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=As6MMc8lLk5ZrMSOAhywS77sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070918131723AAQKsNC

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?

Answer 1

No. I disagree quite strongly with you on this.

I divide the anti-global warming science people into two groups. Deniers and skeptics.

Deniers are marked by non data based questions like "Why is Greenland named green?, why is Mars warming?, it's cold outside, volcanoes emit more than Man. Silly stuff, obviously refuted by a ton of data.

Skeptics ask question like "Why was this algorithm used to process the data?

My deciding question is : would Lindzen think this is unscientific nonsense?

Skeptics deserve full respect. I get very frustrated that amancalledchuda seems to get his data from obviously biased sources, and seems to ignore the actual peer reviewed literature. But he's a player. He talks about data. I suspect that I'd like to have a beer with him. (Actually I suspect I'd enjoy a beer with Mr Jello- he's a denier, but not an angry one.)

And deniers deserve their say, even if they don't deserve respect; due to their willingness to talk political nonsense in what, in theory, should be a scientific forum. But, come on, it's only Yahoo answers.

If you can't handle political garbage or bad science with equanimity you maybe shouldn't be here. And I would hate that, because your stuff is so valuable.

But, chill out.

Rick V - No, Galileo and Einstein did not have to fight. They produced data and were completely accepted by the scientific community, pretty much from the beginning. What they had to fight was ignorant "skepticism".

Scientists had no problem with Columbus, either. Scientists have accepted a round Earth ever since, over 2000 years ago, Eratosthenes produced the data about its' diameter. Once again, the "flat Earth" people were not scientists. They were "skeptics", who ignored the data.

Tomcat -

"Is it irresponsible to smooth the 1997/1998 EL-Nino event out five years before and after and call that the truth about our climate?"

No. The short term El-Nino event is weather. The long term average is climate.

"Is it irresponsible not address the fact that the Oceans are cooling?"

It's been addressed. The people who measured it now admit they made a mistake.

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/04/23/ocean-cooling-not/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Findex.php%2Farchives%2F2007%2F04%2Focean-cooling-not%2F&frame=true

"Is it irresponsible not to address the fact that the continent of Antarctica still keeps getting colder?"

It's extensively addressed in the IPCC report. The current view is that it's due to the ozone hole.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

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

it is irresponsible to IGNORE what they say, but it is not irresponsible or stupid to scratch your head and say, 'huh, i think i will look into this and find other theories.'

i hope you do not think that it is ignorance to find out where some of the scientists are getting their bread and butter from. if their jobs are funded by companies that will make a killing on a global warming SCARE, then i do wonder if i should believe them.

true scientists look at all factors. in truth, we do not know all factors, yet. there were periods of the same type of global warming when humans were not even on the planet. it is not ignorant to ask, 'how did that happen and why did that happen?'

there is truly evidence these days that supports sun spot flare ups as the cause. but i would be ignorant to simply say that THAT is the cause myself, wouldn't i?

one thing is certain and quite evident in any larger metropolitan area: people do not give a damn how much they take from nature while returning to it garbage and trash and pollution. but it is not certain that pollution is the cause of "global warming," if there is global warming. maybe it is not global warming. maybe it's just one of the many changes in the evolution of our planet.

another thing: we are very arrogant creatures, believing that we know it all. every time a true scientist discovers an answer to a theory, another mystery arises.

Answer 4

I guess based on the scientific theory that you profess, if someone can't prove that something isn't happening then it must be happening? My theory is that you are a troll. If you can't come up with a reasonable explanation for your liberal view points then you must be a troll then right? And just like you and global warming, I get to decide what a reasonable explanation is. You should know that correlations don't necessarily prove causes. There are many reasonable explanations but you will never accept them. I hope you live long enough to see the error of you ways. But then you will probably have some other excuse.

So no, it is not irresponsible but what the Global Warming crowd wants to do to combat it is irresponsible.

Answer 5

Sorry, it is NOT the generally accepted scientific explaination. It is mearly the consensus opinion of scientists paid to study the supposed problem.

If you look at the data, which stretches back 450,000 years, you will see there have been several warming periods that finally climaxed at temperatures about 3 degrees Celsius above current global temperatures. You will also see that the current warming trend began approximately 20,000 years ago, pretty much right on schedule with the past cycles of warming. It is also obvious that temperatures have not yet reached the level of past maximums, all of which occured with no man made green house gases.

What evidence can you present that the current warming trend is not, as it appears to be, just part of this obvious cycle? What evidence can you present that global temperatures will not max out at approximately the same levels as in the past (i.e. 3 degrees Celsius above current levels)? Interestingly enough, the great consensus you like to reference states that the most likely scenario for climate change is for temperatues to increase a further 3-4 degrees Celsius above current levels. Explain this if you can.

Now, kindly answer my questions and stop repeating the same rant over and over again.

Answer 6

Yes it is irresponsible for them to ignore their theory (that in most cases has been proven fact), but for those who say no, then wouldn't you rather spend time trying to slow down global warming back to its natural cycle, just to find out that there wasn't any real threat; or spend time ignoring the problem as if it doesn't exist, to later found out later that it does exist and that you could've down something to prevent it, so your children, their children, and so on wouldn't have to deal with your horrible mistake forever.

Answer 7

Is it irresponsible to ask a question, and then address the answer by cherry picking sentences from a paragraph? Is it irresponsible to plaster propaganda from site's such as the BBC, and call it proof? Is it irresponsible to smooth the 1997/1998 EL-Nino event out five years before and after and call that the truth about our climate? Is it irresponsible not address the fact that the Oceans are cooling? Is it irresponsible not to address the fact that the continent of Antarctica still keeps getting colder?

You don't have a monopoly on the truth...

Answer 8

It's not "most scientist", it's more like some scientist agree humans... blah, blah, blah.

Why is a twentysomething studying something he already believes instead of developing solutions to be sold in the market place? Is it easier for you to parrot others and demand them to change then for you to do work?

Answer 9

I would ask you what caused the Earth to warm to such a degree that the last Ice Age ended. Were humans to blame then, as well? We don't know why the planet warmed then, and no one is 100% sure why it's warming today. Could be as simple as another phase in the life of our sun. And by the way, aren't these the same groups,that 30 years ago, were positive we were headed into a new Ice Age? For the same reason? Us?

Answer 10

Notice you're getting the same answers you posted in your "know Jack" post. Sort of like a ventriloquist and one of those Elmo hand puppets, don't you think?

Of course it's irresponsible! If they were responsible, they wouldn't be deniers.