How might the global warming skeptic's arguments evolve over the coming months?

Question

Sometimes it's hard keeping up with the skeptics as they frequently change their line of argument.

Not so long back many global warming skeptics confidently proclaimed that the world was cooling and that they could prove it (2°C was a figure often quoted).

Then they announced that it was neither warming or cooling and that they could prove this too.

They then changed their collective minds again and adamantly stated the world was warming but it was entirely natural and that they again had proof.

Now we're seeing yet another shift with more and more skeptics stating that we are after all, affecting the climate but that it's a good thing.

So what do you think a common line of argument used by skeptics over the coming months might be?

Also, given that so many skeptics continually change their minds and regularly contradict themselves, doesn't this harm any credibility they or their arguments may have?

Answer 1

Well-as to the last item first--the skeptics don't have any credibility. And since they are trying to dispute established facts, that isn't going to change.

The continual changes in their patter are a direct result of the basic flaw in their position: it is, at its base, a logical fallacy. Specifically, when an arguement has been settled, sometimes (as with global warming) some people continue to advance "ad hoc" alternatives inan effort to salvagetheir position. This-the "ad hoc fallacy"--is inherantly untenable--but people still resourt to it when they don't want to admit they are wrong.

Where will they go from here? Well, that's dependant on what the special interests decide to do. remember, most of the skeptics are not dreamig this drivel up on their own--they are sucked into the propagganda machines of the oil companies and other special interests. My guess is the emphasis is soon going to begin shifting to attempting to discredit policy proposals by either a) claiming a particular initiative won't work (with all the attendent pseudo-science to "prove" that), and b) characterizing any environmental action/policy,program, and so on as "extremist" or "overreacting." Plus a renewal of attempts to argue that global warming is "really a good thing."

Answer 2

You're using the word skeptics all wrong. Skeptics are the people that say NOTHING is happening.

I don't think it harms the credibility necessarily. As time goes forward we get more and more technology that allows us to both observe and model things more accurately. There is very little doubt in my mind, or any of my colleagues that this is truly happening.

If people really want to sit around and do nothing just to prove a point, then that's pretty sad.

For the record, very few people agree that global warming is a good thing. Yes, there are a few, but not many at all.

Answer 3

Every day there are fewer and fewer doubters, just as surely as the planets surface will slowly warm up over this century the ranks of AGW skeptics will thin out and the last of the recalcitrant nations will ratify the Kyoto protocol,Australia's new PM Kevin Rudd will ratify Kyoto in Bali probably before Christmas(details still a bit hazy i had my doubts because he was strangely silent on this during his Election campaign but today he announced he will definitely sign the treaty) that leaves only America who have not,but even if the Americans do not ratify the Kyoto treaty nobody can deny the sea change in thinking from the solar panel powered Christmas tree in Manhattan to small and big businesses all over the states who do care and are cooperating with each other in planning and designing and have a positive and realistic outlook on GW.

Answer 4

Personnally I think any 'Collective mind' changes their mind on issues all the time. Suddenly Vitamin C isn't so great for your immune system- that is something specialists have decided now..after years of telling us otherwise, and before that something else. So I don't think credibility is the issue.

Secondly, of course we affect the environment, so does everything else on the planet. Trying to keep the world the same all the time won't work, trying to save species all the time won't work either. The world moves and evolves as it needs to and unfortunately that means change that can obliterate species and have a massive affect on how it is possible to live in the world.

I think the Skeptics, and the protagonists alike change their stories all the time and what is a more pertinent queston perhaps is what will the media report to us on the matter?

Answer 5

I doubt skeptic's like myself will change much. Many of us are skeptical about anyone's claim that they can predict the magitude and rate of climate change and understand all relevant variables to sufficient mathematical precision to make these predictions to within a few degrees over a time period of 100 years. When weather forecast are often inaccurate for the the following day, and very often off if extended to the next week.

On top of that the facts do not support the case made by the global warming fanatics. Recent reports indicate that the very mathematical models used as the basis of their claims has been found to be inconsistent with the actual data.

Further they appear to be unaware of other facts that make their claims seem absurd. The earths climate has been changing for millions of years either getting warmer or cooler with ice ages lasting in the range of 100,000 years and warm periods lasting between 8 and 12,000 years. That it was warmer when the Vikings settled in Greenland than it is right now.

The last straw for me is that the most strident global warming fanatics are the socialist, communist or other collectivist. It is not surprising considering that the gobal warming scare is the perfect excuse for this collection of collectivist to demand the restriction of rights of individuals. And demand that we all submit to the slavery of socialism and conform our lifestyle to fit their vision.

Answer 6

Well I think most will continue to claim that it's a natural cycle or caused by the Sun for a while longer. However, as more and more realize that these theories don't hold up to the basic scientific facts

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgCxBALgHOtjhactMX_WFDjsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071215102828AAxyWW6

they'll abandon these false claims. More will cling to the bizarre claim that "warmer is better", as though we should all be living on the Sun.

Eventually they'll accept that most of the effects of global climate change will be negative, and they'll argue that we should let the free market regulate carbon emissions rather than accepting government regulation.

Once government regulation is enacted, they'll complain about it, but that will probably be the end of it. There will be so few remaining skeptics that they will have no impact on our global warming policy. Plus they'll realize that addressing the problem won't cripple our economy.

The skeptics arguments do not have any credibility, because they rarely if ever invoke valid scientific evidence. The reason they contradict eachother is that their arguments always boil down to false claims (i.e. the Sun is getting hotter) or old data which disregards current conditions (i.e. the planet has gone through natural cycles before; therefore, humans can't cause global warming).

That's why almost all of their questions involve political conspiracy theories rather than scientific arguments.

Answer 7

lmao I had to pinch myself there

I saw the word "evolve" after coming out of the R&S section and was ready for doing battle for the truth (scientific truth, of course) lol

What amazes me about some of the sceptics is that they'll readily use any scientific findings about the climate of early Earth AND then (shock, horror) use it against current consensus that the current rise in the GMST can be primarily down to human cause.

I mean, c'mon guys lol

And it's a good thing? Well they should tell that to the people in regions where they can't grow vegetation, or even their regular crop...sure, we might be able to grow a crop or two but at the EXPENSE of another....

and more importantly, in regions where it's already tough, it will get tougher - morons! Sorry


anyway back to R & S :)


EDIT: I do have to apologise to you Trevor, this was a bit of a drunken rant rather than a well thought out rational response to your question. White wine does strange things to the human mind.

Answer 8

You are using a rhetorical device called a 'strawman'. That does not really offer any useful purpose.
Skeptics, as you call them, are a diverse group with different ideas about what is going on. Most of them agree that there is some warming going on but they absolutely reject the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of the warming.
The computer models used by the IPCC are largely a joke because they don't predict anything or they specify a range of values that is so wide that ensures that any possible outcome will 'match' their model. Yet this is the basis for the claim that CO2 causes warming.
The IPCC committee itself is a largely made up a scientists who review their own research and systematically exclude anyone with a different view. The 'consensus' amoung the scientific community is a media talking point that has no basis in fact. Most of the 2500 scientists who 'reviewed' the IPCC never read most of it. Those that did submitted numerous requests for changes that were rejected by the small group of scientists that control the process.
The temperature data that is used to support to claims is collected by people who have a vested interest in ensuring the CO2 hypothesis is believed to be correct. They manipulate the data and refuse to tell people how and why they manipulated the data.
The entire process stinks - it is a lot like allowing Enron executives to decide on what accounting rules to use. Yet people like you get up a high horse and spew vitriol at people with enough intelligence to analyze the science instead of blindly accepting opinion as fact.

Answer 9

Yes and I can't wait to see what the warmers will say when the climate starts cooling again and the CO2 continues upward.

This Fall has been more like Winter here in the Central USA. It snowed again today. That's twice already and it's not even winter yet. We don't normally get this much in the winter months down south in Oklahoma. Freezing rain last week and more snow this week, I want my global warming back.

Lets see I think I remember that the AGW crowd was predicting as much as 12ºC change in the next 100 years, then it was revised down to about 6ºC, then again down to about 3º and now I believe it's down to a catastrophic 1.5ºC by 2100. They were also predicting a major increase in class four and five hurricane activity and now they are not sure about that. There is more, but I won't go on about it. There is just too many unknowns and uncertainties to give accurate predictions at the current level of understanding.

Answer 10

You left out the "it's a natural cycle, not caused by man" phase.

Now, the serious scientists have dropped that, or changed it to "It's not as much caused by man" as the mainstream says.

We've already seen the start of the "It won't be as bad as the mainstream says" phase. That one is likely to last a few years, until serious impacts are undeniable.

To clarify a point you made, it's not so much disagreements with the skeptics theories over time that's illustrative. Science changes over time. It's that, at the very same time, the skeptics wildly contradict each other.

Watts claims that the temperature record is no good, while most skeptics use it in their work. The retired meteorologists claim that ALL the models are no darn good, while Lindzen and Svensmark base their arguments on models. Etc.