Do global warming deniers think the IPCC and other scientists haven't ruled out their simplistic objections to

Question

anthropogenic global warming?

Or do the deniers think that some day the scientific community will issue a big OOPS news conference saying;

"We're sorry we were wrong but we didn't even think about [insert one; ice ages, Martian global warming, some other BS]

Answer 1

I guess so.

GEORGE B and BEN O - Here's tons of concrete evidence for you:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar
climate forcings and the global mean surface
air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A
doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Ben - Consider this crucial fact. The contribution of greenhouse gases right now is so great, it dwarfs any uncertainties in the analyses. That's WHY the scientific community is so solid on this.

"Skeptics" who pick at the uncertainties are EXACTLY like Creationists who pick at details of evolution.

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Mahesh - Please don't claim that people who know global warming is real are not scientists. With great respect, my friend, my degree can beat up your degree.

Answer 2

The IPCC is an employer of the UN and in case you think of of the UN is friendly to united states of america you haven't any longer been paying pastime. there is a lot interior the Kyoto Accords that volume to no longer some thing greater beneficial constructive than moving funds from one united states of america to a distinctive (as Japan and distinctive economically wealthy countries that have signed the accords are at contemporary finding out) that it incredibly is puzzling to have self assurance the accords are benevolent of their utility. even regardless of the undeniable fact that, enable's anticipate the possibility that using the accords ought to actual earnings lowering the earth's properly-regularly occurring temperature in undemanding words some stages. have you ever stopped to evaluate what that could do to the earth's ability to help crop production? the top results of which may be "inhabitants administration? on an excellent scale, and that's no longer arguable. Oh, BTW, calling people who do no longer think of as you do "deniers" isn't some thing greater beneficial constructive than an attempt to denegrate their recommendations given which you will no longer grant concrete information to the alternative.

Answer 3

The IPCC is an agency of the UN and if you think the UN is friendly to the United States you haven't been paying attention. There is so much in the Kyoto Accords that amount to nothing more than transferring money from one nation to another (as Japan and other economically prosperous nations that have signed the accords are currently finding out) that it is hard to believe the accords are benevolent in their application.

Still, let's consider the possibility that applying the accords would indeed succeed in lowering the earth's average temperature just a few degrees. Have you ever stopped to consider what that would do to the earth's ability to support crop production? The end result of that would be "population control? on a massive scale, and that isn't arguable.

Oh, BTW, calling people who don't believe as you do "deniers" is nothing more than an attempt to denegrate their intellect because you cannot offer concrete evidence to the contrary.

Answer 4

The IPCC and other scientists haven't ruled out scientific objections. The group is scrambling and reacting to global warming symptoms. Economists and industry don't belong in the equation until the objective science by ALL professions is completed.

The bureaucratic constipation is the reason the science is questioned.

Global warming is very real and the science community that is making decisions is making a big oops.

Did you know the entire science community is working out of a calculator and thermostat? Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatgain.html to see what has been missing.

Answer 5

Some people seem to think they've come up with some brilliant idea that scientists haven't considered.

However, most seem to think that scientists are wrongly dismissing an alternative theory such as increased solar activity.

Either way it amazes me that laymen think they know more about climate science than climatologists.

Mahesh - for starters, I'm the one here saying that I'm not an expert and that we should be listening to the experts. On top of that, yes I have researched global warming quite a bit, yes I do live a relatively environmentally friendly life, and yes I do have 2 scientific degrees.

Ben O - apparently if a scientific field can't answer all of life's questions in 24 hours it's worthless to you.

George B - the goal is not to reduce the global temperature (that would be virtually impossible at this point). The goal is to slow the temperature increase to a non-catastrophic level. If a person is in denial, then by definition he is a denier.

Answer 6

If you want to believe that a group of scientists couldn't exaggerate the significance of their research then that's your perogative.

One thing scientists are really bad at is understanding their own limitations which is typified by how over optimistic researchers are whenever they predict how long it will take to accomplish something.

Researchers have been working on any number of scientific projects (computer language recognition, nuclear fusion, SETI, super string theory, super conductors) that have just stagnanted and failed to deliver any progress for a long period of time. Climate change is one such field.

The lack of progress in the greenhouse theory is indicated by the complete lack of change over the last 20 years in all of the claimed uncertainties in everything from the relative significance of all of the greenhouse gasses to the uncertainties in future scenarios.

The biggest thing coming out of the field is the amount of rhetoric there is about how much exciting work has occured in the last 12 months.

Answer 7

The IPCC is not a scientific organization. It's a government body. That's what the 'I' stands for. Science is not part of their name.

Governments can't find WMD's in Iraq, how do we expect them to be qualified in complex science?

Answer 8

Amen to the poster that said the government can't even find WMD.

There are a bunch of naysayers to the global warming debate. They naysayers are the ones getting their pockets lined.

It doesn't take much to look at the global warming theory and say ..."that makes sense" not to mention the proof is in the puddin'. Just look at the facts. Not to mention it does seem to get hotter every year.

Anyone who thinks global warming is BS is gettin' their pockets lined plain and simple. Only big business wants to quiet the idea that global warming is caused by us humans.

Answer 9

hi you-
over a night people have become expert in concept of global warming. (dana-1981 u r rit) not only that- it has become fashion to talk about GW and peopele are feeling as if they care for earth. although if you ask them how many trees they have planted or did they study science in school with interest at all?
Mahesh / MSc / India .

Answer 10

I don't know if GW deniers can spell IPCC.