Why do many global warming skeptics avoid the scientific issues?

Question

Quite often the skeptics of manmade global warming seek to refute the theory of global warming by focusing attention on any number of issues rather than attempting to refute the sceintific basis upon which the theory rests - namely that greenhouse gases retain heat within Earth's atmosphere.

Is the fact that so few address the scientific issues a sign that they don't understand them or that they can't refute them?

Answer 1

Yes, you answered your own question. The fact that so few address the scientific issues is a sign that they don't understand them or that they can't refute them, or that they simply want to believe the AGW theory is wrong.

For example, there are a few skeptics here who continue to focus on the surface temperature record and urban heat island effects on it, claiming that the record may be off by 50%. They ignore that this has been studied and shown not to significantly alter the temperature readings, and also the fact that satellite temperature measurements are in agreement with the surface measurements.

We've discussed this issue many times, and yet skeptics continue to act as though this is damning evidence.

I think a big part of it is that skeptics really want the anthropogenic global warming theory to be wrong, so they'll latch onto any evidence which seems to discredit it, even if that evidence is clearly wrong.

Answer 2

The answers so far are, well, interesting, to say the least. No real surprises, no epiphanies, pretty much a regurgitation of where we've been going in this category to date.

One of the ironies in reading the answers is that people on both sides are picking up the language rather well. The concepts not so much, but hey, it's a start!

One thing that bothers me in all of this is that people sometimes refer to the terms global warming and climate change interchangably. These are the defintions I work with, correct me please if I'm wrong: Global warming is defined as an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution. Climate change is defined as a study dealing with variations in climate on many different time scales from decades to millions of years, and the possible causes of such variations. Human-induced climate change has the potential to alter the prevalence and severity of extremes such as heat waves, cold waves, storms, floods and droughts.

So maybe that's part of the problem. We have to talk the same language to really communicate. We've got to work on the a-b-c's before we move on to complete sentences. Doing this without insulting the intelligence of those we're trying to persuade is tricky, isn't it? But don't give up. Public opinion is coming around. That's why, I believe, President Bush is finally coming on board.

Answer 3

I think it is because they assume that the greenhouse gases were naturally produced and therefore not human creations.

Of course, the issue here is explaining why the volume of greenhouse gases is increasing so quickly. Rather than explaining that scientifically, the skeptics say that this is a normal trend for the Earth.

It is always easier to explain something away rather than facing the truth. The church spent hundreds of years explaining away the shape of the Earth until we discovered that the planet really is round.

Take care,
Troy

Answer 4

Nature releases about 770 GT/yr of CO2 into the atmosphere which is supposed to be partly balanced out by the photosynthesis and other processes that pull 440 GT/yr of CO2 from the atmosphere. Where humans release 26-27 GT/yr of CO2 into the atmosphere. So man only makes up a .03% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere. I find it very hard to believe that our .03% is the tip of the ice berg(even though I could be wrong). Did you know that one moose releases enough methane per year to equal the amount of CO2 released by a jet traveling around the world. That's amazing considering there's definitely more than one moose. Half of what we as humans release is due to us breathing. So should we kill half the population? I feel the bigger issue will be water one day due to urban sprawl more than global warming. We will run out of water or have to turn to desalination plants and find ways to transport water from the ocean to the center of the USA. Which will definitely be no easy task. Also since people like to blame global warming on localized events(which we know you cannot do) I would like to say that here in southern New Mexico we had our first freeze of the year this past Tuesday. Which was a little soon for some farmers, so I guess we should blame that on Global warming as well... One more thing this past Wednesday a town in Arkansas had the lowest High temperature of the day set 48 degrees. Damn MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!!! CURSED THEE!!!! Who's to say we won't have one hell of a harsh winter this year. So to answer your question I like to look at both sides of the situation. Both have good arguments!!

Dana: Surface temperature readings?? It all depends on which site you research do you have agreement between Satellite and Surface obs. I feel that my professors at the university I went to know a lot about surface obs and they taught us (my entire time there) that these surface readings are inaccurate. How can you tell me that a surface gage sitting at an airport can be entirely accurate when it sits on a huge slab of concrete with jets flying by. Come on give me a break!!!!!

Answer 5

Marc G - Most of the vocal "skeptics" here (the ones who post repetitively) are avoiding the scientific issues. They simply parrot what they've heard from right wing websites without thought. They simply refuse to research this subject. You know this is true.

You, Ron C, and 3DM are the exceptions, not the rule.

I get tired of people using the "all" word as a crappy debating technique here. No, global warming is not ALL Man's fault. Just mostly. No, ALL the skeptics here are not avoiding the scientific issues. Just mostly. No, it's not ALL the result of burning fossil fuels. Just mostly. No, the Earth is not going to be totally destroyed, or everyone killed. But it will be arguably the greatest disaster in human history.

Just because some things are not absolute, doesn't mean they're not true.

Answer 6

the biggest danger to the international right now is paranoia and stupidity. Brits basically have confidence what they are instructed to have confidence. by using fact international warming makes great headlines, the media flog it consistently. Its little ask your self that Brits think of its a huge subject. yet while they actually stop to think of approximately how plenty the temperature has greater suitable over the final one hundred years, its bugger all. It seems vast by using fact its plotted on a graph with an exaggerated scale. yet once you plotted the replace on a typical daily temperature graph, you may hardly observe it in any respect. Environmental attorneys see various funds to be created from litigation in the event that they could convince sufficient people who international warming is a real danger. don't be a sucker for this rip-off.

Answer 7

Could it be that skeptics talk about other issues because they also have accepted the well tested and well understood idea that greenhouse gases retain heat within the atmosphere? That would seem to be the simplest answer to your question.

Maybe skeptics have a problem with models predicting changes of 2.5 degrees C and higher for a doubling of CO2 when it is more likely to be on the order of 1 degree C (1,2). Maybe that is why they talk about other stuff.

Maybe skeptics have a problem with the laser like focus on a single greenhouse gas as the main culprit of climate change when in reality it is a hodge podge of well known and not-so-well known variables. The uncertainty of which is basically ignored by the louder elements of consensus followers. Maybe that is why they talk about other stuff.

And let me add that I am impressed with how you guys just never quit with the implications that all skeptics are knuckle dragging neanderthals hell bent on destroying the world for our great God ExxonMobil and yet maintaining that we aren't smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Answer 8

A lot of people will form an opinion of AGW (for one side or the other) without understanding the scientific issues because of who they do or don't trust.

As a general principle, the more self professed experts claim that science is beyond the understanding of lay people, the less I trust them. Perhaps some sceptics feel the scientific community has failed to provide it's burden of proof to the greater community. Al Gore has made a very good effort to bring the science to the people, but his vanity in wanting to be filmed in private jets and limosines and his liberties with science means a lot of people just don't trust him (if they ever did).

There is a bit more to the science than you have said. The fact that carbon dioxide has a certain level of infrared opacity does not in itself prove that AGW is the most significant component of GW.

Answer 9

I don't know Trevor, perhaps you should compile a question asking the skeptics to refute the THEORETICAL specific principles of the AGW theory that you are so convinced of, as the primary driver of Earths current climate. Maybe that will give you more insight into the mindset of skeptics.

Answer 10

I am not a scientist and I don't understand a big chunk of the reports and articles I read. I put alot of (probably too much) trust in the scientists. I believe people don't want to give up their luxuries and ignore the evidence that even I can see. It is sad that we can get so wrapped up in ourselves that we don't think about future generations. I am not pushing gloom and doom. I am hoping that we can learn and adapt to the environment changes.