When a panel of 3000 independent scientists validate global warming as man made, what is the motive to deny it

Question

The more I read, the more evident it is that there really is no justifiable position for disputing it - the gainsayers seem to have obvious ulterior motives, every new argument gets quickly disproved (for example the whole cyclic theory disproved by a recent report showing the planet should be in a cooling period right now), and even the loudest and biggest dissenters (eg Exxon Mobil) are revising their positions from denying it to adaptive standpoints. So why do folks still treat it as a debate or deny it altogether? Each time I post a question on it folks - apparently intelligent, well-read folks - give references disputing the theory, and it takes about a second to find a huge number of seemingly impartial sources that shoot down each one. Anecdotally, the current floods, the drought in my native Australia, all this stuff seems a bit obvious to me.

So. Why do folks still dispute it?

Jack Kerouac: Could you name one please?

Right:

Richard b: "another panel of equally reputable scientists have an opposing opinion" Who? What is this panel? Can you name it?

Willow: "most of those 3000 scientists aren't actually scientists". Yes, they are. You can check their credentials in this document -http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf. The IPCC includes members from 130 countries so I wonder who you think might be paying them off exactly?

tonyisnt: "Global Warming doesn't matter in the long run; a livable earth does." I wonder what you are trying to achieve, more precise environmentalism? If the actions generated by averting GW are beneficial, does it matter what you define as the problem?

Continuing:

CO2 Agenda:
"What is you read?(sic)"
Many, many, varied sources, including deliberately seeking opposing views.

"how can BOTH flood/drought be GW?"
The other name is 'climate change' I think that should be enough to explain this one.

"Do you know those 3,000 'scientists'?"
No. Do you know the people who have proven the earth round? Why do you believe it then? Also, when you are questioning my research (I assume) by asking "What is you read", and then here imply that it doesn't matter what I read if I don't personally know the author, are you not contradicting yourself?

"YES I DO KNOW THE EARTH IS GETTING HOTTER - but I don't subscribe to the CO2 agenda"
So what do you think is the cause? Cycles? That's been disproven - admittedly by scientists I don't know personally, but by scientists nonetheless.

Answer 1

Well i am not the brightest person in the world, but I consider my sciences to be my best subject. I agree entirely with the theory of global warming and before anyone says i have been manipulated into thinking so by TV and Media, I will tell you that all of my opinions are completely my own.

Really what a lot of people say to deny global warming is that the earth naturally goes into hot and cold cycles, which is why we get ice ages frequently throughout history. The Earth however should be in the cooling process of the cycle, or a least heading towards it and its not. Why is this? It could just be delayed but I disagree with this, make up your own mind.

It is also suggested that humans have no effect on the climate and I find this an utterly ridiculous idea. The Earth heats and cools in the cycle as it has done long before humans were around and sure to occur long after were gone. But when the industrial revolution began carbon emitions increased, and at almost the same point in time the Earths temperature began to rise more rapidly than it was supposed to. This is not a coincidence, it's proof alone that humans have contributed to global warming.

Other people think that what we do has cant possibly do such damage to the world. Well it can, will is and has. If you don't think humans have ha power then think about a hurricane and the power it has. Technology is currently being developed to change the course of hurricanes to prevent damage on land. Within hours the course of the hurricane can be altered, one of natures greatest and uncontrollable forces. So what’s to stop years of human interference cause a few degrees temperature change, which can cause so much damage?

There is a lot more I could say about this however, most of it follows the same basic outline. I am afraid that the reason people deny the theory of global warming is that they are given the option to. If they agreed with the theory then it may cause them to feel some level of guilt whenever they drive to the shops or leave a light on. It would encourage people to give up their privileges in life which most people don’t want to do.

The next item to address is why are people given the option to deny the theory and who gives it to them? Well I believe the government has a large influence on this. If people want action taken against global warming then it could mean losing money, which I’m sad to say, seems to be the main goal for the government.

Answer 2

Why do folks still dispute this theory?
Yes that's correct it is a theory its a theory the same as the big bang, or God.
All completely unacceptable to me!
How many 'scienitists' swore blind the earth was flat, are these scientists never wrong?
I glanced through an article the other day where a group of Scientists said they had proved the sun was nothing to do with global warming?? So the sun rises the earth doesnt actually get warmer??
Right, thats good enough for me, tossers!!
The basic things about seas running into each other thousands of years ago , when there were not a lot of cars on the road or cheap flights to Spain , havent been answered to my satisfaction, and never will be.
When UG and his brother were wandering around the globe during the stone age, we have found some relics of wall painting, none of these (as far as I know) depict anyone holding up a mecury column and checking the ambient temperature.
I dont really want to go into carbon dating of bits of fossiled tree trunks , all BS.
Hope this helps??

Answer 3

The more you read? What is you read? Is it what someone else has already decided for you? Or is it your own research using original data that you analyse yourself?

No justifiable position for disputing those 3,000 'scientists'? Have you examined every justifiable position then? Somehow I doubt it.

You say that BOTH floods AND droughts are a result of global warming? How can you account for that then - how can BOTH flood/drought be GW?

You know they even said tsunamis are caused by GW? Do you believe that too? If so then how do CO2 emissions affect the submarine subduction of the Earth's crust that makes tsunamis happen?

Do you know those 3,000 'scientists'? Have you checked their credentials? Many so-called experts are nothing of the kind, many are government lackies, and all are specially chosen and funded to ensure they support the line that the UN/EU wish us to believe.

Do you know that even Hitler found scientists to support his ideas? Any government or organisation can find any amount of 'experts' they need to support whatever line they wish us to believe, and by the same token can utterly squash, silence, and ridicule anything that contradicts their line.

You wonder why intelligent well-read people on here dispute the CO2 agenda? It's because we've got the brains and initiative to look into it all a bit further than most others who think "Well it's from the government/EU/UN and it's got lots of scientists agreeing with it, oooooh, it MUST be right!"

And that's as far as they go with it - they don't stop to wonder if any of it REALLY IS VALID - they don't try to look into the issues themselves.

Time will tell. When Gore and his buddies have had a really great rich life on CO2 profiteering and are dead from old age let's just see if their CO2 agenda made one jot of difference - I'll place my bets now that it doesn't.

And YES I DO KNOW THE EARTH IS GETTING HOTTER - but I don't subscribe to the CO2 agenda, because it's a "Convenient LIE".

Answer 4

I know many people refuse to watch "the Great Global Warming Swindle" which is probably one of the least watched global warming movies due to how much it has been discredited. But if you did watch the movie, you would find that there are scientists in the movie who are among the 3000 or so independent scientists who validated the IPCC report. What they are saying is that their names are put on the report, but that they actually did NOT agree with the findings.

Any scientist who had his research used by the IPCC had his or her name put on the report. Then the PR groups and media made it seem that all these scientists approved of the report's conclusions. It was all just a PR stunt.

Some of these very same scientists who have their name on the IPCC report are interviewed in "The Great Global Warming Swindle." That's one of the reasons this movie became so controversial and why a massive campaign was launched to discredit it.

Answer 5

The simple fact is there are scientists on both sides of the argument, and all are paid by someone! All of them have a vested interest.

However, we can't deny global warming because the warming/cooling trend has been happening for millions of years. Even if it's not warming yet, the warming trend will eventually happen, and increase the earth's temperature by about 10 degrees (no theory here ... geologists have evidence to this). The scientists (at least most of them) aren't arguing about whether we have global warming ... most agree we do. They're arguing over if it's mostly natural or man-made.

Answer 6

Here are some scientific rebuttals to the various "denial" arguments above.

Why do folks still dispute it? I don't know, they're just wrong, and wrong in way that really may bring real destruction upon the whole world. Our civilization is going to have to move away from fossil fuel in a few centuries anyway as the oil runs out, so this refusal to begin the process now really does not make any sense. The world's climate scientists have made a near-unanimous statement that the world may be in great danger.

Answer 7

3000 scientists didn't validate AGW. 2500 scientists validated the IPCC report. Each scientist validated a small portion of the report, without regard for what other scientists validated.

Also, please note that the IPCC has validated a lengthy report that as a low level of scientific knowledge in 7 of the 9 forcing models that they use. A more conservative read of their data would be along the lines of this:

"We see a correlation between CO2 and warming, but there are other radiative forcing factors that are currently poorly understood. Any attribution to any particular cause is premature at this point. More study is needed so that a more accurate picture can be presented to policy makers."

Answer 8

There is EVERY reason to deny it! Especially what people are saying are the causes of global warming. There may be global warming, the discussion is still going on about that. The point of debate should be what is causing it.

Anyone who thinks that man is the reason is sticking their head in the sand and ignoring the geological data that proves that the earth has gone through many ice ages and warming periods in it's geological history. And what may have caused the warming between ice ages before men were around to produce the so-called "greenhouse" gases? I suspect it was the cycles of solar heat and radiation, but some liberal will probably tell you it was Mammoth flatulation on a major scale.

Do you seriously think that 3,000 scientists make up the majority of scientists in the world today? Have you ever determined how many of these "scientists" are actually climatologists? A great deal of them know very little about climatology because they are biologists or weather reporters on local TV. How many of them are taking money from government and private enterprise that reward them for saying what they are saying by giving them more money? It sounds to me like you are willing to take one side of the story, the one that plays the most to emotions and fears, than to do any serious research about the issue. If you only read or listen to what the liberal media and network television are saying, then you are only getting half the story.

You can't base a theory concerning something that has cycles that last for hundreds, or thousands, or even millions of years on one year's weather cycle or one season's temperatures.

I keep hearing of a "consensus" of scientists regarding the "proof" of man-made global warming. Science does not work from a "consensus." Science works from theories proven by facts and data taken from serious research and it is ALWAYS open to dispute and disproof. Personally, I find it only takes a few seconds to show the idiocy of "man-made" global warming as compared to "solar-induced" global warming.

Answer 9

there are many scientists who don't believe in global warming. one of them i can think of is richard lindzen. i know another, but i forgot the name of him, he's a professor at a school in wisconsin and he's the name who i believe discovered jet streams.

anyway, there is absolutely no proof that global warming exists. it's only a possibility. the earth goes through cycles, and it's been shown CO2 emissions only contribute a small margin to the greenhouse effect. furthermore, there is no accurate way to deduce the true temperature during times more than a hundred years ago; it was not recorded and (considering global warming currently only deals with increases of a couple degrees) innacurate and therefore completely unreliable. the earths cycles deal with temperature increases and decreases of a few degrees, exactly what we're going through
also, you may or may not have heard of the mini ice age half a millenium ago. the earth's climate is still coming out of it.

Answer 10

in the late 60's and early 70's the big problem was global cooling. many of the same people who are something needs to be done now about global warming, are the same people who said then that something needed to be done about global cooling. has the global temperature gone up in the past 150 years? yes. how much? 1 degree. coming out of hte last major ice age, the global temperature went up more than 10 degrees in far less time. and yes the geological record does show this. some studies say that man has a major hand in this round of global warming, others say it is a drop in the bucket. what many alarmists wont tell you is that this planet has seen every climate from planet fireball to planet snowball(yes it did happen about 600 million years ago, including ice 11ft thick on the oceans at the equator). again the geological record bears this out. the geological record also shows that before the last major ice age, the global temperature was hotter than it is now.

the point here is that the science behind the global climate, and how it changes, and what affects it, and to what degree, is not fully known. we do know that the earth is not the only planet in the solar system that is warming, mars is also warming, as is jupiter. why? we have no clue at this time.

one more thing, dont forget the law of unintended consequences. lets say that we do what global warming alarmists want us to do, eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and change over to solar power, hydrogen fuels, nuclear power, etc. we do all the "green energy" that can be done. we eliminate all greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and the temperature still goes up. in fact not only does it continue its upward climb, it accelerates. now what? or lets say that we do all of the above, and the global temperature does indeed fall, to levels this planet hasnt seen in 600 million years. again, now what?

this panel of 3000 scientists have their opinion, and another panel of equally reputable scientists have an opposing opinion. this only proves that we do not have the whole story on global climate change and how it works.