Who do you trust more to tell you the truth about global warming?

Question

(A) A consensus of several thousand nerdy Climatologists and Scientists, or (B) A scientifically illiterate administration that has rejected basic science when it doesn't suit their political agenda?

Choice (A) consists of numerous Nobel Laureates; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007; Joint science academies’ statement 2007, 2005, 2001; National Research Council, 2001; American Meteorological Society; American Geophysical Union; American Institute of Physics; American Astronomical Society; Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006; American Association for the Advancement of Science; Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London; Geological Society of America; American Chemical Society whereas Choice (B) consists of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and George W. Bush.

Forgive my ignorance, but what are Crichton's scientific credentials (other than being a mediocre MD who acknowledged plagiarizing Orwell)? MD's and authors aren't Climatologists, no more are Climatologists skilled at invasive surgical procedures.

Jeff Gordon Fan - Please try and understand this...Crichton is *not* a Climatologist, he's an Author. Just because one can write well and write a comprehensive biobliography does *not* make it fact. I could cherry pick all sorts of literature references and articles from, for instance, String Theory in Physics, but that doesn't make me an expert in the field, does it?

OK, the ball is in your court. For the answerer who said that for every Climatologist who "believes" in global warming, there is one who doesn't. OK, your homework assignment is to go to the Scientific literature (reputable journals such as Science, etc.) and come back with such evidence. Good Luck.

Answer 1

Boy you've got to love those global warming denier answers - science fiction writer Michael Crichton and crybaby 2-year-olds over the best climate scientists in the world. You know who I call when I have a medical problem? The cast of 'Scrubs'.

Just goes to show how irrational it is to deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming. They'll believe anyone who tells them what they want to hear and dismiss anyone who doesn't, regardless of credentials and scientific evidence.

Answer 2

First - Someone's high IQ does not mean they can't be wrong. I have a hard time believing that someone with a high IQ believes in global warming since the science does NOT back up the global warming theory. A high IQ means that you are able to reason and solve problems. It means you look at the FACTS and don't make decisions based on your feelings. I'm going to guess that she is lying about her IQ. Second - Do yourself a favor and look at the facts. The global warming side lies about their data. They put the sensors in places that are guaranteed to have high readings - like on blacktop and near air conditioning exhausts. They also fail to mention that they are only working with about 100 years of data, and the world is a bit older than that. The Earth naturally cools and warms over time. Sun flares have a lot to do with temperature changes. Look at ALL the facts and make your own decision. THAT is true intelligence. Don't just believe what one side tells you. Always question how they got their data and whether or not they have an agenda. This will serve you very well in life. .

Answer 3

Actually the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is "reevaluating it's position". Seems they've had a number of members resign over this issue and they're having trouble recruiting new Ph.D.s to join an organization that clearly is not in accord with science.

And Bush now says "OK, you got me. I can't deny global warming any more, so I'll just delay any action until I leave office."

Group B doesn't even have the intelligent conservatives:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

So, Group B is going to be down to Senator Inhofe, Michael Crichton, and Rush Limbaugh.

Answer 4

Lets see Choice (A) 10% scientists 90% pollititions and burocrats? (IPCC) 2007 that leaves out that gem of a scientific chart called the Hockey stick, that backs off all most all of the predictions of 2001 &2005? And is loosing scientists by the drove including Nobel Laureates after it's release. The United Nations the most inept corrupt organisation ever to be payed for by American Tax payers?

OR Choice (B) Any Seventh grader who would flunk math if the turned in work of the quality of Choice(A). The defecting scientist Including Nobel Laureates, Statatitions that can't be found any where near (IPCC)2007 because it would end their careers. And Myself I may not have a doctorate in basket weaving but can read a chart better than Choice (A)

Choice (B) Every Time because we can ask simple direct questions that Choice (A) can't answer.

Danni

Answer 5

Consensus science is people voting on an issue, and voting is not science. For every person who is a scientist who believes in man made warming, there's one who believes man cannot cause climate change. Who you believe is your choice based on emotion, not science.

When a person can show the relationship between mans activity and the warmth of the climate 6months, 1 year, 5 years in the future then I will believe that there is a relationship. But these "scientist" can't even get in the ballpark when it comes to predicting hurricanes each year.

Your "scientist" are no better than any soothsayer scamming the public with prediction of what the future will bring. And no one can predict the future. There is just as good of a chance that in 5 years we will be in a cooling trend as a warming trend.

The "consensus" has a very poor track record throughout history.

Answer 6

I trust the data and my personal analysis of it. Everyone else has an agenda other than the truth.

What the data tell me is:

1) Average global temperatures are increasing, and have been for about 20,000 years.

2) Atmospheric carbon dioxide has also been increasing for roughly 20,000 years.

3) Current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration levels are substantially higher than previous maximum levels.

4) Current global temperatures are substantially lower than previous maximums

5) Considered together, 3 and 4 show a very poor correlation between the level of man made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global temperature trends.

My conclusions from these data are:

1) It is clearly getting warmer

2) It has been warmer in the past

3) It will probably be warmer in the future probably about 3 degrees C warmer

4) There is nothing we can do to stop it

5) We need to accept this, stop pointing fingers and start getting ready for the inevitable.

Answer 7

The arrogance of some people… especially liberals. You take great pride in chastising others for ignoring differing viewpoints other than their own yet you are guilty of the same closed mindedness you vilify in others. You mount your high horse and “challenge” others to give you proof when all you have provided is conjecture, speculation and theory. What an egotist!

I hate to dampen your argument with facts but this is reality.

Fact: There is not enough reliable, accurate data to support, without a doubt, either side of the scientific argument concerning global warming pro or con.

Fact: The earth has gone through numerous drastic climate changes long before we humans ever came to be.

Fact: Even the most ardent pro global warming scientist has to admit he is only guessing.

Environmentalist knee jerk reactions have come back to bite us in the butt more often than not. The most likely cause of the rampant wildfires of the last 20 years across the west and Midwest is the lack of controlled burning to prevent same. Why…? Because it would destroy some creatures habitat. Now the habitat is gone, the critter is gone, and the surrounding soil is compromised to the point that mudslides are a constant and immediate danger when it rains. Not to mention all the pollution caused by millions and millions of acres of trees being burned to the ground. By the way those same trees… before they burned down… they were taking that nasty CO2 you hate so much and turning it into O2. But we had to save that rat right?????

Look, I don’t know who is on the right side of this issue but I do know this. History shows that there was a significant increase in global temperatures just prior to a even bigger decrease in global temperatures that lasted from around 900AD to almost 1850. Immediately prior to that was a sustained increase in temperatures over the preceding 200 years. How do I know this? Scientific studies of historical data and geological core sample data taken from all over the world. Those same studies also indicate that around 5,200 years ago another significant climate change occurred that put once tropical areas under hundreds of feet of ice. It was so rapid a change as to preserve the tropical vegetation once prevalent in the area. This too derived from “A consensus of several thousand nerdy Climatologists and Scientists.”

And no… I’m not going to provide you with proof. If you are truly objective and really want to get the information you can look it up just like I did. However, I doubt you will. Oh, and if anybody here is guilty of cherry picking their references you might want to look in the mirror to find them.

The major players in global climate change are enormous compared to our meager contribution over the last 100 years or so. That being the Sun and it’s radiant activity in relation to the earths orbital position. Not to mention the vast amounts of greenhouse gasses we do not have any control over. To believe we are equal players in that arena is just plain arrogant. That amount of arrogance is only surpassed by your over exaggerated sense of intellectual superiority.

Until scientists are better equipped to determine what the next step should be I think we are better served by not taking any steps to prevent a perceived possibility which may perpetuate an irreversible disaster. Remember the trees?

Answer 8

It's like the question of "Was Jesus a Jew?" If you answer "No", the intelligent people will mock you, and if you answer "Yes", the others will act threatening and abusive. The only difference is the future of our species depends on our answer to this one.

Reading all the posts in this section for the past week, I'm starting to think maybe the best question is, do those who understand have to wait for every half wit in the country to realize that his reservoir is dry, there are no more living cattle, there were no crops this year and his lawn is on fire? Or would it be wiser to start pulling together some realistic plans for survival with the rest of the existing majority?

Answer 9

When I read statements like this, why should I trust the climate science community.

“With the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I
gained significant credibility in the community of scientists
working on climate change. They thought I was one of
them, someone who would pervert science in the service of
social and political causes. So one of them let his guard
down. A major person working in the area of climate
change and global warming sent me an astonishing email
that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm
Period.”
Source: Presentation by S McIntyre At Conference Stockholm Sweden, September 9 2006

A while later Mann came out with a temperature reconstruction study that eliminated the medieval warm period. This study passed the peer review process, and is considered flawed. I do not need proxy studies to show me that the medieval warm period existed, when history shows otherwise. http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

Answer 10

Well, the nerds don't have a good track record with me. The global cooling scare in the 70's was a load of b.s. I'll go with the geological evidence and ice cores from past climates.

Seems to me like global climate change is a normal occurrence.

Answer 11

C. Michael Crichton - Lots of people like to take Al Gore and others at face value and are totally unwilling to hear the other side of the story. Read State of Fear! This book includes a comprehensive bibliography documenting it's scientifically backed evidence.

If you had read the book or my comment you would have noticed that the book features an extensive bibliography that documents scientific evidence that support his (and others) claims.

You are of course correct that Michael Crichton is not a climatologist, and I never claimed that his book was entirely fact. The point is, we don't know what is causing global warming. Because climatologists "agree" does not make their opinions fact either. Global warming is still in the realm of theory. Right now Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto are all experiencing their own versions of global warming according to NASA. Last time I checked there were no humans in any of those places to cause greenhouse gas emissions. If we can't explain those phenomenas how can we expect to predict what will happen on our own planet? The answer is that we can't, we just don't know yet. That is the spirit that Michael Crichton's book was written in and the fact that it has numerous scientific references only makes it more credible, not factual.