For those who are certain global warming is a lie?

Question

I can understand how a person might question global warming as the threat we need to be concerned about.

The certainties, the panic-stricken "What's new today on global warming?" questions might draw a laugh if they weren't such a troublesome indictment of the human intellect.

It's only fair to ask this question of those who are ENTIRELY CONVINCED global warming isn't happening:

I doubt there's a reputable scientist in the world who'd state emphatically, global waming doesn't exist. The same scientific data is available to both sides, and that data certainly doesn't deny the existence of global warming.

Scientists sort through what's available and try to reach meaningful conclusions from what they see. Many believe it 'probably' is not the problem.

I'd offer the observation that those here who are CERTAIN global warming "ain't" are guilty of the same sloppy thinking the they're condemning in those who do believe it.

Unfounded opinion is non-denominational?

Mike: No, that isn't the next question. It's not even a related question. Did you get to be a TOP CONTRIBUTOR by spamming every question related to global warming with the same answers?

Answer 1

You're right. To be certain that something "isn't" needs to be supported just as much as something "is".

And while it may be safe to remain with conventional wisdom until a "new wisdom" is more certain, it is not an excuse to totally dismiss the new kid.

You said, "I doubt there's a reputable scientist in the world who'd state emphatically, global warming doesn't exist. The same scientific data is available to both sides, and that data certainly doesn't deny the existence of global warming."

This, in my opinion, is why Oreskes' claim of implicit "concensus" is invalid. Reputable scientists DON'T make claims of impossibility unless the evidence is iron-clad, and even then, most will shy away from such claims on principle alone. So, the oft-cited Oreskes "consensus" boils down to very few scientists are convinced that there is no evidence of anthropogenic contribution to a global warming trend.

Does that mean that someone such as yourself is now lumped into the "consensus"? It's kind of like a catch-22: opening oneself to all possibilities is inferred as denial of conventional wisdom, even if conventional wisdom is the most likely possibility.

To be fair to Mike, I think he has a valid point. If this were a scientific question that demanded no man-made solution or that a man-made solution was impossible, then it would be an academic question of little interest outside of those studying the "problem". It speaks directly to BOTH sides of the entrenched certainty. One side is in denial that man is is not as powerful or as significant on the global scale as he thinks he is, the other in denial that man should behave responsibly regardless of global significance. Remove the human intervention factor, and I can almost guarantee that it has a moderating effect on this polarized issue.

Answer 2

I think that you've got a point. Many people do just jump to conclusions about issues, and don't take the time to research their positions. This is particularly true of political hotbed issues, like the Iraq war and global warming. People will pick a side based on the media, or on what their friends say about it, and they use ad hominem attacks or red herrings to defend their positions.

You've presented your question in an excellent fashion, and even leave open the possibility that some on each side of the global warming debate use sloppy logic. I happen to think that that is the case, as I know people on both side who are that way. So, you're fair in your assessment.

Answer 3

They've proven that global warming is a natural thing. Humans may have sped ot up, but global warming has actually happened many times before.

Answer 4

Global warming is debated because its not proven what is the real cause.

CO2 increases were associated with GLOBAL COOLING in the 1970's... Is CO2 fickle about being a greenhouse gas?

The only consistent factor with the COOLING of the 1970's and warming trend of the 1990's (and now) is... solar activity. In the 1970's we have reduced solar activity. In the 1990's (and continuing still) we had increased solar activity.

CO2 emissions from manmade sources are STILL a minor percentage of all global CO2 production...

Temperature increases lead to increased NATURAL CO2 production...

So, if global warming is caused by CO2:

How did we get global cooling in the 1970's? Why didn't we see MASSIVE global warming in the 1940's when the fuel use was at the world's all time high? (somthing about thousands upon thousands of Jeeps, trucks, tanks, ships and aircraft burning fuel as fast as we could produce it)

The trends DO NOT follow man's CO2 production rate...

Answer 5

Tim Ball is a well known sceptic and climatologist from Canada. In his lectures he states: I am going to give you a biased view to counteract the biased view in the media so you can make up your own mind.

You are right most scientists agree we are have experienced a warming trend. But what is the cause of the trend, the sun or increases in co2? And if co2 levels were to double, what would be the rise in temperatures? That is based on assumptions and speculation. I have heard anywhere from 0.5 to ten degrees. If it is true, what would be the effects of such a rise in temperatures? Again that is based on speculation. This is where the debate is.

Global warming is one thing, but how about climate change. Blaming floods and droughts, unseasonably warm and cold temperatures, on increases in co2 levels. Do all scientists agree on that as well? If you were to believe the global warming alarmists the answer would have to be yes.

The final question to be asked is give me one area of science that is deemed to be settled, (as global warming proponents say it is) but where billions of dollars in research money is being spent and hundreds of papers are written every year?

Answer 6

Here are three facts you must deal with, if you are honest.
All layers of the atmosphere do not show warming trends.
A comparison of the current warming trend compared with what has happened in the past shows that it is less.
The trend line of the partial pressures of the greenhouse gases do not confirm that they are the cause. Some show a short term increase, and then they don't. They show normal variations.
The main problem with the global warming debate is, "What do you propose to do about it?".
Ideologues propose solutions to further their political agenda. That is where the sloppy thinking enters. They spread misinformation and propaganda. Beware. It is easy to besome ensnared.

Answer 7

U need to recheck your data as most of the green house gas figures is a lie.

Answer 8

The next question is whether or not we can stop or prevent Global Warming.

To stop or prevent Global Warming we would need to stop the use of fossil fuels for energy production world wide.

We would need to stop heating our homes, offices and factories.

We would need to stop cooking our food.

We would need to stop heating the water that we use for bathing.

We would need to shut down our entire transportation system. We could not use any motorized transport. No automobiles, no motorcycles or motorscooters. No trucks, trains, planes or shipping.

Next we would need to enforce this ban on the entire world.

the People's Republic of China has already stated that they will not cut back on their use of fossil fuel.

China alone produces enough co2 to cause Global Warming even if every other country on this planet cut back to zero.

We do not have the political will or the military ability to enforce such a ban on the rest of the world.

We cannot even handle Iraq. How would we enforce a ban of fossil fuel use on China much less the rest of the countries of the world?

If we cannot enforce such a ban on fossil fuel use worldwide, we cannot stop Global Warming.

Essentially we must accept Global Warming as a fact of life and plan how we will deal with the consequences of Global Warming.

Stopping Global Warming is an unrealistic dream and an unattainable goal.

(edit to Jack)
You cannot talk about Global Warming that is caused by carbon dioxide emissions without talking about what is the proper response.

It is clear that Global Warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions will result in higher sea levels due to the melting of a large amount of water that is currently frozen in ice.

Next Global Warming will cause more hurricanes and more severe hurricanes.

Next Global Warming will cause drought in many parts of the world.


From a policy making standpoint we must recognize that Global Warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions is inevitable.

We must plan how we will solve the problems created by Global Warming.

Low lying areas need to be protected by dikes similar to those in Holland where that is feasible. Where that is not feasible we must help the populations relocate to higher ground.

We must help areas that will be subject to hurricanes with their disaster preparedness.

We must help those areas that will be impacted by drought with supplemental water supplies, in most cases with desalination plants.

Answer 9

do we contribute,yes,but not on the scale claimed by those who scare us into panic,about one half a degree in the last one hundred years,not all by us either,did you ever stop to think global warming has been occuring since the ice age?

Answer 10

I wonder why it is now being called "climatic change" and not global warming now. Is that because the temperature here has dropped to below normal?