Why is skepticism about global warming any different than believing the Earth is 6000 years old?

Question

In both cases you have to ignore a massive database of information contrary to your view. In both cases the vast majority of the scientific community disagrees. In both cases there are a few very noisy skeptics (some are scientists, most are very much not) who claim the truth of their skeptical views, demanding that they be given equal status, which is silly, given the state of the science. In both cases you can't "run the experiment" and have to rely on circumstantial evidence for the truth. Much of the evidence is only available to, and can only be interpreted by, trained scientists.

What's the difference? Global warming skeptics accuse global warming theory of being a "religious" belief. Giving the state of the science, isn't that term most appropriately applied to global warming denial?

To all those who said that there have been natural changes before.

That's true, but it doesn't mean the present change is another natural one. Scientists have proven the present warming is 80-90% caused by us:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727

Theories that this change is natural have been proven false because they don't numerically match the observed data. Only theories which include man made greenhouse gases as the main cause work quantitatively (numerically). Which is the key word in this quote:

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Mr. Jello - The weather in one place says absolutely nothing about the global climate. I know you've heard that before, what is hard to understand?

Accusing Hansen of doing this for the money is really silly, and ignorant of the facts. He first testified about the reality of man made global warming before Congress in 1988. For years he was discouraged by his bosses in doing this work and in speaking out. At one point he was forbidden to speak publicly. It was as they say, a classic bad career move.

He recently got an award, in large part for his courage in standing up to his bosses disapproval for so many years. If he started this work 20 years ago and persevered through disapproval and abuse just to get this award now, he's an unequaled genius and you should definitely listen to him.

Harry H - You say the IPCC is a policy group, which is wrong. It's a group of scientists. Their work is reviewed by policy people before it's released.

The scientists have been pretty successful in keeping their basic science intact through that review. It is true that some adjectives are changed a little.

And the effect of that change is consistently to cast more doubt on global warming than is in the scientists original work.

For example in the last IPCC report the scientists wanted to say it was 95% certain than man was most of the reason for global warming. The policy people changed that to 90%. Not much of a change and in the wrong direction for your argument.

To the extent that the IPCC sees political input, it serves to REDUCE the concern of scientists about man made global warming, not increase it.

Answer 1

There is no difference--you are exactly right. Both "beliefs" are the result of ignorance, not genuine faith.

BTW--the belief that the Earth is 6000 years old isn't even Biblical--there is no place in Scripture wher an age for the Earth is given. But then, these people don't even know the Bible--just what their leaders have indoctrinated them to think.

Answer 2

I'm a skeptic.

That does not mean I DON'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING. It doesn't mean I DO believe in global warming. It just means that I just don't know.

Most scientists that I know personally feel the same way. They are not absolutely sure. It s in their nature to be skeptical, especially when dealing with a science based on computer models which most hard scientists will tell you can't be relied on.

For instance, I've learned that a computer cannot even calculate an integral. A computer uses summation to approximate as close as possible the solution to an integral but cannot give the actual solution.

Computer models are dependent on algorithms. To create an algorithm is very difficult work in itself and most hard scientists distrust modeling because as the data gets more and more complicated the algorithms get more and more off target. Mathematicians are needed to make many checks on the algorithms used just to verify if the logical structures are valid for the functions. When statistical functions are used, these algorithms are impossible to work at any level that any scientist could possibly accept on good faith.

So there ends up being much variation on the model results and much interpretation of the results.

So Climatology can't be put on the same page other sciences that rely less on computer modeling methods.

Skepticsm is natural to science. A skeptic is not a denier. He's simply not a believer.

Science is not based on belief. No scientist would believe that the earth is 6000 years old. I'm not a scientist but I've always taken a skeptical approach and it's worked well for me. That's why I'm able to read both sides of the debate and at the age of 80 plus, my mind is in the best shape than it's ever been.

Being skeptical and scientific is actually good for your health.

When a scientist goes on the record saying he does not deny global warming, that doesn't make him a believer. He may very well be a skeptic. Scientists try not to make absolute statements. So the media can spin it out any way they want and so can policy bodies like the IPCC.

Answer 3

A star for this question! I agree with Dana that it might be some small differences regarding the strength of the scientific evidence but despite what many people in this section seems to believe the arguing is more about the scope and not about whether global warming exists or not.

The arguing among scientists is about things like
what the consequences may be?
to what degree humans already affects the climate?
how much the increased greenhouse effect may increase the global temperature in the future? and
how it will affect droughts, rain and storm patterns around the world?
They may also argue about the best ways to solve and mitigate the problem.

If confronted, no credible scientist with experience in this field what so ever will agree on any of the below statements. (Not even among those who delivers other explanations for global warming!)

"No, we have no global warming at the present" or
"No, increased greenhouse gases in our atmosphere cannot affect the climate" or
"The increased greenhouse gases in our atmosphere has nothing to do with human emissions and/or deforestation".

Yet, these arguments can be seen here on Yahoo Answers.
Believing in any of the above statements is the same as believing the earth is only 6000 years old.
Try me, give a climate scientist these statements and ask "your" scientist to put "agree" without any additional notes behind and please don't forget to let us know what happens. (Or why not check if "your" politician dares to do the same?)

I agree it's the deniers who applies a more religious look at this question. They don't have to "know" the facts the just find it easier to "believe" it's natural.

EDIT:
To Harry H below: And when a scientist says he has doubts about a certain aspect of man made global warming it doesn't mean he denies it either - "So the media can spin it out any way they want " (your words)

Answer 4

The differnce is the impact of taking on the belief.
Believing the world is only 6000 years old may ignore scientific data, but that is fine because it doesnt effect anyone

Yet here ignoring scientific data can effect the world today. Looking at the future we have no idea what will happen. Now we can ignore what science is saying, and our kids will have to pay the price. Saying the world is 6000 years old, maybe that could be possilby true maybe its not. It doesnt immediately effect anyone. Here lies the essence, with global warming interference it can dictate our future. A rabbi once told me that the first good deed listed in the old testement is to take care of the world. It states this through making sure to plow your field in the garden of eden, or something like that I cant remember the details off hand. Well religious people alike, everyone knows it is a responsibility to maintain a healthy world. So when the world actually began can be debated, but when ours will end that we need to deal with.

Answer 5

The science is selective. Why measure in just the last 100 years? That's just a blink of an eye in the time of man. It's done to use data that fits the theory. If you used a longer time, you would come to the conclusion that today is no different than past years.

Heres an example, look at this graph: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/NPC-NewVersion_files/image012.jpg

This was on the Goddard Institute web site. Clearly the climate was not much different than today, if not even cooler today. However, Dr. Hansen removed the data that didn't fit what he believed. Look at the graph, the time from 1950 to present give a very view of warming.

Here's the graph you'll find today: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/NPC-NewVersion_files/image013.jpg

Dr. Hansen has profited greatly from "global warming"/ Raking in $250,000.00 from a democrat campaign for his support from working on movies about warming. He's tainted and should be removed from Goddard.

Answer 6

these people won't change their mind even when the IPCC announces 100% ccertainty. In fact they believe the IPCC is little more than a bunch of conspiring scientists. This is the same group that still denies evolution. Yet they benefit directly from the principles of evolution through new drug designs and many other medical break throughs. Just like they will benefit from pro-active measures to curb global warming. So, as usual we liberals and moderates must carry the weight to change the world while the cons sit on their fat ***es listening to uneducated talking heads like rush limbaugh.

Answer 7

For starters, I would like to say right off, I do not believe the world is 6000 years old.

I also do not believe your claim that believing in global warming is a no brainer. I have read far to many articles from noted experts who are professors in prestigious universities, and in NASA, who are sceptics. Are you saying these people have no brains?

The German government did a poll of scientists that found that the majority of scientists are undecided on this issue. Here is an interview by Karl Wunsch, the very same man who criticized the "Great Global Warming Swindle", who states plainly that the science is still out, but who is of the opinion we should adopt the precautionary principle.
http://www.cjob.com/shows/adler.aspx?mc=62757

So the question is who should I trust? I do not trust you for saying this is a no brainer. I know for a fact you are misleading people. So what other issue are you misleading us? I also see that most of the most ardent and vocal supporters are also anti-capitalist and anti-religious. So I do not trust them. I also do not trust people who try to intimidate and silence others who are sceptical of AGW.

That is why I am a sceptic. It has nothing to do with religion. It is the messengers that we do not trust.

Answer 8

The difference is the conflicting scientific evidence. Everyone agrees that the earth goes through natural cooling and warming cycles, due to variations in its orbit and the energy output of the sun. This has happened thousands of times. Just 30 years ago, there was a growing scientific consensus that the earth might be facing a new ice age. And climate issues aside, people have reason to doubt scientists. We constantly hear that some food once thought to be bad for us is actually good for us, or vice versa, that a new breakthrough medical procedure is actually worthless, that a disease that was completely under control is making a big comeback, etc, etc. I'm sure you can think of other examples. Very few people read scientific journals. They form their opinions based on what they hear from people they trust, and those people are not yet convinced. Don't worry, most people will eventually come around. This is a pretty new, pretty dramatic idea, and it's impressive to me that so many people already understand.

Answer 9

To believe something is equated with religion
Global warming is killing people
150.000 annually which is expected to double soon .
that has gone beyond belief.

One only has to look at man made destruction's of the environment .
Deforestations, ,desertification because of past wars or irresponsible agriculture and expanding urbanization

Exchanging leaves for concrete tar ,mono culture farming and desserts,Both in the past and today

Add it all up and realize ,how much we have changed this Planet .
Changed climates of enormous patches in many places all over the world.
That has done something ,and pollution is another story on top.
Only People living beyond reality can hope to believe that everything is dandy devoid our blame.

So if you compare people who believe this planet is 6000 years old ,yes they can roughly be put in the same category
whether they be apples ,radishes or bananas

Answer 10

Because most of the history of the earth has been ice free, including on the poles. The tempertature of the earth is much lower than during its most productive eras.

Each of those eras was millions of years long, not collectively amounting to 6000 years.

We currently live near one of the lowest average temperatures in the history of the earth. Each time a disaster has caused the temperature to drop as low as it now is, the correction has been rapid and, if you had lived too close to the coastline, dangerous. It was not at any time before or now, however, bad for the rest of the earth when it returns to its median temperature range.