Why do the scientific global warming skeptics not agree with each other.?

Question

Continuing the theme set by Dana http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aqz948unqaVR9crb0b1Sl1_sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071210104315AAhGir4 and Bob http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjdarEeKo9ojL6ODDSjzCW0Fxgt.;_ylv=3?qid=20071210101657AAm3pvA

There are a small number of scientists who are skeptical about manmade global warming and have put forward their own explanations. These explanations include blackbody radiation, cosmic rays, increased solar activity, erroneous temperature records and so on.

If these explanations had credibility you'd have thought the other skeptical climate scientists would have at least agreed with the proposal being put forward - but they don't. Instead they seem to go off and conjure up a reason of their own.

So why, if any of these explanations are plausible, does no-one else who understands climate agree with them?

ADDED. Dana, the question is similar to that of Bob's. I though I'd add some other reasons and narrow it down specifically to skeptical scientists rather than skeptics in general.

Answer 1

I thought Bob's question was in reference to skeptical scientists, so I'll give the same answer.

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.

Biased surface temperature record theory: 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

Negative cloud feedback will save us: 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.

Computer models are unreliable: 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

Science operates by proposing a hypothesis and then testing it. Just because there are multiple hypothesis about what is the major driving force behind "Global Warming" (a quaint little theory that seems to be having problems actually happening - c.f. no "warming" in the last 10 years) does not mean that the "skeptics" are in disarray.

The Climate is an extremely complicated system, as proven by the "levels of uncertainty" noted by the IPCC about how various drivers affect it. If any of these "driving" forces turns out to be more or less powerful than they currently claim, it can wreak havoc on their models.

The IPCC, for political expediency, has settled on the CO2 drives Global Climate Change theory. They may alternatively say "Greenhouse Gasses," but since only CO2 is dependably and predictably increasing, they won't get much play from the other gasses.

The skeptics point out that many, many factors drive climate, and are pointing out other possible drivers. As more research is done (although it will be harder for these alternative theories to get money, because they aren't as "chic" as CO2 and aren't MAN'S fault) they will either fall by the wayside, or stand on their own merits.

The theory of CO2 driven warming requires a "hot spot" in the tropical troposphere. There is no such "hot spot," so the CO2 theorists will have to revise their models and theories to say why they didn't need it.

The theory of CO2 driven warming requires other "positive feedbacks" for catastrophe to occur. We're still waiting for these feedbacks to kick in - and our great-great-grandchildren will die waiting for them, in all probability.

But you don't call the "CO2" camp in disarray over failures to predict temperature or conditions based on their theory, do you?

Answer 3

Because GW is really a theory and new. Most scientists believe that it exists. Those that don't may be true in their convictions or have a bias. But everyone has a bias. Even those who believe. But I like to look at the body of evidence and who is lining up for and against. When I look and see the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh and Savage against and then NASA, NOAA and the EPA for I decided to trust science not loudmouths.

Answer 4

Why should the skeptics agree with each other? I haven't seen them DISAGREEING with each other. I haven't seen Lindzen feuding with Pielke, or Svensmark feuding with Scafetta and West, etc. Asking a different question than someone else does not imply disagreement. It implies that they have other questions. That is why the other skeptics "go off and conjure up a reason of their own" as you so ham-handedly put it.

Why do some insist that the world is so black and white? Its CO2 or bust. Its CGR's or bust.

Answer 5

Are we supposed to conclude that since all scientists aren't in total agreement that that should somehow create less doubt that man is responsible? Scientists seldom agree on little understood phenomena such as weather and climate. Those that pretend that we know more than we do demand a consensus that is obviously political and not scientific. Scientists stick their necks out going up against these global warming nazies and frankly I am surprised that there are as many as there are that are willing to stick their necks out. It is easier to just ignore it than risk your career daring to doubt these theories that clearly lack credible evidence. They also lack credible analyses of possible benefits and consequences. The reason seems to be that they are not interested in practical solutions. They are interested in their own agenda and it is a leftist agenda. Those that passionately believe that global warming is real and caused by man should be a little introspective IMO. They should answer the question, am I left of center politically. Perhaps after they admit that they are, they may realize that their passion is more political than scientific.

Answer 6

It proves that they are still SCIENTISTS, not political activists. The whole point of science is to find out more about the world around us. The various (large number of) scientists who disagree with the so-called "consensus" bring together their theories to try and find the flaws in each, thus making each theory better. That is what science is.
Another reason is that there is not a single factor that drives climate, like the alarmists seem to think. There are hundreds of thousands of factors in climate, each playing a part.
This is just another version of the consensus lie, which, by the way, was also pushed in the 70's, to try to convince people of the coming ice age. They were wrong, weren't they?

Answer 7

What difference does this make?

This only matters if you hold subjective science as the gold standard. If enough people agree, then the science must be right. Right?

No, science needs to remain objective. The fact is we don't know very much about the climate. This is a relatively new field of study. To make claims that man is effecting the climate are far premature.

Until climate change matures to become a science that is objective, there will always be debates if it is real or not.

Answer 8

You don't think Anthony Watts is a scientist?

He's a TV weatherman. Who's won awards, for Pete's sake.

"Was voted "Best Media Personality" in 2002 by a Newspaper reader survey."

Answer 9

The problem is there are so many different valid questions on the CO2 theory. All need to be addressed.

Trevor, there are more dissidents getting on the skeptic train every day.

Answer 10

They are born to disagree

We are born to be free