Anthropogenic global warming skeptics - what is your stance?

Question

Do you simply feel that the evidence for AGW is not strong enough to draw a conclusion?

If so, don't you think that the potential consequences if the theory is correct warrant that action be taken to prevent it?

Or do you think there is sufficient evidence for an alternative explanation to be more likely, such as the Sun being the primary contributor?

If so, can you provide scientific evidence to support your theory?

Answer 1

There is nothing but circumstantial evidence to support the AGW theory. Just because the world's scientists are unable to explain the observed phenomena it does not mean that the most likely conclusion is the right one. That kind of logic has been the result of numerous fallacies throughout history.

There is no consensus on natural climate variability, I do not believe I have heard any explanation of what time period is involved in the oceans heat retention capability and it's distribution cycles, obviously it is very long term and very influential on climate. Nothing else can explain the asymmetric behavior between the Northern and Southern hemisphere.

There has been a .05% decade increase in solar output up to 2003 since we have been measuring TSI outside the Earths atmosphere. The effect of this and other feedback mechanism's associated with this have not been fully investigated.

It is beyond the capability of climate simulations to model convection within the atmosphere and it's associated portion of Earths solar energy budget as well convections role in dissipating surface heat, so climate simulations while they are making great progress are still to rudimetary to make long term predictions, in my opinion.

The dependence on fossil fuels creates a security problem for Americans, this simple fact will create a solution with or without the cries from AGW alarmists. There are other problems that need to be resolved other than spending billions on R&D to predict the future climate.

Answer 2

The reason that so many are skeptical of the Warmers claim of catastrophic man-caused global warming, is the lack of credible, unmanipulated scientific data supporting such a notion. Too many so-called 'climate scientists' have been caught falsifying/manipulating data in order to further their careers/reputations.... etc. The IPCC has been busted as well.... distorting scientific reports in an attempt to further their political agendas. Remember ..... many people may not understand the 'science', BUT .... most people know what a Cheater is.

Answer 3

Just some comments to James69sk82001 links above:

Much of the information in the links he provides is old and outdated:

The Nasa link is from 2000,
the Junk Science link from 1997,
Science daily from 2001,
Theage from 2004.

He also links to TRBC, a religious organization which believes the universe was created in six days: http://home.trbc.org/index.cfm?PID=9060

(I know it's not easy to convince someone with that stance that anthropogenic global warming exists.)

Edit:
The link "liberal" above links to is from 1992 (and the Cato institute is funded by Exxon just like Lindzen is.).

Answer 4

The Preacautionary Principle--

as embodied in your own words "don't you think that the potential consequences if the theory is correct warrant that action be taken to prevent it?"--

is almost certain to create unintended consequences that are likely to be worse than the problems caused by global warming itself. There are billions of people on the planet that do not yet have electricity, at all. Is that a good thing? THe consequences of rash action are ALWAYS bad when making policy.

As for AGW, it is my understanding that doubling CO2 concentrations from 280 ppb should only result on 1 to 1.5 degrees C temperature change. It is the positive feedbacks that provide the much higher estimates of temperature change due to a doubling of CO2. Positive feedback systems tend to be uncontrolled, resulting in runaway processes (think Venus). If the postive feedbacks were in control, we would have seen something in the geologic record that would suggest this. Thus far we haven't.

The relationship between CO2 and temperature change is not linear. Rather it is something more like log (natural log, if you like). Thus, each NEW CO2 molecule has less effect than the previous one. The implications of this relationship are clear.

As for solar, we have both seen the Scaffetta and West paper where they put solar contribution at 45 to 50% for 1900 to 2000. They also put it at 25 to 35% for 1980 to 2000. This is a far higher percentage than 5% or so that is often implied by you, Bob, Trevor, etc.

It also seems to me that the lastest Lockwood paper contradicts itself in figure 4d, which shows a continuous decline in 10Be levels since 1900, and that correlates with the rise in temps since 1900. This is as it should be, 10Be is inversely related to temperature.

Thus, I think the sun plays a far larger role than you do.

The GCM's are mathematical models of a very complex system. They can be tweaked in such a way that the data can be backcast accurately, this however, is no guarantee to their skill in forecasting.

There are other instances where modelling often comes up short in predictive utility. Financial markets come to mind. Economists and statisticians have been working on predictive models for financial markets for decades (much like climate science) and they still do not have models that can forecast accurately, but they sure can backcast.

So, I think the models leave a lot to be desired as well.

Finally, I have a real hang-up with attribution. Before any government or governments go off and spend trillions upon trillions of dollars trying to level/reduce CO2 concentrations, there needs to a really good attribution of warming, mechanism by mechnism. The most recent IPCC has a figure that lists what they condider the major forcing factors, but sadly, most of them are tagged with the label "Low Level of Scientific Understanding." That is a major problem for me. Attribution remains nearly impossible, thus we cannot properly distribute limited resources for prevention (ie CO2 reduction) vs mitigation (ie preparing for higher sea levels in low lying countries). This may seem trivial to you and others, but in a world of limited resources, having the best information leads to better decisions regarding the distribution of resources. The actions needed are different based on attribution. 100% sun requires different solutions than 100% CO2. In between these two extremes there needs to be a blend of solutions, but the proper blend can only be identified with proper attribution.

In summary:

1. Precautionary principle = bad,
2. Positive feedback,
3. I think the sun is very important,
4. Modelling is difficult, be it markets or climate,
5. Attribution.

That is why I remain skeptical.

Answer 5

My stance you know is that man made global warming is a hoax and that it is a natural cycle that the earth goes through. Also their is global warming on other planets to.

Answer 6

I say you can save yourself by getting rid of all the street lites in the country.

Answer 7

You are flogging a dead horse. To deniers you are the skeptic. Get over it, move on.

Answer 8

see this paper written by MIT professor Richard Lindzen
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

Answer 9

RELIGION!!! ENVIRONMENT!!! GLOBAL WARMING!!!
RELIGION!!! ENVIRONMENT!!! GLOBAL WARMING!!!
RELIGION!!! ENVIRONMENT!!! GLOBAL WARMING!!!
RELIGION!!! ENVIRONMENT!!! GLOBAL WARMING!!!


AARGH!!!!AAAARGH!!
AAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaRGH!!