Why do global warming doubters think they know something topscientists do not?

Question

Top scientists has evaluated 928 scientific studies and concluded that there IS global warming happening, and WE are the cause. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)
Now, why do some people belive they somehow has more information or knowledge about this than these experts who has been researching this for years?
Why do they think they know ANYTHING, or has any new angles on the problem (after searching 5 minutes in the web) that these scientist has not already taken into account for years?
And if anyone gives me that crap about the wrong data from NASA, do you homework, 3 mintue search and you will realize that has no value. AT least according to climate scientists (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/ ). But who listens to them these days?

Answer 1

We don’t, we look at their data and find flaws in their reasoning and their conclusions. I have no doubt that the plant is warming. It has happen in the past and I have no doubt that it’s happening again, just like the planet has cooled in the past and it will cool again. I would find it far more interesting if the planet wasn’t heating up or cooling down, it would be the first time in HISTORY when it wasn’t heating up or cooling down.

The global warming doubters as you call them, don’t believe the climate models that can’t be set back for more the a few hundred years and come to today’s climate. Why would you put faith into something that is PROVEN to be flawed?

I personally don’t believe that the science is settle, yes there is a consensus position, but at one time the scientific consensus position was that continents didn’t drift, it was settle, well the consensus was wrong. That is one of many times where the science was settled and there was a consensus that was later proved to be wrong.

Second a lot of the reports don’t pan out, they mix and match, take CO2 for example in one study they used ice core samples from Greenland and compared that to air measurement from next to a volcano in Hawaii, to show an increase in CO2 concentration. If you take ice core samples for Greenland wouldn’t it make since to take air samples from Greenland?

Third the increase they are claming is going to happen is within the error +- of the claimed mean temperature. It could be, I’m not saying it is, what we are seeing is just better measurement.

I could go on and on. But, if you really want to know what the experts know ask them this; “What is the optional temperature of earth?”

After all if they are really experts they should know the answer to that at least.

Now if you really think you can PROVE man is responsible for global warming then go here http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com and enter the contest and win $100,000. All you have to do is prove man is causing global warming,

For someone as smart as you, it shouldn’t be any problem.

Good luck

Answer 2

A great many global warming skeptics are in fact top scientist. The scientific evidence is far from conclusive on the issue of mans impact on the climate and there is considerable room for differences between well informed and knowledgeable people. I would also suggest that you not use words like believer, denier or doubter as these all belong to the vocabulary of faith and religion and not to that of science. The correct terms from a scientific perspective would be proponents, oponents and skeptics

Answer 3

Let's stop calling skeptics deniers, shall we? A denier says that he is absolutely sure and has positive evidence that there is no such thing as global warming.

A skeptic is someone who sits on the fence. Many of them end up thinking that global warming must be a hoax because why else would skeptics be attacked by ad hominem, death threats, accusations of being in the pockets of oil companies, accusations of being right wing or a christian fundamentalist, etc. instead of allowing for a debate?

Newsweek is a perfect example of the state we are in. The poor scientists who are skeptics and want to get a word in gets beaten down again and again and bullied, fired from jobs, victims of defamation, undergo massive prejudice for holding their view, and can only speak in private.

And this in a free country, America. Now which experts should I listen to, the ones who are free to express themselves or the ones who are not? That is my question to you.

Answer 4

Maybe it's because we've heard it all before about other crises that never came to pass--the population bomb, the ozone threat, global cooling.

Why, for example, did environmentalists oppose nuclear power 30 years ago but embrace it now? They correctly point out that it emits fewer so-called greenhouse gases, but it always has. What was the scientific basis for opposing it before? Answer: There was none. They cooked the research then, and they are cooking it now.

Environmentalism is Marxism in disguise. Environmentalists always attack large companies and capitalist societies. The solution is always taxation. They now want to redistribute wealth through carbon credits. They never point the finger at the carbon emitting/oxygen-killing practices Third World economies--slash-and-burn farming, heating and cooking with wood, the burning of trash and agricultural refuse.

The day environmentalists recommend something other than taxing the wealthy is the day they will be taken seriously.

Answer 5

Because your top scientists use models for predicting the rate of global warming for the next fifty years that do not accurately predict what happened during the last fifty years if applied backward.

Our top scientists also have a more plausible alternate theory. Instead of higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere being the cause of global warming, the warming trend is the cause of higher concentrations of CO2.

The bottom line is that the models used to "prove" the conclusions of your "scientists" do not predict the past. A real scientist would conclude that there is something wrong with the model.

Answer 6

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm

see also co2science.org

Sounds like you don't listen to scientist either, because many question the data and assumptions used. More and more now questioning data. Most do agree with global warming, just questioning cause assumptions and theories.

Answer 7

Are these the same top scientists who were yelling thirty years ago that we were about to freeze in the dark?

Answer 8

I find it funny that people still believe in this hoax. Why has earths tempature only gone up 0.5 degrees in the past 100 years??? Maybe were getting closer to the sun every year. Why dont these so-called scientiest ever want to debate the issue with credible scientist who have no money to make off it???

Answer 9

top scientist or top liars?

are these the same "top scientists" who claimed that we were heading for an ice age in the 70's if we didn't change our ways?

or the ones that said we'll be out of oil by the year 2000?

perhaps it was the "top scientists" that said we can't maintain the current population, and if we continue to increase world population, by the year 2000, we'll have famines.

maybe people are tired of the LIES just to get gov't grant money. you have to come up with an "end of the world theory" to get attention so you can get grant money.

it was the same thing with the "ozone hole".

Answer 10

Another good question would be: "Why do all of the global warming believers think that they are so righteous?"