests that if we reduce or eliminate CO2 then the warming rate will slow, stop or possibly reverse. The preponderance of the evidence suggest that is more good than bad.

Answer 2

Evidence always wins. Besides, this is what he actually said about the religion part;

"There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."

Vs what the original asker said;

Well Then , There You Have It. . . The 'Father of Climatology' Has Stated Global Warming Is A Religion.

Somebody needs glasses.

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

Answer 3

Neither, just a little common sense and talking quite some time ago with a local weatherman, the earth has been doing it's thing since inception and mere mankind will have little effect on it except in localized areas, when man is gone nature comes back and wipes out the fact he was ever there in the first place.Despite the belief of some, man is not all that powerful. Could he destroy the earth ? Maybe as we know it, but doubtful.

Answer 4

Evidence.

There's evidence that global average temperatures have increased slightly in the last few decades. That's fairly simple. You get a lot of temperature readings, you average them out.

There's a lot of theories about why, but with a sample size of 1 (one earth, one global climate), experiments are limitted to computer simulations. Of course, the evidence of warming on other planets of the solar system does support the theory that it's solar activity. While the correllation between increasing levels of greenhouses gasses and increasing temperature supports the human-caused theories.


Though, I do think it's just a triffle arrogant, or at least narcisistic, to believe that human activity /must/ be at fault. And, I'll admit that biases my judgement a little.

Answer 5

Britain has the fourth best economic device interior the international, so although we could be a weedy little island geographically, what we do nonetheless consists of some clout globally. I trust lots of the others here - we could continually do our bit (and do not forget approximately, we are actually not on my own - there are different international places, especially in Europe, with very intense recycling expenses, etc). undergo in concepts besides that interior the U. S., guy or woman states like Califormia are introducing their own environmental legislations which resembles that of the Kyoto contract in terms of convalescing power performance and reducing CO2 emissions. the U. S. will pass eco-friendly finally, whether that is state by utilizing state. or perhaps in China, there is distinctive environmental initiatives occurring which grant some, small desire for destiny action on emissions there.

Answer 6

If I gave you a link that provided 17,380 Scientists that said man was not responsible, would you beleive it?
Go to one of your favorite Global Warming websites. read the Disclaimer that says something like: "We have made various assumptions, and any record prior to 1980 is an estimate at best as we have no varifiable scientific data, but will use these assumptions in our computer model"...
You pick the site. I got that off a link someone with the avatar named "Bob" used in "Proving" Global Warming was Man Made.

Answer 7

my opinion (like al gore and sheryl crowe's) is irrelevant since im not a climatologist or a scientist.

edit-science is supposed to be skeptical, that's how it progresses. there may or may not be global warming (and may or may not be caused by humans), but it shouldnt be confused with politics, which is an intrinsically ethical topic.

it is telling of some people's points of view when they ask questions about global warming in the politics section. there is a math and science category, you know?

Answer 8

The average person doesn't have enough knowledge to form opinions so we shouldn't care what ignorant people think. Scientists, and evidence say it is, and has happened. Why protect Big Oil instead of the environment. It's nonsensical. Unless of course your income depends on oil revenue like the current Bush cronies.

Answer 9

All I know is that
1. The same people crying about warming now, told me that by this year we would have an iceage starting

2. It has not gotten warm enough yet to make Greenland fit for the vikings to return

3. Ike was right, science should not be funded by the government, all they do is invent things for them to "save" us from

Answer 10

green plants in green houses give off oxygen, not harmful gases that Al Gore seems to think goes to the ozone and exhaust decipates when it rises, but it only rises just so far not 50,000 miles straight up and who can prove it hurts the ozone. no person has the technology to destroy the ozone(invisible force field) even when solids go through it and sun light comes in to give life.