If new information about global warming is discovered?

Question

do you just dismiss it because it doesn't fit in with what you already believe to be true,

or

do you wait until you can prove one side to be wrong and the other right?

If someone waits until the data can be verified, are they a skeptic?

Answer 1

People who are true believers already have their minds made up and will not change them no matter what information is discovered.

Algore has proclaimed that "the debate is over", and climatologist like Heidi Cullum want to strip those that disagree of their professional accreditation's, while others want to throw dissenters in jail, comparing them to Holocaust deniers.

So called skeptics just want to wait until the data is clear enough so conflicting data can get figured out to find out why there's a conflict. They know that in science there can be no conflict in data.

It's strange, but the true believers just dismiss conflicting data out of hand, proclaiming any data that disagrees with what they perceive as political and flawed.

Answer 2

Here's an example of what you're talking about - this scientist Svensmark came up with a theory that the Sun's magnetic field has recently increased, blocking galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) which are theorized to cause cloud formation on Earth. Clouds cause cooling, so fewer GCRs means more warming. Svensmark's theory is that the Sun's increased magnetic field is mostly responsible for the recent warming.

There are some problems with this theory, and Svensmark had very little evidence to support it. It's basically a "this could be the explanation" theory, rather than a "the evidence points to this as the explanation" like the anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) theory.

So this is a tricky scenario - there seems to be a plausible alternative explanation for the warming, but there's no hard evidence to support it.

Now I'm not entirely sure what you're asking when you say "do you wait until you can prove one side to be wrong and the other right?". That depends on what you're waiting for. If you're talking about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, you probably don't wait. There's no harm in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions (in fact there are many long-term benefits), so there's no sense in waiting to do so. Especially since if the AGW theory is correct, we're running out of time to reduce our emissions.

If you're talking about waiting to make up your mind about what's causing global warming - well you don't really have to do either. You can believe that humans are the primary cause of the current warming and still keep an open mind if some new information comes up. Just because you're convinced by the current evidence doesn't mean your opinion has to be set in stone. Personally I'm convinced that humans are causing the current warming, but if new evidence comes to light to prove otherwise, then I'll change my mind.

As it turns out in Svensmark's GCR case, a bunch of scientists studied his theory and showed that there are a number of problems with it.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aliro1TnOlTx1ctMwVReYOLty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071030112550AA7AXSu

At this point I would say that his theory has effectively been disproven. That's how science works - new studies are always being done, and theories are always being tested. If they can stand up to all of the tests thrown at them (as the AGW theory has), then more and more scientists believe the theory is true. But they're always ready to change their minds if new evidence is found to show that the theory is wrong.

Answer 3

Good question. Any scientist will tell you that new findings cannot be added to the body of knowledge until it has been tested or replicated. The problem with a lot of what passes for science in climate science has never been replicated or audited.

Steve McIntyre, who runs http://climateaudit.org , tries to get the data, methods and source code he needs to audit climate research and it is rarely archived the way the journals and funding agencies require. For some reason, climate scientists think they do not have to abide by these standards of science. When McIntyre does get the data he needs (in the case of Michael Mann, Congress had to subpoena it and make it public) he often finds mistakes that overturn the conclusions of the authors.

To answer your question, scientists are always skeptical.

Answer 4

I'm skeptical for several reasons.

One of which is the amount of political and economic agenda that drives the debate. People tend to throw the science around like frisbee's. Each hopes to disprove the other with science.

I tend to think "believers" excersie blind faith in the scientist and the science.

Many call out for immediate action but rash decisions have serious consequences on the economy. Politicians want to appear like they care about the planet. Most of them simply pay lip service. More taxes and government is want they want.

And when the scientist passes his hat out he pays lip service too.

Answer 5

I believe any Scientific accuracy has been skewed by Politics



Monday, September 25, 2006
Global warming cannot be questioned
Climate change alarmists in Parliament would now forbid the government even to question global warming theories.

Last Wednesday in the House of Commons, Nathan Cullen, MP asked the Minister of the Environment to disown scientists who even question the theory of human-caused global warming. On Thursday, Liberal Environment critic, John Godfrey, MP called it "irresponsible" merely to question what he termed the "well established science behind global warming."

Answer 6

I choose to wait until the data proves something.

Answer 7

The best current evidence is that GW may become a big problem, and the longer we wait to take steps to mitigate it, the more expensive it will be and the worse off we will be.

Therefore, a "wait and see" attitude is potentially dangerous.

But of course it should be studied and new data analysed.

Answer 8

I would be just as skeptical of new information as I am of old information. So I wouldn't accept it until someone had convinced me that it was logical and factually consistent.