Why do people think philosophical views about global warming are more credible than the data?

Question

Arguments against global warming here are most often just philosophy. "Man is too weak to affect the climate." "It has to be the Sun." "Volcanoes are powerful." "Scientists are lying to get money." "Politicians are lying to get money."

But science is about data. Scientists have seen much stranger things than global warming proved, because the data said so. Like quantum mechanics and relativity.

The data backing (mostly) man made global warming has been measured independently by thousands of scientists all over the world. Saying its all a conspiracy is nuts.

Theories that it's natural are not accepted in the scientific community because they don't match the observed data. Theories that it's mostly man made greenhouse gases are accepted because they do match the data. The key word below is "quantitative"

"Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Marc G - The low degree of uncertainty about things like factors which cause cooling, not warming, is not a factor in concluding that man made greenhouse gases are the main factor in warming. Or uncertainty about insignificant things like linear contrails. That's just an excuse for denial, not a reason. Why do you think the vast majority of scientists are not concerned that these uncertainties could make them wrong? As the question states, you're using vague philosophical arguments against solid data.

You also cite the DDT myth. DDT was never banned for use in reducing malaria. It was banned for use in agriculture in developed countries which had no malaria. The ban is not responsible for deaths due to malaria. Most scientists think outdoor use of DDT is useless in fighting malaria, by the way,

All of the above is just nonsense spread by right wingers who hate environmental protection programs.

Answer 1

The most frustrating thing about global warming deniers is that they refuse to analyze the scientific data and evidence in an unbiased manner. How do you argue with someone who says "humans can't alter something as large as global climate"? You can say "but look, the scientific evidence says that we can" and they'll just say "no you're being egotistical" and ignore the data.

Another frustrating aspect is that they'll attack the evidence (nothing wrong with that) and say that it's not proven that humans are causing global warming, but they can't offer any plausible alternative explanations. Then they'll say "until we know for sure we shouldn't act", but that's exactly backwards! The potential consequences of not acting are far far worse than the potential consequences of acting when we don't need to. Besides which, almost all the experts are telling us we need to act!

It boggles my mind that people rely on science on a daily basis (we're all sitting at computers using the internet right now), but when it comes to something as crucial as global climate change, suddenly they decide science is unreliable.

Very frustrating indeed.

Answer 2

The most important ways that the people can combat global warming is getting rid of their older model cars (1979 Buick) because, older cars emmitt more toxic fumes into the air. Its obvious that the more technological advanced a car is, the less harmful gases it emmitts. A car that was built 3 or 4 years ago will be more economy friendly than a car that was assembled 35 years ago. For high populated cities such as New York, Bus and Taxi companys should replace current vehicles with cars that are powered by hydrogen or electricity. Just think, if every major city used the Toyota Prius as taxi's, there would be a decreased level of pollution, and also taxi fares could be drastically lower as well.

Answer 3

The less responsible on here cry conspiracy. I accept that global warming is happening, I accept that man has some role, I am waiting for the understanding of the various radiative forcings to get to a high level of understanding so that proper attribution to each factor can be known.

I know you and others think that the data is quite convincing and that any changes in the other radiative forcings will be negligible in the overall radiative forcing regime. I on the other hand feel that an average and range of something with a low level of understanding is basically useless. A high level of understanding may result in significant changes in any of the non-GHG radiative forcing factors. We just don't know yet. That is why I am on board as saying more science is needed.

Until an accurate attribution can be made, good policy cannot be made. Bad policy is worse than doing nothing in my opinion.

As an aside, your quote from Mahlman really isn't that supportive of your point of view. It may not seem huge to you, but the context of that quote is very important. If he is talking about GW in general, then you have cherry-picked the quote and you are using it in a misleading way. If he is specifically talking about AGW, then put the remainder of the quote up so that we all can see the context.

For Dana:

You argue that waiting until we are sure is the exact oppostie of what we should be doing. This indicates that you believe we should be acting under the auspices of the Precautionary Principal. If this is so, then the burden of proof lies on you to prove that the actions you would propose are less costly (in terms of lives, economics, etc) than doing nothing. Is reduction of CO2 emissions the way to go? Carbon sequestration? Mitigation or prevention? What are the regional effects of GW and how should those play into policy decisions? What exactly should we be doing? What are the costs and benefits of taking those actions?

The Precautionary Principle is a piss-poor way to make decisions in my opinion. It often leads to unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Think DDT and millions of dead Africans for a really good example of this.

Bob:

DDT was for killing mosquitoes that carried malaria, typhus, and other such fun diseases. If you don't believe me, check out wiki's entry on DDT. It is a mixed bag of info with pro and con arguments.

Read it and you'll see that I am not far off base in asserting thata DDT ban was a bad thing for malaria control. A million deaths a year from among 300 to 500 million cases. It seems that I am not far off base, and you know, a little alarmism is needed to get the public to act.

And thanks, its been a long time since I have been lumped in with the right in an attempt to tell me that I am an idiot and dangerous because I don't think the right way.

Answer 4

Global warming is believed only on one premise.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Man creates CO2
the Earth is warming because of man.

However the climate is very complex and we have a very little understanding of how it works.

If it is true that man made co2 causes the temps to rise, then it should be easy to predict what temperature the climate will be at the present rate of pollution in 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years.

However no one who believes in GW will ever accept this challenge. We just have to take their word that they are right.

No one questions Ohm's law, because that can be proved. We know the speed of light as well. Even a 4th grader can duplicate the results. However no one can test the belief of gw. That's because it's not real.

Remember how real the Y2K bug was? GW isn't much different.

Answer 5

This is a reply to Logicalreason. I respect your views on global warming, but I'm afraid that you haven't really investigated all possible aspects of the money behind global warming.

Look into these oil companies and energy conglomerates:

British Petroleum (BP), Royal Dutch Shell (Shell), Sunoco, Con Edison, Sun Edison, General Electric, Duke Energy, and Alcan.

You may learn a lot more about the profiteering behind global warming.

Also do some research on DuPont.

See who is behind such companies as Carbon Investments, Generation Investment Management etc and the Al Gore connection to the Carbon Trade Industry, Carbon Offset companies, and a carbon tax system.

You may realize that all this focus on Exxon/Mobil is quite silly when there are bigger corporate interests that want us to believe in Global warming.

Pollution is a problem. The environment is an important topic. But instead of harmful pollution being controlled, companies will now be given a free pass to pollute more than ever before? Why, something as natural as CO2 has become the substitute villain.

Something as natural as CO2 is the focus of an emerging industry. Tremendous money is going into controlling this bogeyman instead of the real environmental problems and the problem of world poverty.

Please do your own research and then respond to what I'm saying. There is more money and corporate lobbyists on the side of Global Warming. That is why the media is saturated with Global warming alarmism. Follow where the money is being spent and by who.

There is a Liberal activist site that collects many articles on the emerging Carbon industry here:

http://www.carbontradewatch.org/

This is a collection of articles about the profiteering that is going on and how Global warming legislation is actually destroying the environment

http://www.tni.org/list_page.phtml?&keywords=CARB&show_orderby_form=N

It is unfortunate that the most popular sites that attack global warming theory come from conservative interest groups. But the truth be told, there are business interest groups on both sides and there is a saying where I come from: "It's better to deal with a known devil than an unknown one."

Just remember, nothing is a No-Brainer. There is always an angle. Life is not that simple. If there is a lot of media coverage, there is a lot of money being spent. Follow the money.

Answer 6

You say (and have said several times in recent answers): “The key word below is "quantitative"”

The problem is, it simply doesn’t matter how many times something is said; if it’s wrong, then it’s wrong. In Galileo’s time you couldn’t find quantitative arguments to make the idea that the world was flat go away, but that didn’t mean that the few arguments against that stance weren’t correct.

Saying: “the key word is "quantitative"” is just another way of saying “there’s a consensus” and, as I and many others have pointed out, in science consensus means nothing.

Am I sure, *absolutely* sure, that the AGW hypothesis is wrong? No, of course not.

Am I sure that its supporters have yet to *prove* that it a *fact* that we face some kind of a catastrophe? Yes, completely sure.

In truth, therefore, I argue against action being taken on AGW, not because I’m convinced it’s all wrong, but because I have yet to be persuaded that the scientists supporting AGW have a sufficient understanding of this extremely complex subject to make any kind of accurate predictions about what the climate will do.

Remember, until recently, they couldn’t even accurately recreate the past, and even now they have only managed to model the past few centuries, because the GCMs they use are so complex that they take a full day’s processing just to cover 25 years of climate. At that rate, it would take over a month of constant processing to model back to the Medieval Warm Period, to see if they could accurately cover that, and well over a year to model back to the last ice age, which is why it’s never been done.

However, the ability to model the past may be irrelevant since evidence shows that accurate modelling of the past is no guarantee of an ability to model the future. So, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Let these Global Warming Alarmists predict what temperatures will do in the next 10, or better yet 20, years and then in 10, or 20, years we’ll see how accurate they are. If they are spot on, then we’ll admit that they know what they are talking about and we’ll start to listen. However, I suspect that, as always, they’ll be way out; proof positive that they don’t fully understand the climate.

By the way, most of what is said by the GWAs is also nothing more than their own “philosophical views” as you put it. Take a look at the last link in my sources for a description of how James Hansen’s comments represent not the data, but his own personal opinions.

Thus, your question applies to *both* sides in this debate. I could just as easily state: Arguments supporting global warming here are most often just philosophy. “Hurricanes are getting worse.” “Sea levels will rise 20 feet.” “Polar bears are dying.” “Millions will die.”

As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.


:::EDIT:::

In response to dana1981 below…

Dana says: “The potential consequences of not acting are far far worse than the potential consequences of acting when we don't need to.”

But this statement is exactly what Bob’s question is all about, because it’s based on nothing more than dana’s own “philosophical views” about global warming. He’s assuming that the consequences of global warming are going to be catastrophic, but, while that may be a possible outcome, it’s far from being the most likely one.

Dana is assuming that today’s climate is the best we could ever have and that any change to that climate would be detrimental. This simply isn’t true, however. Historically, the Earth has been much warmer than it is today, and these warmer periods have been better for life than the cold periods. It is cold periods that cause mass extinctions, for example. See… http://newsbusters.org/node/12628

“Biodiversity reached its peak at the end of the tertiary age, a few million years ago, when it was much warmer than it is today. The development went in a completely different direction when the ice ages came and temperatures dropped, causing a massive extinction of species, especially in the north.”

A recent study in the U.K. states that warming may cause an extra 2,000 deaths per year during the hotter summers in the U.K., but may *prevent* 20,000 deaths in the warmer winters. So it will avert ten times as many deaths as it will cause.

Dana has simple formed his opinion based on the absolutely worst case scenarios he can possibly find and is asserting that this is what is going to happen. Based on that argument we should also prepare for an imminent Earth-asteroid collision – it’s happened before, it could happen again – and perhaps even for the Second Coming, or any one of the hundreds of end-of-the-world scenarios that exist.

We don’t prepare for them, because they are highly unlikely to happen. The same is true of the Global Warming Catastrophe scenario. The inescapable fact is that we have plenty of problems that are *already* killing millions, are *real* and are happening *now.* Perhaps, just perhaps, we should sort those problems out before we start working on a problem that *might* be real, that *could* become a problem, *sometime* in the future.

Answer 7

Those who have been convinced that "global warming" is man made are unwilling to look at the other side of the argument. There are too many unresolved questions and common sense thinking is necessary.

The short span of time in which measurements have been made give us inadequate understanding of all the dynamics of what makes up the cycles of climate. What is really normal or best? Evolutionary teaching uses millions of years to support the long trek to life as we know it today. So what is 200 years compared to millions?

Basing our conclusions on the existence of internal combustion engines and other industrial pollutants since the industrial revolution and saying that a warming trend is evidence that man is guilty of causing global warming is hardly scientific.

I saw an article recently about core samples of soil taken in Greenland under hundreds of feet of ice. They found tropical foliage under all that snow and ice.

Science is not always pure science. It is influenced by politics, greed, personal agendas and so on. Has it been conclusively proved that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming? I and many others believe the jury is still out on this whole matter. When the primary spokesman for global warming is a politician don't talk to me about "observed data and science."

Answer 8

Why? Call it "ostrich syndrome" First, because people believe what they want to believe. If global warming is happening due to human behavior, people will have to face taking responsibility and changing the way they live in order to reverse that fact, and that would take effort, (as in recycling EVERYTHING, etc.) sacrifice, (as in not driving unnecessarily, walking/riding a bike when possible, etc.) not indulging their every whim (as in consuming less, repairing things instead of replacing, etc.)

Also, "big business"--i.e., stinking rich multinational corporations and the energy industry--do not want to change their business practices, just want the bottom line, to sell sell sell no matter what the future global potential cost, and have had a HUGE P.R. campaign during the last 3 government administrations to hire their own "scientists" to "challenge" the facts of the bona-fide science regarding global warming. (As the tobacco companies did, hiring their own "scientists"--I put in quotations because any person of science who would sell out isn't a real person of science--to challenge that smoking causes cancer!) Thus, this media/P.R. campaign has duped the public, people for whom believing the truth would be inconvenient in the first place.

There was a PBS Frontline program on the exact topic of this duping of our system re: global warming entitled "Hot Politics", about "how bipartisan political and economic forces prevented 3 U.S. administrations from taking bold action on global warming," exact quote from the frontline website.

You can watch the full PBS/Frontline episode of "Hot Politics" about how that duping happened here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/view/

I hope you will--it is absolutely mind-blowing and disgusting how political lobbyists can thwart ACTUAL SCIENCE with lies and propaganda!!

Answer 9

The failed denial hypotheses are not "philosophical", they're bad science. Ideas like "It could be the Sun" or "volcanoes are responsible for most greenhouse gasses" are perfectly valid scientific hypotheses, it's just that these ideas have been investigated, and they are not supported by the data. To continue to espouse these hypotheses as possibly true while ignoring all the scientific work that has gone into their quantitative assessment is bad science, and furthermore is really annoying to the scientists who have done the work and advanced our knowledge.

So, what is the motivation behind this bad science? I think most of the time it is ignorance reinforced by wishful thinking or ideological bias. Sometimes it is a cynical lie, put forth as propaganda---then it's not just bad science, it's anti-science, the willful denigration of scientific methodology as an epistemological process. This is particularly troublesome, because centuries of experience have taught us that science is the most reliable method of understanding the world, its wonders and its dangers.

Answer 10

Psychologists have studied why people believe what they do. They found people tend to believe what they would like to be true. That will be the thing they will find most credible, and that's the way we all come out of the womb.

Then some people develop the ability to override their primal tendency due to some external influence. Some don't.

They ones who adhere to believing what they would like to be true are easy to manipulate by people who just tell them what they want to hear.