What do you think of people who have an opposing view on global warming? Plase no flaming!?

Answer 1

Unfortunately the popular media has hyped, exaggerated and falsified the information with respect to Global Warming.

If you do not have access to the peer reviewed professional scientific literature, you do not have access to reliable, accurate information.

I try to help people by showing them how and where to find accurate information with respect to Global Warming.

In my experience, most people, once they have had a chance to read and understand the peer reviewed scientific most of the disagreements are resolved.

Answer 2

From the environmentalist. To the skeptic.

To be honest, I don't know. I've never met one that wasn't driven ultimately by a political or religious agenda.

I just spoke with my attorney on Friday; we had some extra time so I tossed out “Hey, how about that Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize". His response? "Oh, that global warming stuff is propaganda; the warmest years haven't been the last 10, etc. etc." Here is a very intelligent, successful, mature and sober person just completely ignorant of the science and still forming a position on the issue. He is a conservative Republican who "doesn't trust all the extreme nonsense coming from the radical environmentalists". I tried to give him some "Global Ecology 101" in 50 words or less. He just politely took it under advisement.

I'm serious. It's sad. You can try and try to have the discussion. But in the end, (for me anyway and those I've spoken to) after you have exhausted the logical arguments, to which they have no rebuttal, it always boils down to one of three issues:

1) Reactionary political conservatives cannot accept that laissez-faire free market capitalism and cornucopian economics may be leading us to environmental collapse. They don't offer an alternative; they just maintain that environmentalism is a ruse for collectivism.

2) Theists cannot accept that Gods plan is not perfect. Things are progressing as they should. "He" will make it right in the end.

3) Some people are just unintelligent and ignorant through no fault of their own. They just believe what they're told.

It's the willfully ignorant I have a problem with.

Answer 3

That would depend - there are some who are absolute cretins, there are others who are simply brilliant.

I beleive in global warming, I've studied it for 24 years, it's a subject I know a lot about. I warmly welcome every skeptic who comes to me with genuine concerns, has doubts based on informed consideration or can bring intelligence and reasoning to the debating table.

I have little time for the dim witted morons who possess none of the above qualities but instead seek to refute global warming by inventing their own science, distorting the truth and burying their heads in the sand. Not just global warming but any debated issue, if a person is unable to contribute without lying and cheating then they don't deserve to be given the time of day.

On a professional level, I come across people with opposing views frequently (or at least, opposing certain aspects). We get together, convene a meeting, go to a bar, have a meal, go bowling, go sailing, engage in civilised conversation. All parties learn a lot from each other. Science makes great advances this way, it's imperative that there are people who examine and question the science that has gone before. I have nothing but respect for these people.

Similarly, if a person expresses an opinion about global warming then I respect that - we are all entitled to our own opinions whether we agree with the other person or not.

Answer 4

Most of the "skeptics" aren't really as open-minded as they might like to think. For example, much has been made recently about the tropospheric temperature trend not matching the surface temperature trend. The fact the two don't match is claimed to demonstrate the observed increase in surface temperature cannot be due to an increase in the radiative forcing. In support of this, we keep being shown this figure:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/msu2006-pg.gif

However, even if the contention that a mismatch between troposphere and surface temperature trends negated the hypothesis of an increase in radiative forcing is true (it doesn't, necessarily, but that is beside the point), the figure above is only part of the story. It turns out this figure is from this web page:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/ann/global.html#Gtemp

and on this page is a second, very similar figure, found here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/msu2006uw-pg.gif

where the data from Figure 1 have been corrected for stratospheric cooling (which has been measured separately, data available here:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html

So in reality, once you correct the data in Figure 1, you find there is no real problem with trends in the troposphere and there is evidence that the air is warming as fast, if not faster, than the surface.

The problem as far as the skeptics are concerned is that the second part of this analysis is glossed over, and that is putting it quite charitably, by the skeptics. Secondly, I am nearly positive I am not the first person to point this out to the skeptics, that the tropospheric temperature records have to be corrected for a cooling stratosphere (I think perhaps it was Keith P who did this). Furthermore, it was noted before this that when you do the correction there is no disagreement and the temperature data from both the surface and the troposphere indicate an increase in the longwave radiative forcing (i.e., humans are making the world warmer and thereby modifying the climate).

So, for me anyway, the bottom line is that skeptical arguments are fine, but once they have been shown to be without merit the skeptics need to move on. This is where they fail. We are constantly reading the same objections over and over, no matter how many times these same people are shown how their arguments are incorrect. It doesn't leave me with a positive view of their objectivity or understanding of the underlying science or data interpretation.

Answer 5

I'm not certain if you are considering skeptics as the "opposing view" or not. If you are, then I probably should not answer since I'm a skeptic. Taking the question in the more common meaning yields a more thoughtful question and one I can answer.

By the way, I have read Bob's answer and although he and I are on opposing sides, I agree with him that the other side is a mixed bag.

Regarding the alarmists:

Some have a financial interest - Scaring people with global warming brings more government dollars in research funding to their field. Some of the climate scientists hav

Answer 6

I feel like if someone gives a slightly opposing view on global warming its basically unpolitically correct lol I dont agree with everything thats being said, i was sure global warming was still slightly theoretical, maybe im wrong. I think that we should use renewable energys for our own sake of running out of everything else and we should look after the planet. But i also think possibly global warming is a natural occurance, as we are coming out of an ice age. Theres something for people to moan about now. Burn me at the stake :D

Answer 7

Evidence for global warming is based in science - logic and deduction. The theory (or I'd argue, the fact) of global warming has come about through the passionless (unbiased) work of innumerable experts in "earth science" fields. I cringe when people throw scientific evidence aside and instead use opinion to proclaim that global warming isn't happening. I get even more angry when people then try to pick out irrelevant pieces of uncontextualized, ill-reputed "science" to back their ideas. That kind of ignorance is resulting in continued complacency regarding the potentially catastrophic repercussions of the world's warming process. We are not far from regretting this foolishness.

Finally - the beauty of science is in its lack of bias, its unilateral servitude to truth! Science should not be a political tool, to be manipulated and applied as a group pleases. It is this political hijacking that has resulted in so many ill-informed people with "opinions" about whether global warming exists.

Answer 8

I think they are basically optimists who hope for the best. Or maybe "denial" is a better term than "optimist". I'd call it pathological or dysfunctional optimism. It reminds me of a story told by a 9/11 survivor who exited the second tower before it was struck by the jet. He said that, following the attack on the first tower, an official came on the PA system in the second tower and said that everyone should remain where they were, and that there was no danger to the building they were in. This official apparently hadn't a clue as to what was happening, but was hoping for the best.

Answer 9

They are a very mixed bag.

Some have simply been misled by a very slick disinformation campaign.

Others are "knee-jerk" conservatives. If liberals, environmentalists, or worst, Al Gore, say something it simply must be wrong.

Still others have no wish to explore the science, and simply listen to commentators like Rush Limbaugh.

A few are conspiracy theorists, who see conspiracies in everything. For them, the idea that the whole scientific community is lying about this is possible.

A very few (here) have a financial interest in denying global warming.

I don't actively dislike them. I think I'd like to have a beer with Mr Jello, who posts without heat. Ron C seems like a thoughtful guy.

I am frustrated that they won't take the time and effort (admittedly substantial) to learn the science involved in a scientific way. That involves actually reading the scientific literature, and probably going to a university library.

I'm particularly frustrated that people won't read the full IPCC report, which is a mind bogglingly good piece of science, solidly supported by data. Or just a chapter (2 would be good). Web references:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf

Note how many here have chosen to state their position, rather than answer your question. I've at least done both.

This: "the only people who buy into it only buy into it because they're told to, and then they tell others, who like them, buy into it because they're told to. they run their arguements in logical circles and are generally uninformed" is just crazy. Most scientists are uninformed? Trevor, Dana, Keith P, and I are uninformed? Every major world leader is uninformed? I don't think many here would agree with that.

Zig - You say you are a Christian, and you're obviously a conservative. You might want to incorporate these guys opinion into your process.

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

That is the opinion of many conservatives and many religious people.

Thanks for this question.

Answer 10

Most educated people need to see data that supports a theory when that theory suggest our actions are causing irreversible damage to our planets climatic system. Computer simulations are not enough proof for some people to support becoming carbon neutral at all cost.

Enough environmentalists have been fraudulently convinced that atmospheric CO2 levels are so alarming that they would stand by while major portions of earths agricultural land are depleted by growing plants for the generation of automotive fuel. The ecological impact from the global warming scare mongers will far outweigh any consequences of human born greenhouse gases.

EDIT:

Alarmists often use theoretical conjecture without any basis to justify manipulating data, such as suggesting that the mid troposphere exhibits cooling caused by the stratospheric/tropospheric coupling.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/msu2006uw-pg.gif

And the UAH after the U. Washington correction still indicates a slower warming rate than the surface. Then we must go cherry pick the radiosonde data that has an obvious step function that is incosistent with CO2,solar,volcanics or any other known forcing mechanism.

.
.

Answer 11

Global warming is an interesting debate. Of course the globe is warming. This is actually natural. The only problem is that it is warming faster then usual. But it will go down eventually, with the next ice age, which will probably be very bad.