Why do the global warming "skeptics" generally disagree completely with each other?

Question

Some of the skeptics say the temperature record is all wrong, and we're not really warming. (Watts)

Others disagree with them, accept the fact that the temperature is warming, and say it's due to cosmic rays causing clouds which warm us up. (Svensmark)

Other skeptics disagree with that, and say that it is warming and that CO2 is the main cause, but that warming will form clouds - which will COOL us down. (Lindzen).

Still others say that all the models are wrong, which puts them in conflict with Svensmark and Lindzen. (William Gray)

So the skeptics cannot only not convince the scientific community, they can't even convince other skeptics.

Doesn't that say a lot about the validity of their theories?

Jello - The problem is not only that they have different theories, they have CONFLICTING theories.

Say it's only 95 scientists of 100 who believe the mainstream theory (low estimate). But it's not 5 guys against 95. Since they conflict, only 1 of them (or 95 of them) can be right.

Do you want to bet your future well being on one guy against 99?

MIKIRA - Your examples are excellent. But look at them a little harder. They prove global warming is real.

2000 years ago Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the world. Once the data was in the fact that the world was round was accepted by all good scientists. Only ignorant "skeptics" ignored the data, and said the world was flat.

About 500 years Galileo looked through a telescope and saw that Venus had phases like the Moon. Once that data was in all good scientists accepted the fact that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Only politically/religiously motivate "skeptics" said otherwise.

The "skeptics' of today are NOT like Galileo. They are like the people who said the world was flat or that the Sun revolved around the Earth. They are refusing to accept proven science.

If you want the equivalent of Galileo here, it's Dr. Jim Hansen of NASA. For years he said global warming was real, in the face of widespread opposition and ridicule. Now the data has vindicated him.

TOMCAT - You're quite right about Svensmark. My mistake. But his theory is still miles away from Lindzen's.

Your comment about Watts is strained, to say the least. His own words say that he thinks the temperature record is fatally flawed. Yet that's the record Svensmark and Lindzen use in their work.

And Svensmark and Lindzen very definitely use models, which Gray thinks is a wrong idea.

I made a booboo about Svensmark, but I stand behind the thrust of my question. If one of these guys is right, how come he can't even persuade other skeptics to join on?

Answer 1

Yes you would think that if any of the skeptics had a valid theory, they could form their own consensus as is the case for the anthropogenic global warming theory.

The problem is that all their theories are flawed.

Scientists have determined that there is no problem with the surface temperature record. They're not concerned with the absolute temperature, but with the rate at which it's changing. A constant bias does not effect the rate of change. Besides which, satellite temperature measurements have confirmed the surface measurements. On top of that, the "bad" surface stations show the same results as the "good" stations, so clearly there is no problem.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmRC4woki.QadIUY2fk7kLPty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071102221434AAyQmvK

Svensmark's galactic cosmic ray theory has several fundamental flaws.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ahuxfpv5RzyHSeqsVZ1fxnEjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071030112550AA7AXSu

There is too much uncertainty about clouds to conclude that they will save us from global warming, and we should certainly not rely on a theory with extremely high uncertainty to save us from a potential catastrophe.

If the models were wrong, they wouldn't be able to accurately model the climate changes over the past century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

The reason the skeptics can't agree on any of these theories is that they all have serious flaws.

Answer 2

You need a little guidance here Bob.

A) Watts has not made any judgment that I am aware of about the surface temperature record. He is gathering data right now, that is how science works.

B) Svensmark theory is based on the lack of cosmic ray's, generating LESS clouds and subsequently causing a net warming over the last thirty years.

C) I have not read one sentence uttered by Lindzen that indicated he believed that CO2 is the main cause for Global Warming.

D) All the models are wrong????, I have not read about any models that incorporate GCR / cloud cover variability or Lindzen's Iris theory. In fact all models are so crude, clouds are not modeled whatsoever, so how could they possibly dissagree?

I do not think I can answer your question, because it has to many errors. But that is generally what us skeptics are used to when alarmists pose questions and or theories about climate change. They are usually wrong.

Answer 3

Easy, because there is not one single alternative theory that stands up to any real scrutiny! Skeptics can see the flaws in other skeptic's arguments. There is not one clear contender; a valid alternative explanation to explain the affects of Global Warming, sorry I correct myself, there is not one clear argument against AGW! Just ask a Skeptic to site a source. They often quote references that actually SUPPORT AGW, but do not understand enough about the subject to know the evidence they are providing actually disproves what they are claiming!

Answer 4

I have reviewed all of the skeptic theories cited and concluded on the basis of the experimental evidence that none of them fits the observations well. For a time I thought that the Svensmark theory might have merit, but subsequent experimental evidence convinced me that Svendsmark's theory was inadequate. I think that the AGW theory is better supported by experimental evidence (including results from my own laboratory) than any rival theory at present.

The fact that theories from skeptics are contradictory has nothing to do with their merit. It is possible, although increasingly unlikely because the pool of alternative hypotheses is nearing exhaustion, that a new theory that explains the evidence better than any rival will emerge. Each theory must be judged on its agreement with experimental evidence and predictive power.

Answer 5

If the county sheriff was coming from the other direction on a country road stops you and says "Just over the next hill the bridge is out, you should turn around now and use a different route." Would you go over the hill to see for yourself?

Would you close your eyes and stomp on the accelerator?

Or would you accept his wisdom and experience as an authority and turn around?

You may say how does this relate to this pissing match?

The information about Global Climate Change has world consensus from the best minds and scientific organizations.

PLEASE don't force us to go over that next hill to prove one theory or another, let's just change course and get to where we all really want to be, a safe healthy future for everyone...

Peace, AHO

Answer 6

for one there are many groups of global warming skeptics

one group claims global warming does not exist.
others claim that global warming is not man caused
others claim it is a scam by al gore and the tree huggers.

we do not have to convince the other skeptics.
all of us have only one target and that is AL Gore an the other nutcase global warming treehuggers.

do you hear us dising each other.

plus its fun to watch youal try to deal with us.

Answer 7

It only took one to disprove the world was the center of the Universe. It only took one to disprove the theory that the world was flat. So what's your point? This is a much more complex thing than those two things were.

Answer 8

They are not skeptics, they are paid advocates funded by ExxonMobil to spread misinformation and propaganda.

Having their information inconsistent among themselves serves their purpose: the lack of clarity reinforces the damaging illusion that there is not consensus of world scientific research and international government action.

The lack of consistency also helps mask the fact that it's a major coordinated campaign, as documented at the links below.

Here's a partial list of ExxonMobil front groups:
http://exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:Organisations

Here's an example of the documentation of the funding trail of one such group, the Heartland Institute:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:_Heartland_Institute#Funding

Boycott ExxonMobil!!

Answer 9

Each has their own agenda.Who is paying them to speak,report,or legislate ? Takes lots of $$$$$$$ to make,change,or interpret the law.

Answer 10

It just goes to show that there isn't yet any way to prove that the Earth is warming because of man.

Each one of these men's ideas work in their specific way.

This only proves that we have a long way to go before we have even the basic understanding about how the climate works.

Remember that if 3 theories are wrong, that doesn't prove the 4th one is right.