Are global warming skeptics getting more desperate?

Question

There appears to be a steady increase in the absurdity of some arguments used by some skeptics to refute global warming. Is this because they've exhausted the credible and are now turning to the incredible instead?

Each day more evidence emerges to support the theory of manmade global warming, are skeptics now becoming increasingly desparate in their attempts to retain any vestige of credibility?

Yesterday alone we saw, amongst other things...

● The outbreak of more wildfires in California, in themselves they neither prove nor disprove global warming but are part of a global trend of ever increasing numbers of wildfires.

● Australians voted for a new Prime-minister on a manifesto centred on environmental policies and a pledge to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

● The heads of the Commonwealth Nations agreed a 'firm commitemnt' to tackle climate change.

● Oxfam published an in-depth report stating there has been a 400% increase in adverse weather events since the 1980's.

RICK: You claim scoentific support for manmade global warming is falling. Please explain in that case why EVERY credible scientific organisation IN THE WORLD now accepts global warming. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists being the final converts.

Please also find two scientists who actually agree with each other about the alternative explanations for global warming. Several scientists have come up with alternative explanations, don't you think if they had any credibility to them that the other skeptical scientists would get behind the idea instead of trying to find yet more alternatives.

And yes, of course I know we're at the trough of solar cycle 23. Are you aware that these cycles are 11 years long and if they had a significant impact on our climate then warming and cooling would go in 11 year cycles as well. Are you also aware of the scale of the difference between insolation maxima and minima - a variation from the mean of less than one two thousandth.

MR JELLO - Buy a dictionary and look up the words 'weather' and 'climate' before you make the same mistake for the umpteenth time.

MOT I'm guessing that your figure of 'over 15,000' is a reference to the much discredited Oregon Petition, skeptics often point to this yet it makes no mention at all of either 'global warming' or 'climate change' and was a website based petition against the US signing up to Kyoto. It masqueraded as being from a reputable science magazine when in fact it was the work of Professor Frederick Sietz - he has interests in oil and tobacco and denies the existence of global warming or that cigarettes can be harmful.

I used CA to illustrate a point (as made clear), the point being the increased incidence of wildfires on a global scale.

Scientists never predicted global cooling, a very small number of journalists did.

Predictions about hurricanes were made long before Katrina and are, as always, based on long term trends.

MR JELLO - Buy a dictionary and look up the words 'weather' and 'climate' before you make the same mistake for the umpteenth time.

MOT I'm guessing that your figure of 'over 15,000' is a reference to the much discredited Oregon Petition, skeptics often point to this yet it makes no mention at all of either 'global warming' or 'climate change' and was a website based petition against the US signing up to Kyoto. It masqueraded as being from a reputable science magazine when in fact it was the work of Professor Frederick Sietz - he has interests in oil and tobacco and denies the existence of global warming or that cigarettes can be harmful.

I used CA to illustrate a point (as made clear), the point being the increased incidence of wildfires on a global scale.

Scientists never predicted global cooling, a very small number of journalists did.

Predictions about hurricanes were made long before Katrina and are, as always, based on long term trends.

PHILIP - Definition of 'theory' "A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis."

BEN
1) I haven't counted the number of wildfires but the Scripps Institute have - http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/07/07/heat_and_fires/

2) Climate change was one of the central points of the Rudd manifesto, the electorate have voted him into office with a resounding success. When Australia ratifies Kyoto it will leave the US isolated on the world stage.

3) You seem to know more about what they've agreed to then their spokesperson does.

4) Please check your facts before accusing me of lying - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7111623.stm

Answer 1

In a word, yes.

But a bit of elaboration--

>Some of the skeptics are just kooks. The less anyone takes them seriously, however, the less they'll feel the need to make their "explanations" plausible--so they will get even more ridiculous.

>The REAL driver behind the "skeptics" is the fossil fuel industry. And they are getting very desperate. And--surprisingly enough, it has nothing to do with global warming, except indirectly.

The truth is the technologies using coal, oil, etc. are outdated. Modern technology can simply do the job of producing energy better, more cleanly--and a lot cheaper. The current high prices of some of those systems (like solar) is due mostly to their small scale. With large scale use, the price is going to drop to well below what it costs for coal andoil.

The thing is, no one has felt the need to look at those alternatives seriously (partly due to a lot of very effective marketing and propaganda by the oil/coal/natural gas industiries). But, the increasing awareness of the harm global warming can do is making people--including those who make policy--reallly start looking at alternatives.

And that is a death sentance for the fossil fuel industry. They are indeed getting desperate--their long term survival is being directly threatened by superior technology that they cannot compete with once it comes into wide use.

Answer 2

Trevor,

I just have not seen convincing evidence that global warming is real. In doing research, I have found that these weather cycles have occurred in the past, long before SUV's, jet airliners, and the like.

The severity of the California wildfires are a direct result of not allowing people to clear dead vegetation for thier land. That increases the fuel load so when a fire does start, it has more fuel to burn. More fuel equates to more smoke, co2 and everything else that contributes to this alledged global warming. So in a sense, you're right. Man does cause global warming when he does stupid stuff like allowing excess materials to burn needlessly. Cut the fuel load and you'll cut the amount of toxic gasses in the air. The fires will not be as severe and they will be easier to contain.

The Kyoto protocol is great except for one thing; the biggest polluters in the world, China and India, are given a pass when it comes to emissions controls. If we are going to clean up our air, then EVERYONE should do their part as best as they can. That's equality.

As far as Oxfam (whatever the hell it is), your statement says it all; weather cycle. Considering that man has only been recording weather events for the last 125 years or so, who can really say what the weather was like say during the Rennaisance period, the Roman Empire, the rule of the Pharoahs or the like and use it as a comparison to todays weather. Get real. For all we know, skiing was great in Switzerland in 1532. Don't know, because no one ever recorded the high and low temps for the day.

Answer 3

I want you might have simply ask, 'what do you're making of this new German document ?' rather of couching it your irrational perspectives of skeptics. What does this skeptic suppose approximately it. Nothing, I have no longer visible the document and even learn so much on it. Why? I don't want yet another HAL9000, or on this case HANS9000 telling me the AE-35 unit goes to fail. Just off hand, the presumption is that warmth is being absorbed then combined into the deep ocean water, however that could slightly be contradicted through the information within the ARGO software which has indicated no warming within the oceans. Do the authors declare that this absorption expand is brought on through the synchronization of decadal and multi decadal oscillations? If so, what could be the frequency of the brand new international oscillation, and the way did it relate to discovered temperatures within the twentieth century and previous? What did they use for his or her CO2 forcing, and why that importance? Do the count on stratospheric and tropospheric aerosols will stay at old lows or go back to "average" values? Then there's the water vapor/cloud quilt challenge. Too many questions approximately the paintings, so I wager good have got to look ahead to it is free up to the standard public to look what they did.

Answer 4

Philip F,
I guess you have some kind of degree in science because your knowledge of theory and hypothesis testing is top notch "not". What is that crap about falsifying. I'm sure you mean that when you accept a null hypothesis you reject the alternate. Of course you wouldn't understand that because you know jack all about science so why even make a comment you just make the rest of your anti science people look like fools. I think that among many people is a distrust of anything they don't understand or are afraid of people who are much smarter than themselves. I'm not trying to belittle people i just think that its been this way for a long time.

Australia voted in someone new Rudd because Howard was a Bush puppet, warming denier who had as he key election promise that the economy was more important than the environment. He also reduced funding for universities and research while most other countries increased. No wonder the stupid fool was voted out.

Go Trev

Answer 5

They were desperate to start with.
Portions of the temp variations that justify gw are totally invalid and always were.

Within 10 years, its a fact that the gw crowd will likley be talking about global cooling instead.

1. Outbreak of more fires is more due to the lack of pre-burns or of 'not clearing underbrush' ... which has in most areas been blocked by enviro-nuts.

2. Most reports about gw, are from people who have not climatic knowledge or are using invalid data models basing their views on insufficent facts.

Answer 6

No doubt about it. I can't even remember the last time a skeptic on Y!A made a scientific argument.

The last one I recall is Svensmark's GCR theory, but his theory has a number of fundamental problems and has essentially been disproven as having any significant effect on the recent warming.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkCY_7Ayj6CgmztQ4MB3.n0jzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071030112550AA7AXSu

We've also seen even older theories rehashed, such as bias in the surface temperature record, climate indices synchronization, and volcanic emissions. However, these have all been disproven as well.

Most of the recent questions by skeptics have been political or ad hominem attacks, such as claiming that the IPCC is politically biased.

In addition to the actions you list, we've seen arctic sea ice melting and atmospheric CO2 concentrations rising faster than the IPCC's worst case scenario models had predicted.

You can't blame skeptics for getting more desperate - the science supporting the anthropogenic global warming theory continues to get stronger, and more and more people are accepting it.

Answer 7

Trevor,

The longer the debate goes on, the longer the predicted global warming will fail to materialise and more people will get over it.

1. Like you've counted the number of wild fires or even care if anyone has.

2. The new prime minister of Australia is refering to the Kyoto protocol as a symbolic gesture. He'll ratify it, but won't change any policies as a result of Kyoto because it hasn't asked us to do anything new.

3. The heads of the commonweath nations that mine a lot of coal have not agreed to do anything.

4. I'm quite sure you made the last one up about Oxfam. That is a completely absurd claim. Presumably you think that it's ok to make stuff up if it's for a 'good cause'.

Answer 8

There's no question that U.S. climate change legislation will happen in the near term, regardless of who is the president. It might even happen with the current administration. In other words, the ship is about to sail.

The question is how deep the CO2 cuts will be? Call your congressman to have your say!

Answer 9

Yes, man has contributed to global warming. But have you read that much on how many 'credible' scientists have said it not as bad as it is reported? No. They are ignored or silenced. Over 15,000 have said its not as bad as made out to be. That it is more the cycle of our global history. Why would many feel "un-safe" in joining the "no" voices? Tenure, censure, etc. As for the wildfires, um, do you know that Calif does not do control burns? That most of the last fires were arson? As the new one is...ah, its cold there right now. In the seventies, this same group was saying we're heading for a freeze. There would be widespread famine....and after Katrina, the global warming folks predicted hurricanses would increase...they didn't.

Answer 10

Sorry Trevor but the heads of the Commonwealth nations agreeing to a "firm commitment"only means more study.
And I'm glad that it's you who just worded it "the THEORY of manmade global warming".

a definitoin
http://ca.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741588395/Theory.html
Theory
Encyclopedia Article
Find | Print | E-mail
Theory, an assumption or system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure based on limited information or knowledge, devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena; abstract reasoning.

The Scientific Method is a systematic approach to research. The philosophy of this empiricist approach is described in Western Philosophy: Pragmatism. Various methods of obtaining data are used; see Research Techniques for examples.

Hypotheses are the first step in creating a theory. Hypothesis formation is discussed in Psychology: Methods of Research.

Falsifiability is the most important feature of hypothesis testing. Methods of testing (falsifying) hypotheses include Dialectic, Logic, Probability, and Statistics.