Why do global warming skeptics suddenly not accept a consensus?

Question

Even ignoring all the evidence that humans are the primary cause of global warming, let's just examine the scientific consensus. There IS a consensus, as I illustrate in this question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApVrJTwr2fowQ9c1oYDbztvsy6IX?qid=20070623154358AAMwRrZ

Or since people seem to be too lazy to click and read the YA link, just go straight to the source:

http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html

Consensus does not mean EVERY expert agrees, it means the VAST MAJORITY agree. There are virtually no scientific papers which dispute the consensus that humans are the primary cause of the recent global warming.

If a bunch of doctors tell you that you need surgery, you get the surgery.

If a bunch of lawyers tell you to take a plea bargain, you take the plea bargain.

If a bunch of dentists say you need a root canal, you get one.

When you don't understand a subject, you listen to experts.

Why when climatologists say humans are causing GW, do you not believe it?

Are there ANY rational global warming skeptics? All I want is one rational answer.

lyric, a link for you:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmSdKP_qXh6VsgTYRkmRFsPsy6IX?qid=20070623134537AAJIgTz&show=7#profile-info-7a1a4586cbdfad0a780847164818434aaa

Feel free to dismiss anything you don't automatically agree with, as most skeptics do.

Answer 1

Even Bush is admitting that global warming is real now. Check out his speech earlier in the week.

What I say to people who deny global warming is that it is in their own best interests to keep their opinion to themselves, because they're just going to be embarrassed later on when all of their conservative leaders admit it exists and we start seeing more and more problems from it.

Another fun thing to do would be to tape-record them saying it, and play it back to them in 2-3 years after they start saying the opposite.

Answer 2

Don't get consensus mixed up with what is really happening - reality. Whether Global war mining is caused completely by man or only to a small percentage or not at all is still open to debate. There have been all kinds of consensuses in the scientific community that were later proved wrong. I'm not 100% cconvinced that man's activities may not be part of the mechanism involved in the planet's current climate change; I remain skeptical because I've learned not to trust the popular conventional wisdom of the media. We know that the climate has changed numerous times during this planet's history. It's been colder and it's also been warmer. We don't know what caused those climatic changes, most which occurred before man could have had any influence, but we're absolutely sure that the current, slight increase in temperature is primarily caused by man's modern industrial activities. That doesn't make sense. How can we be so sure man is to blame when we can't explain why the climate changed before man even existed on earth?

Answer 3

One reason why is because of 'scientific method'. I have a problem with scientist saying man is the primary cause of GW when they can't conduct a real experiment. Every experiment for GW is run on computers, and its hard enough saying what the temperature next week is going to be, yet these scientist can with certainty? Another problem is that anyone who studies weather and climate knows just how many unknowns and variables there are when it comes to the climate and weather. In fact while we know a lot there is a lot that we don't know, but 'experts' have a problem saying they don't know something.

One other thing is that if one looks back on Earth's history there are large warming and cooling ages with smaller warm and ice ages within each age. So far 'climate scientists' haven't been able to explain those either.

You are aware that the Earth just came out of a mini ice age as well. That bring up the question as to how much is man contributing to the warming that was naturally going on?

Where I'd like an answer from science is how much is humankind contributing to GW. 1% or 99%? If it’s a real low contribution then just about anything we do to conserve and be 'green' won't matter, but if we're the major contributor then it will help.

That seems to be where I see the big debate right now.

Answer 4

Because they don't understand what "consensus" means, in reference to a scientific consensus.
Their right-wing talk show host spew stuff like "long time ago a there was a consensus, that the world was flat", or "a consensus got a man hung on a cross", etc.
they don't understand that neither one of those examples, or anything like them are examples of a scientific consensus.

I have my doubts, about what is and what isn't causing global climate changes, but that doesn't mean the pollution attributed to global climate change, isn't damaging our environment and health, even if global warming isn't occuring.
So whether you want to deal with it, to prevent global warming, or deal with it to save your environment or health, does it really matter?

Answer 5

Interesting thing though...

Other recent studies linking sunspots and solar ray emissions vs. cosmic ray emissions suggest that sunspot activity may well drive heat intensity and tempertuares on Earth. Given that Mars and other planets in the solar system have also been tracked as experiencing effcts of global warming, and the findings that the next solar cycle for sunspots is expected to be very low, some conclusions indicate we could experience a drop in temperatures in just a few short years.

Sources:
See below - and feel free to dismiss anything you don't automatically agree with...most do - and if you still disagree try keywording: sunspots, solar rays, global warming, cooling, solar. system

The argument isn't whether or not we have seen a recent rise in temperatures, it's about everything that drives the climate temperature cycle too. "We don't know everything and to assume we do is childish arrogance".


Nice links...: and those too displays something else...the research all over the place - we don't know for sure. Is man contributing. Sure. We affect our environment. Period.
Is man solely responsible? No. The Earth has cycles and patterns for which we are still completely in the dark. I don't dismiss the need to alter our energy usage and resource usage to better alternatives. I just don't believe in buying into the extremism at either end that
1. It doesn't exist in any manner
or
2. Man is completely responsible.

Answer 6

The reason people like me are skeptical of "climate science experts" is because the deck is already stacked with them. Only people who already believe in global warming would go into the field. It's similar to saying "Well, there's a consensus among theologians that there is a God. Since they are experts in the field, they would be the ones to know, therefore there is a God." If someone thought that global warming was a crock, why would they spend years of their lives studying it?

That is why I take what these experts say with a grain of salt.

For an expert that disagrees, look at the book

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Dennis T. Avery and S. Fred Singer.

Answer 7

If a bunch of lawyers tell me to take a plea bargain and I'm not guilty, that bunch of lawyers will get fired. There are an equal amount of "experts" that say humans are not causing GW. Did humans cause the last GW after the ice age? Does one massive volcanic eruption spew more CO2 in the atmosphere than all the internal combustion engines combined? If humans are responsible, what do you want to do, take us back to 1700's technology? There was more polluting going on then than there is now. Are humans responsible for Mars' polar caps melting? Do you not think that the Earth changes constantly, sometimes violently? Do you not think that the sun is responsible for Mars caps melting or global warming?

Answer 8

Since when does a concensus make something right?

Just because a handful -- and it is just a handful -- of scientists say GW is a fact does not make it so. Those same scientists can't tell you why the eye blinks involuntarily, but they can tell you with assurance that God does not exist??

We don't have a record of global temperatures that's more than 150 years old. But we do know that in the middle ages, a very powerful volcano erupted and cooled the temperature of the earth significantly enough to cause a "mini" ice age -- lasted about 500 years. It happens to be the number one thing that caused the plague to run as rampant as it did. We didn't even START to pull out of that mini ice age until the Victorian era. So who's to say that the global temperature right now isn't closer to what it's naturally supposed to be than not??

Answer 9

Its not that suddenly global warming skeptics stopped accepting a consensus, it's that they never have. The proponents of global warming don't seem to understand that a consensus means nothing in science, only data and facts.
Since the data and facts do not point to man made global warming, then most people will be skeptics. I hope this answer has helped you.

Answer 10

The term scientific consensus is something of an oxy-moron. Skepticism is essential to science. Throughout history, consensus has served only as a hinderance to the scientific cause. The most notable scientists in history did not follow the consensus. In ancient Greece, the "consensus" was that the earth was flat. Pythagoras, however, believed in a spherical earth. But by your logic, because the vast majority of ancient Greek scientists and "experts" did not agree with Pythagoras, he is therefore not a credible scientist.
Additionally, it is dangerous for one to violate consensus. Many scientists may not believe in global warming, but refuse to question it for fear they might lose their job, because of political agenda. For example, the Scientific consensus of the late middle ages and early rennaisance was one of geocentric orbit(the sun revolving around the earth). This consensus had been accepted since aristotle proposed it. However, a scientist known as Copernicus was skeptical of this viewpoint, as he believed that the earth orbited the sun. He even wrote a book about such belief. It was not until he was on his deathbed, though, that he had his friends publish it. Why? Because he did not want to have to endure the trouble of violating the consensus of that time. He saw the imprudence of it. Had he violated the consensus, he might very well have been excommunicated and imprisoned. Galileo, another one of the GREATEST scientific minds, was not so prudent as Copernicus. He publicly endorsed Copernicus' viewpoint. What was the result? He was threatened by excommunication and arrested. However the above mentioned skeptics on these issues, created, not scientific consensus, but its direct opposite, scientific fact. The consenses of the inquisition, can thus be seen as only a hinderance to science, as are the consenses of the global warming alarmists.
The uninquisitive, discurious scientists of old have largely been forgotten. It is the skeptics (e.g. Pythagoras, Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vince, Kepler, Newton, Einstein)though, whose achivements have contributed significantly to human progress. We can only wonder what thay may have accomplished or discovered, were they not oppressed by the common viewpoints of their day. We must not let consensus hinder science, even if it is beneficial for some politically. Consensus is foreign to science. Something is not true simply because most people believe it is. The politicized science that "Most people" have believed has been for centuries, and will continue to be proved wrong. Stalin once said: " Ideas are more dangeous than guns -- we do not want our people to have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" Global warming consensus is an application of the above quote. Consensus inhibits thought. It destroys everything science stands for. Let us therefore, continue human progress as skeptics of old did, and not let what is believed by politicized experts hinder that progress.