What Would It Take To Convince You That Global Warming Is False?

Question

I was puzzling over this question earlier today. I thought it might be interesting to see what other people had to say.

What evidence would the skeptics have to present to convince you that anthropogenic global warming theory was invalid?

I've worked out my answer to this question, but I won't post it up here so it won't bias anyone's answers.

Crabby, scientific theories can never become "proven fact," no matter how much evidence is found to support them. As someone once said (I forget who), "Science doesn't offer proof, only evidence."

I think the question is quite meaningful.

Answer 1

All around us we can see the effects of global warming from the retreating glaciers to migratory shifts, from desertification to crop failure. These by themselves are indicators that the climate has changed, they don't provide the irrefutable evidence that the globe is warming; although they are pretty conclusive and in many instances there is no other rational explanation other than global warming.

The irrefutable evidence comes from nothing more sophisticated than the temperature record. All that's needed is a thermometer and a notepad to jot down temps. Fair enough, you need thousands of reading over many years to be able to draw a conclusion but that's fine as we have many billions of readings to work from with the earliest records stretching back nearly 350 years. However, this in itself only proves that the plantet is warming, it doesn't provide the proof that humans are the cause or a contributor.

For the conclusive evidence that humans are causing the planet to warm we only need to look at the greenhouse gases. A greenhouse gas is, by definition, one which poosesses the ability to retain heat within our atmopshere (through the absorbption and emission of longwave radiant energy).

To establish that manmade global warming is false it would be necessary to demonstrate that humans are releasing diminishing amounts of greenhouse gases and have been for a minimum of 62 years (the shortest feasible average residency period of the anthropogenic cocktail of greenhouse gases).

If it could be demonstrated that since 1945, humans have been producing less and less greenhouse gases, then there could be a possible argument that the primary cause of the current warming was a factor or factors other than anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Answer 2

You will realize that the snow fell while the air used to be nonetheless rather hot, round 30 levels F, that's why is used to be so heavy and rainy. However, that's no longer the factor. The climate styles are aspect of the total international local weather, that's certainly exchanging. When it's quite bloodless, it does not honestly snow that a lot, btw. The evidence of international warming is the melting of the polar icecaps. Remember while a tremendous bite fell off of the Antarctica ice shelf just lately? If you desired to gain knowledge of approximately climatology, you might research it, rather of constructing statements centered totally for your political stance.

Answer 3

I think a requisite first step would be for the refuter of global warming theory to demonstrate basic scientific literacy and the ability to engage in rigorous thinking. (Most commentary on the Internet purporting to refute global warming does not pass this test.) Another thing which would add credibility to their story is if they had published their work in a respected, peer-reviewed academic journal. I think their credibility would also be bolstered if they could demonstrate that their motivation for refuting global warming theory was not related to some entrenched personal relationship to the status quo. What is their personal agenda? Are they in denial over their personal role in environmental destruction?

Answer 4

A major breakthrough. A new theory that explains how CO2 and greenhouse gas does not affect the energy balance of the earth.

This is the key issue.

There is no competing theory that explains:

The current increase in greenhouse gas.
The increase is not the cause of the current warming.
Warming will have no effect on climate
Change in climate will be benign.

Answer 5

If you've got your answer in the bag already, why should I work out an answer to amuse you? I've got more pictures of my trip to Cal Poly Pomona's Insect Fair to go through. I think the grandkid might be an entomologist in the making!

Assuming he has a future to look forward to. And if I have anything to say about it, he will.

Answer 6

Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe."

There are some evidences that the earth has been warming. Some scientist believe, It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age".

However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a "Little Ice Age" for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time.

Though, humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny.

Answer 7

Hmm...well, if the vast majority of scientists in the world convinced me that they'd been hit with some alien thought-controlling ray that had instructed them to alter all available statistical and demonstrative evidence of anthropogenic global warming, I might change my mind.

Answer 8

It would take a new discovery - for example, if an experiment showed Svensmark's cosmic ray theory to be correct. As with Bob, not being a climate scientist myself, this new finding would have to be accepted by climate scientists, who understand the material better than I do.

The new finding would have to be incorporated into climate models and fit the data over the past 100 years as well or better than the current theory. This is highly unlikely, but that's what it would take to convince me.

Answer 9

Since I'm not a climatologist, it would take a massive reversal of the opinions of climatologists.

At this point that would mean headline stories in the news, cites to peer reviewed articles, and a clear shift in the opinion of the scientific community.

Arguments by a few "skeptics" don't cut it, no matter how pretty they talk.

Answer 10

Theories are proven to be fact all the time with new knowlege.

At one time the theory was nothing could go faster than the speed of light. Now it looks like german scientist have done just that.

Not having proof is just one way of saying we don't have the knowlege at this time.