Why are AGW alarmists not telling the truth about how much warming will really occur in the future?

Question

Scientists already know how much warming will occur in the next 50 to 100 years. These details are known to a rather small range of error, that warming is likely to be very modest and that we humans have very little to do with it, and that there is nothing we should or can do about it. The man-made global warming alarmists and ideologues are not telling the truth. What is behind the hypocrisy and deceit?

Answer 1

It’s all about getting tax-payers money to keep funding more research, science publications, and publish more papers on man-made global warming.

According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Deputy Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere James Mahoney, taxpayers have already disbursed $20 billion at the scientific community for global warming work since 1990.

That money would not have arrived if AAAS promoted either the notion that climate change was likely modest or claimed that we knew enough about it that little further research is needed.

There is an obvious bias in many scientific publications, like Science, arguably the most prestigious scientific journal in the world. Science publishes a section called “Compass” that includes perspectives and commentaries, which are subject to peer review. Since 2000, roughly 75 of those commentaries have been consistent with the view that global warming is a serious problem requiring a massive solution. Not one has emphasized the obvious truth that warming in the next several decades is already known with a very small margin of error: It will be very modest.

Their lobby exists to support research that supports the paradigm that is increasingly commingled with the political process (man-made global warming). Unfortunately, it has very little to do with true science or truth.

This is all expected and logical, that science and scientists for the most part will behave this way given the nature of science today and the world in which it is enmeshed.

For a greater understanding of how paradigms in science and scientists work in the U.S., please read about Vannevar Bush, the MIT engineer and director of the White House Office of Scientific Research and Development, named by President Roosevelt to describe how the “unique experiment of teamwork and cooperation” that characterized the Manhattan Project could be continued after the war. This story is critical to usderstanding how science and scientist work today in the U.S.

Answer 2

Even if the medieval warm period was warmer than today, which almost every recent peer reviewed journal says is false, that does not mean that the greenhouse effect does not exist, that CO2 is not a big problem, that anthropogenic emissions are not causing the planet to heat up unnaturally due to increasing greenhouse gas concentration, and that the planet won't continue to warm due both to emissions and feedbacks. Actually the majority of recent peer reviewed literature states that the planet was as warm as the medieval warm period in the 1950s or so but since then temperatures have skyrocketed. Your paper is also from a 'fake' journal called 'Energy & Environment'. You are concluding that the temperature of the planet is in a 'natural' range without looking at the current phases of those natural cycles and what range of temperatures are possible from those current positions. I mean if we are at the peak of orbital eccentricity and the current temperatures are equivalent to the minimal orbital eccentricity sure, it would be in the natural range of Earth's past, but that doesn't mean the current temperatures are due to natural forcings and that we should completely ignore all other forcings or those other forcings are non existent or minimal. It is also well known that the medieval warm period was mostly attributable to solar output combined with various oscillatory patterns and aerosols level. We are currently coming out of the deepest solar minimum in over a century. Contrarians were stating a few years back that we were going to see something similar to the LIA due to the extended solar minimum however throughout that time temperature trends have continued to rise.

Answer 3

Nobody knows, and no real scientist would project the future based on the past without a disclaimer. Remember, science is based on immutable laws: the understanding of those laws is what makes science predictable. Weather, as everyone who's ever seen a forecast miss its mark knows, is not predictable. Meterology is a lot like psychology: There are just too many variables and the coefficients of those variables cannot be scientifically determined. However, that doesn't prevent the weatherman from predicting, the psychologist from talking or the Global Warming debate from continuing.

Answer 4

You know it's funny, you make this claim that scientists know almost precisely how much the planet will warm in the next 50-100 years, and yet you provide no evidence. If this is such a well and widely known bit of information, you should have no problem linking a source which states it. I refer you to this question I asked yesterday:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As51esLbobIHNR73Q9Efqv_sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071004143505AAzP4Ct

Of course you can't provide evidence, because it's simply untrue. The amount of warming over the next century depends almost entirely on our greehouse gas emissions over the next century. Scientists have no idea whether we'll reduce our emissions or if they'll continue to grow, so all they can do is produce various scenarios and give a range of possible temperature changes. These range from about 1.8ºC best can scenario to a nearly 6°C maximum warming, except that they don't include many feedbacks, so it could actually be greater than that in a worst case scenario.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Predictions.png

Look, we all know you're lying. We all know that almost all climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming.

So what's behind your deceit?

Answer 5

Hmm, an interesting question but one that is unfortunately based on an incorrect premise. Scientists don't know how much warming will occur in the next 50 to 100 years. In fact, their estimates vary widely.

There is a considerable amount of debate on the proportion of any warming that we humans are resposible for and what could be done about it, but most scientists now agree that the planet is warming and that some percentage of this can be attributed to human activity.

Answer 6

Scientists are telling the truth, insofar as they know it. The best example is here:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

The problem with even a modest warming is that our advanced civilization, with massive coastal development and intensive agriculture, will be seriously damaged by even the small temperature change predicted.

There is more uncertainty than you say. The predictions above don't fully take into account feedbacks (like, warming melts ice exposing dark ground, warming speeds up) because the data is not good enough.

There have been some recent signs that feedbacks are making the warming worse than predicted.

"So much ice has disappeared that the Arctic today looks much like what scientists thought it would in 2050. It's as if the atmosphere hit the fast-forward button."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070927-9999-1n27icemelt.html

We can do something about it. Here's a practical and affordable plan, worked out by hundreds of scientists and economists, working together:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

Great website for more information:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

Answer 7

I think part of the problem is the fact that, in all honesty, we have to realize that we are the problem. So therefore, to confront the millions of us who are unwitting habitual offenders that are set in our ways, and say,"Hey, you guys are destroying your own home and you need to change!!!!!!!!", is at the very least going to be an unpopular message.

Fortunately, there are well funded sources that are trying to at least see if we can save what is left of the planet. There are new industries being created, everything from solar and other "green" and clean sources of energy, to rooftop gardens, to building that use waterfalls to naturally cool their interiors, to solar power vehicles, etc... etc... etc...

You must realize, aside from any scientific data and gobbledygook or grandstanding ideologues, it doesn't take a rocket scientist or brain surgeon to realize that sustained warming has already been created by having millions of cars on thousands of miles of paved roads, thousands of commercial planes in the air daily, millions of homes creating a huge heating season industry every fall, winter and spring, thousands of factories creating endless tons of heat trapping emissions, and thousands upon thousands of storefronts needing thousands of square miles of heat producing parking lots and square footage for eager shoppers.

All this sustained warming is causing the problems - it doesn't take a scientist or alarmist to notice.

No trees - no cooling.

So, you see, at some point, we must realize that WE ARE the problem..

Therefore, we must also BE THE SOLUTION.

If anything the only deceit happening here is that we are fooling ourselves.

Answer 8

Why don't you go ask them, if you're worried about it? This isn't Global Warming Central Command or something. This is an area for folks who believe the issue to be a legitimate concern.

Answer 9

I think the problem lies directly on your shoulders, not anyone else's. I believe #3 & #4 in the link describe you best. Just another misguided cynic who watches Fox"News".

Answer 10

Pure profit, that's what.