Why don't climate sceptics do real research about global climate change before they make fools of themselves?

Question

I've researched both arguments before forming a belief and the more I do the more credible evidence i find supporting it. Global warming is natural yes, but if you research the mechanics of global change. You'll see there is too much carbon dioxide trapped in our atmostphere. From our burning of coal and fuel. It's gotten to the point that too much of the suns heat is reflecting off the earth and getting trapped in our atmosphere instead of going into space. It's too easy to say false. Especially considering all the other conspiracy theories we hear eveyday.. Don't let these consipiracies close your mind to everythign you hear. It's the "Boy who cried wolf" scenerio. Let's not let this happen to us. To our children and theirs. So I ask YOU! SKEPTIC. Why can't you give it the benefit of the doubt and look into it some more? What if it IS real and we CAN prevent it from getting worse? Do you want to be holding people off at gunpoint to protect your clean water supply and grandchildren?

The evidence that supports my arguments comes from the NAS and the AAAS. Only the biggest most credible scientific organizations in the world. These guys are the most respected scientists.. the real deal. Who are you to say they're wrong?Warming is natural yes of course, or we would freeze to death at night. However, we have made the carbon dioxide too dense for sufficient amounts of the sun's heat to escape. I didn't mean to offend and I apologize for using the word 'fools'. As I'm sure you know it is frustrating when you believe that your children may be facing such a possibly horrible future. If it is true we must act to reduce the carbon dioxide levels. My LAPTOP is not contributing nearly as much to the problem as the burning of coal.. lets look at the worst and biggest problems first ok?

Answer 1

CO2 has increased from around 280ppm to around 360ppm or just about 80ppm.

80ppm is just a scant 0.008% This is far too insignificant to have any impact on the climate.

Look at it this way. If a person making $100,000 per year got a 0.008% pay raise, that would be an additional $8 per year. That amount isn't going to be noticable.

The Sun however contributes far more energy into our climate than SUV's do.

Answer 2

It seems to me that the science behind AGW is not that exciting. CO2 may have a higher infra red opacity than the oxygen it displaces, but the temperature rise attributable to CO2 is so small that it's hardly worth discussing.

What AGW theories rely on is not CO2 opacity, but positive feedbacks where a little bit of CO2 warming is supposed to cause chain reactions which cause more global warming.

Given that AGW theory has yet to predict something in advance (instead of just accounting for things after they have happened) and we have yet to experience any climate change which is obviously man made, I find the positive feedback part of the theory somewhat doubtful.

Answer 3

climate cycles happen continuously and worldwide warming is a significant element yet we could first evaluate that once 2 volcanoes erupted interior the final two decades intense climate types have been affected,so nature could make extra beneficial ameliorations than something human pastime can. for my section i think of conservation is needed and actual ameliorations would be complicated to degree yet one element is particular and that's pollution of our international is stupid and each attempt to give up this must be made and moving factories to China the place pollution concerns are no longer as strict back suits interior the stupid classification

Answer 4

I did my own research. I do not, like some folks, research with Hollywood movies. I use library materials, ice core data, tree ring data, and recorded climate history:

Here is truth about global warming:

Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.
The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.
This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.
Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is
becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).
As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).
When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.

It's been happening for millions of years.

The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY.
As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to 'predict' chaotic systems such as weather.

Global warming/cooling, AKA 'climate change':
Humans did not cause it.
Humans cannot stop it.

Answer 5

You are right - the sceptics are generally protecting a vested interest rather than the interests of future generations.

Dr Jello is particularly misleading referring to the sun as a greater source of heat than SUVs. Of course it is but the SUVs emit CO2 which traps the sun's heat.

We need to stop burning fossil fuels needlessly so as to slow global warming and the depletion of valuable resources.

Answer 6

I'm not a skeptic, and I've taken the tact of trying not to respond in kind to the name calling, finger-pointing, in-you-face questions and answers that this site attracts. Instead, I try to set aside the hostility some put forth and focus on the heart of the question, and provide information that might at least begin to sway some that are sitting on the fence but are afraid to admit it.

I too have been researching the situation -- I won't go so far as to say "both" sides, because that's not how I approached the issue -- and have begun to understand some of the misconceptions and terminology issues and feel that part of the problem in trying to educate people is that this issue is so terribly complex and there are so many variables.

It won't come to people using force to protect their water and food supplies. The beginnings of the solution are in place, we just need to decide which foot to put forward and how to fund some of what needs to be put in place to achieve progress in slowing or even reversing the effects of human-induced climate change.

I encourage all to check out the work being done at the site below. It's just one of many, but is very accessible in its approach and it can help direct your focus in investigating other research. In fact, I'll throw in the sites I've amassed so far on programs conducted through our universities. There are a lot of pre and young adults using this site, and they can chose careers that allow them to be part of the solution, and can therefore help educate their friends and family so they are no longer part of the problem.

Answer 7

Skeptics, or as I call them Earth Flat Landers (ie their beliefs are as rediculous as believing the Earth is flat) are just hopeless. It's like someone on a Jury being showed DNA evidence, a couple eyewitnesses, and a clear motive, and still not convicting someone. They are convinced Rush Limabaugh has more credability than all the world's legitament Climate Scientists. Skeptic morons don't care about research, why do you even both asking them to do it?

Answer 8

Some are honestly mistaken. Others are conservatives who take their politics to extremes. If liberals or environmentalists, or worst, Al Gore say something, it HAS to be wrong. No matter how many scientists say the same thing.

Maybe they should listen to Newt:

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

Of course many don't have the scientific background to understand. So they simply repeat what they've heard from right wing radicals.

I'm afraid it's not just a matter of laziness.

Answer 9

I have, and still do. I find little or not reason to believe that human activities are a major cause of the current warming trend. What evidence do you have to support your contention that it does.

Answer 10

Until recently, the science supported global warming. It does not anymore.

When doing your research, did you look into the issue of estimates of climate sensitivity and negative feedbacks? Did you look into the issue of the quality of weather stations and the possibility the observed warming is partially artificial due to poorly sited weather stations? Did you ever look into the role of internal climate variability and the role of the PDO and ENSO? Will you even read any of the links I am about to provide?

I am not skeptical because I do not think the science proves global warming. I do not believe global warming will be catastrophic because the science indicates it will not be.

Climate sensitivity
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

New negative feedback
http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

Poorly sited weather stations
http://surfacestations.org
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/index.html

Pacific Decadal Oscillation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation

Answer 11

Do you consider archeology to be science? I do. And that science has shown cycles of warming and cooling over and over for millions of years. So why would we think this cycle is suddenly different? I think the fool shoe is on your foot, not mine. And now, that foot seems to be lodged firmly in your mouth.