Is it irresponsible to dispute anthropogenic global warming if you can't explain it?

Question

I hope we can all agree that the generally accepted scientific explanation for the current global warming is that human greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause. Certainly there are some scientists who dispute this, but the vast majority agree with this consensus.

I'm not here to discuss the consensus. I asked global warming skeptics to provide me with an alternative explanation regarding the source of the current global warming if it's not due to humans. Not a single reasonable alternative has been provided, and most people didn't even try, falling back on the same old lame 'Mars is warming' type of discredited talking points.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ahj_9Ts6XCPlEPR8x0ZiSSPsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070918131739AAOVSf8

So if most scientists agree that humans are the primary cause, and if you can't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation, given the potential dangers if scientists are right, isn't it irresponsible for you to ignore their theory?

Wow, lots of lame and irresponsible answers so far.

Seriously, stop with the 'Mars is warming too' crap. I addressed that in my other question.

Answer 1

I agree, people shouldn't dispute it either way if they can't explain it either way. That means Rush Limbaugh and his volcano lie.

Answer 2

You know Dana, if any reasonable person went to their doctor and the doctor said "I'm sorry but I think you may have cancer, if we act now we can deal with it" it would be a fool who would ignore their doctor or try to brush aside the doctor's expert opinion. Well, the scientists are telling us the planet has cancer and that we need to act now before it gets worse. Too many people are ignoring them. Too many people are being slefish - it's not their planet it's everone's planet. - - - - - - - - - - - - TO C.BARLA (Above) Let me shed some light on the valid points you made. The last ice agen ended due to the position of Earth within the many cycles that it and the Sun go through, these cause peiodic and predictable warming and cooling. These natural cycles have been around since time immemorial and are the sole trigger for historical warming and cooling. We do know why the planet is waring today - an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. By and large the same gases provide a natural greenhouse effect that ensures this planet maintains a habitable temperature. They effectively insulate the planet due to their physical capability of blocking the escape into space of thermal radiation. Any changes to their concentrations affects the insulative properties of our atmosphere. We also know a great deal about the sun, so much so that we can measure variance down to millionths (of Watts per square metre per year) Finally, no these aren't the same people that were foretelling the coming of another ice age back in the 70's. This is more the work of the media than of scientists and is something that some skeptics have blown out of all proportion. In truth, there was no global cooling scare in the 70's as anyone who was around back then will confirm.

Answer 3

Well first off, most scientist do not agree, it is a little under 50%.

That is based on a review of scientific papers presented to peer review publications.

As to why the earth is warming, maybe because we came out of an ice age 100 years ago ?

Scientist still cannot explain what caused the warming period that started around 300 AD and ended with the advent of the little ice age in the 1600's.

It was warm enough in this period, that they could cultivate grapes in England and export wine. Something it is to cold to do today.

Scientist still cannot explain the origin or causes of the little ice age from 1600 to the late 1800's.

Scientist cannot explain, why the little ice age ended and a warming period started.

Scientist cannot explain, why we had a 35 year cooling trend from the 1940's to the mid 1970's.

So if the computer models, cannot predict the past, even using known data from ice core samples.

Why would we believe they can predict the future, using the same data ?

Even if you take all the data at face value, mankind still only contributes less than 10% of all greenhouse gas's.

And even the most optomistic programs to reduce manmade greenhouse gas's, will only reduce them about 3%.

Thats 3% of the 10% of greenhouse gas's that are manmade.

So we would be reducing greenhouse gas's about 0.3%

Thats not gonna save us, if what the Global Warming scientist say is true.

Do you really think the Global Warming crowd, is ready for the introduction of nuclear power on a grand scale ?

Because nuclear power, is the only viable alternative to replace all the fossil fuel power plants we have now.

Fossil fuel power plants that are the largest single source of manmade greenhouse gas's.

Answer 4

The scientific community with a majority of 93% branded Thomas Edison a fool and said Electric Light was an impossibility.

The Scientific American publication claimed that the Wright Brothers flight was a hoax and man would never fly.

Scientists have agendas just like you and I.

Clearly the largest consensus (a political term by the way not a scientific one) are scientists in the employ of a political organization, the UN (IPCC). Science which is politically motivated is not science its politics.

There are thousands of scientists that dispute the findings of the IPCC. However, the agenda is to promote anthropogenic climate change not to dispute it, so there is far more information supporting your side of the argument than there is detracting from it. And since I am a finance guy and was never very good at science I'm going to refrain from discussing scientific theories. I'll just let these guys do it:

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=4499562022478442170&hl=en

Edited: Actually Chance the "theory" of electric light was around for about 50 years but no one could create a long-lasting home application and that is why all the scientists claimed that Edison was a fool and a practical electric light was an impossibility. Sorry for simplifying my answer.

The Scientific American did indeed call the flight a hoax.

Here is a list of other inventions that the majority of scientists called hoaxes:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/4037/

Call me stupid again MF.

Answer 5

Edison didn't invent the light bulb, it was around for 30 years before him, he just made a better one. So, I'm curious steelgrave who these scientists were that denied it was possible for Edison to make one? Got any links, or did you just make that up?

And the Scientific American article never claimed the Wright brothers hoaxed, they simply noted that there was no evidence provided by the Wrights (which was true, as they were trying to protect patented technology and sell it interested buyers).

And if the scientists employed by the UN aren't trustworthy, then why would the ones employed by the oil companies be more trustworthy? And what about the many scientists employed by universities or other governments who have no vested interest? Hmm

Remind me never to hire you for my financial needs. You get too many basic facts wrong.

==Edit==
I will agree with the global warming deniers this far: it definately needs more research. Right now, We aren't sure what the exact effects will be, or whether they can be mitigated, or if our mitigation efforts might actually make things worse.

But take heart my friend, even the republican led EPA now accepts the truth, at least partially: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

Answer 6

Science is not a democracy a show of hands doesn't make it so.

Science use to believe that world was flat but it was wrong.

Science use to believe the world was cooling in the 70's but it was wrong.

It is what you can prove and we don't have enough data to make any kind of predication's.

Case in point the same people said the 06 hurricane season was going to wipe us out and didn't happen but they say wait for 07 and still zip.

They can't forecast with better than 60% aaccuracy when it comes to the weather and you expect me to believe the know 100% sure that it is man made and know exactly what is going to happen in 100 years or more.

If you look at the list of causes of global warming makes me wonder here are some of them:

too much poulation- OK I can buy that
too little poulation- Huh? but you just said never lets go on
cows farting
farming
smokers- Yes Al Gore nail smokers too
the sun- gee better recall the SUVs on the sun.

If it is such a threat why does Al Gore fly around on private jets and create a company making money off carbon credits?

You have ask this question twice today.

You don't like the answers you are getting maybe you should review your evidence and take a hard look at it.

Answer 7

It's not irresponsible at all to question a theory based on so little backing evidence (a few hundred years of recording temperatures compared to the hundreds of thousands of years of unrecorded natural climate change) in such a complex system.

You are fooling yourself if you think the current global warming theories are even correct to a large degree. There is just WAY too much unknown to accept any theory about man-made climate change. This is an ancient planet and we know only a small part of it's history. Mankind itself (compared to the age of the earth) hasn't even been in existance long enough to understand our own limited impact on it.

At different points in earth's history, the atmosphere has been globally 'dimmed' and globally 'warmed.' Before the existance of man. We are fooling ourselves if we think have it figured out at this point.

Sadly, 'global warming' is more of a political issue now than a scientific issue. Everyone claims to know the truth and most of that 'truth' comes from political and economic motivations.

Answer 8

Scientists can't even tell me if an egg is good for me. However, the Earth has gone through numerous cooling and heating periods. I just watched on the Discovery Channel over the weekend about the transformation of rainforests into deserts because of global climate change, unless you think Fred and Barney had to much carbon emmissions.

During the Middle Ages there was a mini Ice Age, once again, natural weather cycles. We're experiencing changes in our weather because that's how things work. There has never been a permanent, set weather pattern. It changes as the world progresses. How it has been, how it is, how it shall always be.

edit: Sorry if you consider the truth, lame. I guess if it goes against your propoganda it would be irritating.

Answer 9

Wake up man!!!!! One FACT proves GW is not due to humans .. . . . It's happening on other planets!!!!!!! Planets without humans.
What is it about that that's so hard for some people's brains to absorb?
Most scientist agree that more sun spots and excessive, extra large solar flares are melting the polar caps on Mars and causing global warming on Venus but some still say humans are causing the warming on earth. Give me a break

Answer 10

It all comes from the oil companies... the word is propaganda.

Their "scientific research" that goes against mainstream science on Global Warming is all produced by the AAPG (petroleum geologists association) and financed by the Republicans who have oil interests (like Bush and Cheney).

If they can cause just enough debate in the media, people will be less likely to demand action against fossil fuels.

Secondly - Al Gore's facilities are run on solar power and hybrid engines... he does not have this mythical "carbon footprint" that his nay-sayers accuse him of.
Al Gore was just recently allowed by his state legislation to install an entirely solar paneled roof:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/al_gore_gets_a.php

Answer 11

1. Most scientists DO NOT agree that humans are the primary cause.

2. Evidence that warming and cooling are cyclical is well documented and widespread.

3. YOU cannot back up the theory that humans are the cause with any data that passes muster.

Sorry, son, but facts are not open for voting.