What other explanation is there for global warming theory being wrong, other than a giant conspiracy?

Question

The vast majority of scientists and world leaders say that it is real, and mostly caused by us. So do the majority of corporate leaders not in the fossil fuel industry.

They're not stupid.

They're not ignorant. They've surely heard the "skeptics" arguments, and they're not buying them.

They have unlimited access to the best scientists in the world. They don't get their science from Al Gore. Or David Suzuki or Leonardo DiCaprio.

So what other explanation is there? Many of these people don't like each other, and agree on little else. Most of them don't make any money from supporting this theory. The scientist who could actually disprove this theory would be set for life.

So what other explanation is there, other than an absurd giant conspiracy?

AGENT O - The vast majority of the scientists did NOT think the world was flat.

Eratosthenes measure the diameter of the Earth about 2000 years ago. Once that data was in, the vast majority of scientists knew the Earth was round.

Only ignorant "skeptics' who disagreed with the vast majority of scientists said the world was flat. The same type of people who deny global warming is real.

WHO FELL, etc. Not "real scientists"? The fallacy of that argument is obvious.

The National Academy of Sciences, The American Association for the advancement of science, and the American Meteorological Association all say it's real and mostly caused by us. The American Petroleum Engineers Association used to say it was natural, but they gave up when their members started to resign in droves (these were _petroleum engineers_) rather than belong to such an unscientific group.

You need to get your information from scientific sources, not right wing websites. You might want to start here (you'll need a college library):

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

BOATMAN 1 - The percentage of scientific "skeptics" among the climatologists, etc. you rightly want as authoritative, is miniscule.

Could keeping CO2 levels down to 400-500ppm (the most that anyone thinks we can do) be bad? Historically it hasn't been above 300 before for hundreds of thousands of years.

The ice ages and their exits were caused by easily measurable changes in solar radiation called Milankovic cycles. For years solar radiation has been decreasing (as you know it's extensively measured) while temperatures are going up. Something is very wrong.

You seem like a guy who's interested in science. Do some real scientific research in the library.

Denying global warming is exactly like denying we went to the Moon. You have to BOTH; deny the opinion of virtually the entire scientific community, AND assume that's there's an extremely improbable "conspiracy" being perpetrated. You also have to assume NASA is in on it, since they support the reality of global warming.

JIM M - Removing CO2 from the atmosphere ain't easy. Richard Branson has offered a multimillion dollar prize to anyone who comes up with a practical method. We don't want to reduce it below natural levels, which are something less than 300ppm. Nobody thinks we COULD do that, we're hoping to keep it below 500 (!).

EEGAH - Here's your equation (actually a graph). The source is listed at the end (Meehle, et al). Go to a college library and read the paper - it will open your eyes.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Where's your data about the number of climatologists. I say 99+% agree that global warming is real - here's my proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Water vapor CANNOT cause global warming. Any excess water vapor in the air falls out as precipitation in hours. CO2 stays there for years. The "residence time" of water vapor is too short to cause warming. Scientific proof here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652

It's one thing to make claims - it's another to back them up.

YOWSIE - We disagree. About 2000 years ago Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the Earth. After that data was in, the vast majority of scientists agreed. It was ignorant "skeptics" who denied the scientific data, that thought it was flat.

Answer 1

Yes, you have arrived at the underlying - conscious - answer. Look at your answers, they have this common theme.

In spite of all the questions asked here, the only scientific answers the skeptics can bring are one-off long shots put forward by lone ranger types. These get debunked as they come up and are only debated because science is impartial and will give any idea a shot, so long as there is a valid rationale.

The fall back position and the only one left for them is the conspiracy. I especially like the "scientists make stuff up to get grant money" variation. Considering all the stuff they've "made up" in the last 400 years, I say give them as much money as they want.

Why is evolution vs creationism still debated? Why do people still believe the ozone problem is a scam because the patent ran out on R-12?

Why, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, do people believe resources are unlimited and man has no effect on the environment?

What is the real - unconscious - reason? Answer this my friend and maybe you would be set for life.

Answer 2

In ancient times some scientists thought that the world was round but the majority thought that the world was flat.It took some time (1,500 years) but eventually a general consensus was formed and that was; that the world was indeed round.Most scientists will disagree and argue until they are blue in the face about a lot of things but one thing they all have in common is they all believe in Global Warming(the planets surface temperature is slowly rising) so who am i too argue against all of them,there is no logical argument to dispute reports such as the U.N. GEO - 4 report.

Answer 3

Hi Bob! You are as mixed up as ever! Not even Milutin Milankovitch can fully explain the Warm Ages & Ice Ages (+5/-10 degree C changes). So, how can you explain that the average temperature of the planet in the last 30 years has increased because of anthropogenic CO2? Give me an equation, and not a bunch of subjective nonsense. Over 65% of climate scientists do not believe in the theory of AGW, especially geologists and paleoclimatologists! Please go to school and come back to us in a few years with a more educated point of view!

Why don't you try to dehumidify the planet? Clearly, if you had some sort of education, you would realize that humidity is almost 10 X more powerful than CO2 in the just greenhouse gas component of Earth's average temperature. Why don't you study all the components, as opposed to sitting on here and acting like a post 200 BC human wannabee?

Answer 4

First I would immediately discount as uninformed the following proponents of GW------- ALL politicians, anyone associated with a UN committee, Hollywood types, corporate types, and any other "scientist" not involved intimately with climatology------ or paleo-climatology, or Astro-Physics. That being said:

Why I don't believe GW is real or a settled issue:
1. Geological history of the Earth's climate--- there has been no Optimum temperature------ actually it's been all over the board. The oceans have been 27 degrees hotter than today in the past for example. (now that's HOT!)

2. The computer models are inaccurate and based on too large percentage of guesses in their formulas.

3. Many countries, corporations, colleges, and individuals stand to gain big money from the investigation and remediation of this almost "religious" phenomenon. Carbon credits is a perfect example of a political solution to GW ----- if it actually exists. (Show me the MONEY!-------- and you can keep on making CO2!)

4. While unfounded and certainly not adequately investigated --- there is a lot of data that says the IPCC reports have been tampered with ------- to achieve the desired GW result. Knowing that the UN is a HIGHLY political organization, this raises my personal SUSPICIONS concerning their ultimate motive.

5. The large number of scientists who have "stuck their neck out" and signed petitions stating that GW is a "fraud"..... and that the computer models are inadequate to properly describe the Earth's atmosphere. This is combined with an almost improper elitist attitude by GW proponents............ an environmentalist groups, who have joined forces on this issue. (an example would be " the discussion is over" Al Gore. ) See this write-up for the statistical problems:
http://thedeadhand.com/Resources/DeadHandJournal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/68/Default.aspx

6. Since I believe the above------ then trying to ALTER the climate (when you really don't know the entire system of climate) seems a very foolish endeavor which "might" have the opposite climate affect from what is desired.

7. I firmly believe that we are actually headed toward another ice age------ based on the 11 other events going back over 1,000,000 years------ 90,000 years of ice---- followed by about 10,000 of warm. The current fluctuations in temperatures may the signs of an ONSET of another ice age------- do I know this for sure? NO.......... but neither does anyone else! That is the crux of the issue!

8. The current supposed (VERY) small temperature increases could be the result of bad ground data stations and the encroachment of cities into the monitoring stations----- BUT after another 10-20 years of SAT data ------ then I would be convinced if the higher temp trend held. The last 10 years have seen falling temperatures.

9. Finally since I believe that the science of climatology is in its infancy---- and that the climate is a VERY complex system----- it may take someone from another science discipline (astronomer, astro physicist) to put all the pieces together and give us a better knowledge of everything that influences Earth's climate.

This should be studied for several more decades------- then we can make an informed decision.

Answer 5

Voila! an nice matter where typical floor among 2 very extraordinary matters have to be discovered. Whether you consider in Global Warming or no longer the truth nonetheless stays temperatures are emerging and the polar ice caps are melting. You'd ought to blind or are living below a rock not to observe these items. The essential intent I believe that many individuals positioned this off as fiction is due to the fact that in the event that they agree and comply with technological know-how this time it makes them appear dangerous for placing different matters off that technological know-how has additionally confirmed reality (evolution, tremendous bang concept, and so on.). They do not wanna facet with it now to avert watching dangerous in the end which is apparent BS. It's iciness right here in Florida and we are dealing with eighty measure climate! I imply it is regularly sizzling, no lie, however iciness is ordinarily the time in which it drops to no less than 60. Why individuals cannot positioned their ideals apart to observe our planet is in severe challenge is past me. Either manner Christianity has regularly performed the reverse of what it is supposedly supposed to do....

Answer 6

Most of what I've seen is centered around their contempt for Al Gore. Like him or not, the most respected organizations and agencies (NASA, NOAA, IPCC...) in the world agree that AGW is the best theory out there.

To Agent 0 - might as well stop wearing a seat belt, because there is only about a 60% chance of it saving your life in a crash whereas the IPCC scientists are only 90% sure they are correct. Are you a creationist proponet? If so, I hope you don't site hundreds of thousands of years of natural climate change when a creationist doesn't believe the earth has been around that long. What's wrong with the Big Bang theory anyway?

Answer 7

I'm really surprised that you can't figure this out.

First of all there's tons of money in alarm-ism. For scientists to say there's no problem would mean no more giant grants to study the effects of "global warming" or some other hysteria subject. And the truth is that many many more scientists do not follow in lock-step with the Gore crowd. The list of scientists they like to use to make this "consensus" are not even real scientists in many respects. I don't think hair dressers count, do they? The list is hilarious. Check it out sometime.

As for politicians, I'm surprised again that you don't know their motives. They're in it for the enormous tax increases they can demand as well as the increase in control over the people and what they are "allowed" to do. It's really just another attack on freedom. Have you ever known a majority of politicians who didn't want more power?

Unfortunately, corporations feel compelled to follow the political climate to avoid alienating the believers. I wish they wouldn't cow-tow to the environmental kooks, but those kooks have a lot of power and money and unfortunately, a lot of influence too.

So just follow the money and you'll get the picture. The answer is so extremely obvious. If you still don't get it, perhaps you are in denial or your judgment has been clouded by your desire for an outcome that is not real.

Look for the truth and you'll find it. I hope one day you will see the light.

Answer 8

I've heard no scientist say that humankind isn't contributing to global warming, yet here is where things get tricky and confusing depending on who you listen to, how much? Add in the fact that science has yet to explain other warming and cooling trends inside major ice and warm ages. also contribute that the Earth is coming out of a mini-ice age (yes that is fact something overlooked by most everyone) so is this really something that we know a lot about.

The problem is this science is very inexact, yes they might be right, but who is right or are they both a bit right.

Of course a major volcano could erupt and send us to another major ice age as well, something that some scientists thing was responsible for the Dark Ages!

Answer 9

They say CO2 is causing global warming-right? Well also methane too but mostly its CO2-right? Soooo why not just remove whatever amount of CO2 from the atmosphere that is needed to be removed to return the balance to wherever it needs to be to stop the process. Or remove even more CO2 to makeup for damage done in the past few hundred years.

Answer 10

There is more money to be made by trying to raise "reasonable doubts", than admitting the truth has already been discovered. These are the same people that deny "peak oil" and would like everyone to believe the Earth has a gooey liquid center of sweet crude... and we just need to drill deeper!

Just ask O. J. Simpson's lawyers how well this strategy works in what we call our justice system.