Why can't GW deniers defend their claims?

Question

Global warming deniers often make claims like "one volcano eruption emits more CO2 than humans do in 5,000 years", but they never support those claims with links or other scientific evidence.

Sometimes they'll link Inhofe's website or a similarly biased site like junkscience.com or co2science.org, but rarely even use relatively unbiased media articles, let alone scientific websites or papers.

There are of course some exceptions, which makes them skeptics rather than deniers.

On the other hand, global warming acknowledgers will usually cite several different valid sources to support their arguments.

Do GW deniers simply not care about science or evidence, do they think they're smarter than climate scientists, or are they simply oblivious to the impotence of their arguments?

Answer 1

Sorry Long Answer, but I have wanted to answer a question like this for ages and held my tongue LOL.

Global Warming is a difficult subject to understand well enough to make an informed decision. You have to be really interested to take the time to go back to the source documents quoted in Y/As which are credited as being 'GOOD' sources on both sides. Now even then they make difficult reading, without a background knowledge and some idea of the issue's history.

Whilst Y/As is fantastic for answering some questions, for those who really want to delve deeper than this, there only is one way to do so in reality, that is, reading source documents on both sides of the issue and discussing/debating any issues arising.

I consider that claims that are not defended by sources are from one of three categories;

Firstly, the casual, 'oh that is interesting, I will ask a question about it' they want simple questions answering and are usually happy with ANY response. These are perfectly suited to this kind of forum. They do not need to defend their claims. They seek information.

The second type are the 'I have read this and it does not make any sense'. Again sometimes they do defend their claims, but without enough knowledge about the subject, they select sources which are discredited, not valid etc.

It is this group that needs to really read the source documents and invest some time in reading around the issues. But usually don't. So again, Y/A is a good forum, slow, tedious but questions can be answered one by one. Issues can be 'debated'.

My solution to this would be to combine the best answers already asked for each question and just paste it every time it is asked. So Cherry Pick previous best answers ON BOTH SIDES of the argument and paste it as a response.

The well informed 'challengers' I argue use excellent sources, who also try to give a balanced view. Their sources, and I am sorry Dana and fellow GW supportor buddies for this comment, but their sources are often dismissed, overridden or railroaded. Blanket statements are made 'Not credible, not valid'. It often makes ME feel that there is something to hide.

I think the fault lies with us for this. If we consider that these sources are not credible or their claims not valid, we should challenge this by explaining to this last group why we have that view, support it with our own sources.

Even if it takes several questions to debate the issue point by point. Lets get these out in the open and check it out. Sometimes everybody can be wrong.

We need to go back and review our positions on these issues every so often, review the opposing literature. I know those who do this for their job will have done this. BUT you have come to your conclusions yourself, you give us your conclusion without explanation as to why/how you came to that conclusion. I consider that this is where the skeptics concept of GW pure faith by followers comes from. YOU have read it, understood it, have reasons for this, then present it as a conclusion that 'believers' should believe. If we still are of the same opinion after we have reviewed the literature on both sides, then defend challenges point by point in the open.

The very last category are trolls - ignore them.

Answer 2

Not very. Tell me some thing, buddy: the media continuously speaks of an "overwhelming consensus". How are we able to verify this for a truth? How many scientists simply parrot what the elite scientists say is correct? Do you realise what I'm getting at? Why can we consider we all know what is taking place on the earth? Because the media claims it. How do we all know which claims are truly and which aren't? How a lot of our fact is being built for us? Once you realise that individuals simplest consider what they're instructed is right, you'll be able to see how we fell into this grand phantasm matrix.

Answer 3

Dana,
Using your definition of deniers and skeptics, I agree that the first often make wild, unsubstantiated claims without much other reason then causing confusion. But, after all, what else can they do?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm

James69sk82001,
The weather versus climate discussion has been held many times and ample explanations has been given. There is a difference between predicting specific weather events compared to the probabilities that such events will occur. Compare with playing cards in Las Vegas. The house won't be able to predict which hand you will get or who will win in a certain hand. However, the probabilities is on their side and they ensure that they( the House) will win in the long-term. In the same way it can be said what the trends will lead to over longer periods. I think this is pretty self-explanatory but if you want a more in depth explanation, and its source, give a shout and I'll provide it.

amancalledchuda,
The climate would be roughly 33 degrees C colder if there were no greenhouse gases on Earth. It isn't just CO2 but all GHG's. This is not an unsubstantiated claim.
Edit.
My bad amancalledchuda, you are right. I see that both those statements that you provided are equally incorrect. Thanks for the clarification. :)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Answer 4

GW skeptics do care about science, and the GW alarmists don't know science from marketing.

For example, your scientific paper that declared GW as a fact was signed by 2,500 PEOPLE, but less than 25 real scientists, and less than a dozen people actually saw the document before their "signature" was attached.

Now, if you care so much about science, how about explaining why the models that predict GW doom will not accurately predict the past?

I can tell you why, it's because the link between CO2 and GW is only a CONNECTION, and real scientists know that "connection is NOT causation". It's possible that GW causes CO2 level increases, and it's possible that there's a third intervening factor as yet undiscovered, and if that is the case, the GW alarmists are discouraging anyone from looking for it.

Most of the alarmists are simply oblivious, to use your word, of the fact that the "science" simply isn't there. Most of them can't even explain how the greenhouse effect works, and don't realize that without it, the planet would be an iceball in the first place.

If you assume, as the alarmists do, that Man is capable of destroying the planet by causing GW, then you have to recognize that we are capable of causing similar or worse damage in other ways, and this should give you pause before enacting legislation in panic, as you could be causing worse damage than you even imagine will happen without the intervention of the elitists that think they know everything about the climate, even though we can't accurately predict when and where a given hurricane will make landfall next week.

Basically, the GW skeptics all realize that the alarmists are idiots.

Answer 5

Oh *please*, dana. I think it's fair to say that you’re in the running for the prize for the most hypocritical person on here.

Are you seriously suggesting that no Global Warming Alarmists ever make similar outrageous and unsupported claims?

Only today I saw an answer on here which stated that, without CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature would be 30°C colder.

And I’ll remind you for the second time in a day that you yourself support your arguments with Mann’s flawed “hockey-stick” graph, and claim that Hansen’s 1988 guesses of temperature in 2000 were “extremely accurate”.

This kind of thing is true of some people on *both* sides of the argument and, I would suggest, you damn well know that, which means you’re being extremely disingenuous with this question.

I advise you to think a little more carefully about the questions you ask in the future, dana, if you wish to retain any credibility at all on this site.

:::EDIT:::

belladonna d: As a sceptic I, predictably, don’t always agree with your answers, but your answer here is excellent. Have a “Good Answer” from me. :)

You said…

“…their sources are often dismissed, overridden or railroaded. Blanket statements are made 'Not credible, not valid'. It often makes ME feel that there is something to hide.”

I couldn’t agree more. It’s akin to stating that a particular news story is invalid and basing that claim on the fact that it appeared in the wrong newspaper. That’s not how science works; that’s how politics works.

:::EDIT2:::

To Anders, below…

Thanks for the lesson, but I was actually well aware of the truth. My quote was *not* a typo, the alarmist said it would be 30°C cooler without *CO2* in the atmosphere. This statement is quite obviously and laughably wrong and is just as bad as “Volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans ever have.”

Very few GW supporters on here will correct the outrageous claims of the alarmists, but will immediately pounce on the slightest, perceived inaccuracy from the sceptics. (As you’ve just done with me, suggesting *I’m* the one who has got it wrong.) The double standards on display here are breathtaking.

Answer 6

oh, they can be defended.

the problem is your type always have an excuse not to believe it.

it's a blog
they are paid by Exxon
that's right wing
that didn't really happen
you wait another 10 years....
yada yada.......

on the other hand, you see no hypocrisy in you and your bumpkins when you can:

quote Al Gore
any left wing blog is acceptable. nay, encouraged
flip flop
claim all your scientists work for free (unlike Exxon scientist)
continually change the story to fit the facts
get caught in half truths,lies and distortions

frankly, you don't want to listen to reasonable debate.

"the debate is over" according to you people.

"99% of the scientists agree..."

"the concensus says...."

why the chirade?

this fairy tale fits YOUR "belief" and you're willing to do what ever it takes to promote it.

"even if it isn't true, we still need to clean up the planet" is the mantra.

i say we're doing a pretty good job so far. especially compared to just 40 years ago.

but for you people, it's NEVER enough.
it's never "we have found common ground".

Answer 7

Hello

In your question you already indicate that GW is real.
That answers the question in the heading: "Why can't GW deniers defend their claims?"

Answers is : Because there is no scientific evidence to support deniers claims.

Then you ask an either/or question - in which the options
are not exclusive.

Some do not care - because they do it for money -
as described here
href=http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp

Most of those are listed here.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

Some are (probably) not being paid and do think they are smarter then most scientists.

That includes 'Lumo' here
links2.txt~:http://motls.blogspot.com/search/label/climate

and President Klaus here:
http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=270956

For more detailed analysis visit this EU blog
http://crossroads.cafebabel.com/en/

Petr

Answer 8

Dana..."Deniers" could give 1 or 100 links to sites that refute manmade global warming. Just as you could provide 1 or 100 links that show man is responsible for the global climate changing. I think the people who believe man is responsible, and you've claimed in the past that that is almost everyone, should do everything they can to stop global warming. I wish you well.

Answer 9

Openforone, the reason why climate models can't accurately predict the past is first of all you don't predict the past because it has already happened, and second of all the climate models are based on current weather and climate conditions. Sorry to disappoint you.

Answer 10

Do you think climate science.org or wikipedia is a valid source? Climate science is a web site run by scientists with a political agenda. Wikipedia is a site that can be edited by anyone.