Is your climate denial based on nothing more than a feeling you have?

Question

I see a lot of people answering with words like "man isn't responsible for climate change because I don't think it is". Is your climate denial based on a feeling that you have or based on a scientific study? If it's based on a scientific study please provide the source of your information so that we may all read it. What journal does it appear in title, date, issue, volume, etc..

Ron C. This article http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSun.html appearsd on Schwartz's own web site http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/schwartz.html apparently he doesn't agree with Fox News' interpretation of his own paper.

Ron C, Interesting article, in it you'll find it saying "He knows society has antidotes to carbon dioxide -- aerosols -- that could postpone the day of reckoning far into the future. And although he dreads a reliance on the aerosols, he knows respected scientists are pursuing aerosol-abatement strategies, and that they could be cost effective and environmentally benign."
It seems there is a mixed message with regards to CO2. In fact this article contradicts several of the links you have posted. Pick one story and stick with it will you?

jack_scar_action_hero, did you read fact 1 and fact 2 before you copied and pasted that?
Fact #1: All the CO2 in the air at present comes from the mantle.
Fact #2: Increasing CO2 in the air is due to gases coming out of solution as the ocean heats up.

Answer 1

No, it's not. It's based on commonsense. That and the fact that science is not always right (or should I say man's interpretation of scientific findings). I also know that people seem to think we're more powerful than we really are, and that scares me. It's called arrogance, gwen, and it's epidemic in our species.

Do you remember Y2K? Don't you recall how catastrophic that was supposed to be? Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, happened! There was a huge cult following in the late 90s, just before the 21st century hit. And then there were those of us, calmly sitting back, giggling at the ridiculousness of it all. Who was right? The 'denialists'.

It will be the same with this. I've stated my position before, and it has not changed, nor will it. There are even scientists who believed in AGW who have since changed their positions. Commonsense will even tell you that we can't even accurately predict climate changes in a simple 5-day forecast, so how can we accurately depict it for months or years into the future?

And while the 'believers' are busy screaming about how we need to stop all of this, they are completely ignoring the fact that we should be taking steps to save lives NOW, before the sea levels start burying our coastlines. Do you remember Katrina? All efforts to save lives were put off until the last minute, and it turned out to be a huge mess. That is what will happen again, on a much grander scale, if plans are not put into place NOW. We cannot stop this warming trend! It is not possible! It's a natural part of Earth's cycle, and we are powerless to stop it. And then, there will be another ice age, long after we are gone. And again, it will continue.

Smaccas: it has nothing to do with this question. My reason for using it was to make the point that no matter how many 'believers' there are, there are always the 'denialists' who use commonsense. And there may not have been 'scientific' proof something was going to happen, but there was a mathematical basis for the belief that something would happen to all computer systems the moment the clocks struck 12:00:01am, January 1st, 2000.

*There are no other theories why the earth has warmed because WE'VE NEVER BEEN ALIVE DURING A WARMING PERIOD BEFORE! How in the hell can we theorize about something which we know nothing about? We have no basis for comparison, except for about 150 years. 150 years is a spit in the oceans of the universe! And of that 150 years, there's probably been only about a 1/3 to 1/2 of the time that climate predictions have been accurate. As recently as the 70s we were being warned (well, I wasn't - I wasn't alive in the 70s) that a cooling trend was upon us. God! We did NOT cause that much of an effect in 30 years! As I said, it's commonsense. Now the governments need to stop being so damned stagnant about doing something to save lives! When the sea levels rise, and we end up losing cities like New Orleans (again!), and countries like the Netherlands, the believers in AGW will be shaking their heads and wondering "Why didn't we see this coming?" You guys are being warned, right now, by the 'denialists'! The governments will put it off until it's too late, risking more lives in the process than is necessary. Quite frankly I'm glad the US and Canada haven't really gotten on board with the Kyoto Accord. That thing will sink the economies of many countries. That's not to say that while we're developing strategies for saving lives we shouldn't be making strides towards reducing pollution. I'm all for reducing pollution! Read my other posts about this issue, and you'll see that I've been very clear about it.

Answer 2

I think the burden of proof lies with those who don’t accept the AGW theory because to date no other theory explains why the earth has warmed. Forget about models and predictions and look at what has happened in the past 30 years in context with the past 400 million years. For the first time in the history of the planet man is actually impacting on the global ecosystem. There is no doubt that the earth has warmed over the last 30 years and there is no doubt that greenhouse gasses are what enable the earth to hold its heat. What part of the theory don’t you understand? The gasses keep the earth warm, more gasses like CO2 and methane will mean more trapped heat.

Find another theory that even comes close to explaining what has happened (hence burden of proof) because so far I have only seen people saying its a cycle, its normal or its not happening. Where is your theory? Why their not better theories and what are is wrong with the AGW theory. I think that denial is primarily based on feelings or a deep seeded trust issue with science.

Fact1: Jack knows Jack all about climate science, global warming or any other science for that matter. Get back to work managing that coal mine you fool.

Shana: there was no science behing the Y2K bug and i doubt you could say that there theory was even remotly valid given the fact that if you belived the world was going to end then you would most likely belive anything. Anyway what the hell has a cult of computer nerds worried about their computer dieing have to do with this question.

Answer 3

No, it's usually based on misinformation or cherrypicking.

For example, one denier claims that the current warming is due to the Sun. He eventually found one Russian scientist who says this, although no other scientist I'm aware of makes this claim (including the skeptical scientists and solar physicists), he continues to claim that this one scientist's opinion is proof that he's correct.

Ron C only listens to the outlying scientists. For example, Watts takes photographs of temperature measurement stations and claims the process is flawed. Of course, scientists take their bias into account, have shown that the "bad" stations give the same results as the "good" stations, rural and ocean stations show the same warming as urban stations, and any bias wouldn't effect the warming trend (which is what's important) anyway. Yet Ron C has concluded that the temperature record is wrong. That's extreme cherrypicking, rejecting the data in favor of photographs.

He always cites Schwartz who concluded that the climate is not as sensitive as we think. Yet many other studies have concluded otherwise - Schwartz is the outlier. In fact, Ron C has even linked studies which have said Schwartz is wrong. And the fact that arctic ice is melting faster than models expected rather suggests the models are not 'alarmist'. Yet Ron C chooses to listen to Schwartz because he likes the conclusion of that particular paper, even though it's far outside the results of other studies, and there is absolutely no reason to think that Schwartz is right and all other studies are wrong. That's cherrypicking.

Other deniers choose to use "common sense". I really wish they would, because the basic science does require common sense. Increased levels of greenhouse gases will cause warming. This is common sense. Once you get deeper than this basic science, the global climate is quite complex and requires more in-depth study than simply using your "common sense".

Answer 4

What you are seeing as a subtle retreat on the subject of Man Made Global Warming. Unfortunately for the alarmists, the weather will not cooperate with their predictions and so they are carefully modifying their case from warming as a potential disaster to Carbon levels as a potential disaster.

Even if the world cools by several degrees in the next twenty years, they will still be claiming that man is destroying the planet. The problem with all of these scientists is they are all looking at one issue while not comprehending that the world wide eco-system is far more flexible and auto-regulating than we think. Much of the problem with increased Carbon Dioxide levels is that we are not allowing man to do what man should be doing.

Sure we produce higher levels of Carbon Dioxide. Every time you light a candle, or exhale you produce Carbon Dioxide. But there is plant-life on this planet that thrives on Carbon-Dioxide and give off Oxygen as a by-product.

What is causing the problem is our refusal to allow old growth trees to be harvested and replaced. Old trees may be pretty but they do not use much CO2 nor do they emit much Oxygen. If much of the old growth forest were cut down and used for building (not burning) and replaced, the young trees use up huge amounts of CO2 and emit huge amounts of Oxygen.

In the Amazon, the rain forest, there is so much over-growth that the canopy of the old trees blocks the sunlight available to the ground. Thing that forest out, remove the rotting vegetation that results in huge amounts of carbon dioxide release as insects and fungus break them down.

Thinning the rain forest and planting new trees that can now receive sunlight will greatly reduce CO2. Good planning and proper care of the forests will also reduce wildfires. One can only imagine the amount of CO2 and other pollutants they release.

BTW- I do not make important decisions based on my feelings about things. I want to know the facts. Not only a keyhole sized image of the facts, I want to see the whole thing. I want open and honest exchange of ideas and open and honest answers to my questions.

Merry Christmas!

.

Answer 5

Mostly, but i was just fooling around.
Acctually I base my sceptisism completely on science.
Years ago I was a true believer, but then i started noticing that the science didn't support man made climate change.
Each argument attributing global warming, at least that i have ever heard has been proved false.

Such as CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere would have to double to raise the temp by
1 degree, but then it would have to double again to raise the temp 1/10th of a degree after that.

The claims that the temp has risen faster or it hasn't been hotter have been shown false by simply looking at history.

Climate change/global warming has become a political tool to tax us and bring down our economy.

I get tired of hearing about climate change causeing all these natural disasters. And while everyone is sitting around trying to convince sceptics with out science, Pollution is a real problem that can be effected by man, but is on the back burner.

If you want to believe. Fine. Enjoy it, by all means. But don't get so upset when others want scientific proof, and not political claims.

Answer 6

I'd like to save the skeptics some time and offer a long list of debunked theories that they can base their fixed position on:

Anti-global warming claims
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/

Myth #1: All the CO2 in the air at present comes from the mantle.
Myth #2: Increasing CO2 in the air is due to gases coming out of solution as the ocean heats up.
Myth #3: Humans are not the source of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Myth #4: CO2 is rising at 0.38% per year, not 1% per year as the IPCC Third Assessment Report claimed.
Myth #5: CO2 is such a weak greenhouse gas that it cannot be the cause of the observed warming.
Myth #6: CO2 concentrations are not correlated with global temperature due to periods in the geologic history when CO2 was higher and the planet was in an ice age.
Myth #7: Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were warmer than modern temperatures.
Myth #8: The existence of the Medieval Warm Period has been ignored in order to support anthropogenic global heating.
Myth #9: Modern temperature increases are a direct result of the Earth’s climate exiting the Little Ice Age.
Myth #10: Global cooling between 1940 and 1970 happened even though anthropogenic CO2 was rising at
Myth #11: Cosmic rays hitting the earth are behind global heating.
Myth #12: The Stefan-Boltzman law breaks the equations of global heating.
Myth #13: Computer models are too inaccurate to accurately predict a system as complex as the Earth’s climate.
Myth #14: The oceanic storage of heat is required to account for the differences between data and early models. But the updated models still require an unrealistically large oceanic depth of water to make them work right.
Myth #15: The oceans have already begun to cool in response to natural variations, so global heating is wrong.
Myth #16: Satellite measurements of tropical air don’t correspond to directly measured temperatures, so global heating isn’t actually happening.
Myth #17: Global heating will be good for the planet, not bad.
Myth #18: Water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, and since humans have almost no direct impact on the amount of water vapor in the air, humans can’t be the cause of global heating.
Myth #19: We don’t have enough climate data to make valid predictions of any kind.
Myth #20: Volcanoes spew more CO2 into the air in a single eruption than humanity has emitted in its history.

This may explain why people are eager to cling onto even the weakest theories, including ones from seriously biased, questionable sources:

"Republicans with higher levels of income (and education) would be disproportionately concerned about the economic implications of any proposed global warming solution (e.g. a carbon tax) because they have more to lose from slower economic growth than less wealthy Republicans — and thus would view the entire issue much more skeptically. On the other hand, Democrats with less wealth (and education) are less likely to care one way or the other about the issue because they’re more concerned about simply making ends meet. Wealthier Democrats (”limousine liberals”) have the luxury of being able to care passionately about solving the problem, whether or not it slows economic growth rates by a fraction."
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/climate-consensus-busted/

Basically many people vote with their wallet, then look for ways to justify their position.

Answer 7

The planet is not in any kind of crisis. The theory of man made global warming is just that, a theory. It has no factual basis.

Parts of the planet are warmer, parts are cooler. The planet has had dramatically varying climates since the dawn of time and it will continue long after we are all gone. The planet warmed & cooled prior to the dominance of man and it will continue to do the same.

Man has only been recording temperatures for about 150 years and only semi-accurately for about a third of that time.

150 years is but a blip of time and could not allow us to even start to understand global climate change. If we continue to study it for another 10,000 years we would still only have a small amount of data to compare with the overall history of the planet and its' changes.

I have yet to see anyone who can accurately predict the weather 24-48 hours out yet alone weeks, months, years or decades. It is ridiculous for anyone to think they have such knowledge.

There are so many factors that go into our climate that we know of and probably other factors that we yet understand. Some factors include sun activity, precipitation, cloud cover, water currents, wind currents, various gas makeups in the varying levels of the atmosphere, geothermal activity in the core of the planet as well as in the oceans, volcanic activity, plant & animal activity, etc.

The bottom line is we have no crisis and the only goal of global warming is to control your lives, limit your standard of living, criminalize all types of activities and tax you in order to get money from you that you would not otherwise hand over.

If you look at the facts, study history, analyze what is being thrown at you, look at the politics involved and use your common sense & life experience you will understand the lack of credibility those pushing global warming have.

In addition to this, here are a few more things to consider:

1) There is evidence that the southern hemispheric ice cap is growing.
2) There is no proven correlation between the rise in CO2 (which is not a pollutant, it is produced naturally by plants & animals) and the rise in temperature.
3) Just over the last 100 years there have been several cooling & warming periods on the planet and many of the same scientists & organizations currently pushing man-made global warming were pushing catastrophic global cooling just a few decades ago.
4) There are many scientists who do not believe in man-made global warming. Remember that hard science is fact based and not consensus based. If 51 out of 100 scientists have a theory on something that does not make the other 49 wrong. After all, it is a theory. Also, remember that there are many renowned scientists that refute man-made global warming but you will not see the mainstream media interviewing them. You can find them on the internet, listening to radio, or in a few scientific publications (many publications will not print their views because they don't want any other opinions being presented to the public)
5) Study what some of the man-made global warming pushers are saying in detail. Many are now saying we will have catastrophic events in 2012. When that doesn't happen take note of that. Do you remember the predictions of a horrible hurrican season this year? It didn't happen. Did you know that some of the worst hurricane seasons on record happened many decades ago and not in recent times? Also, remember that we only have some weather data for the last 100-150 years regarding different events, hardly enough to predict anything.
6) Finally, use your common sense. The same scientists pushing man-made global warming will tell you the planet has had dramatic climate changes for billions of years. Did SUV's and power plants cause that too? Of course not. Look at your world, study history, use your life experiences and think for yourself. Don't let power hunger people try to control your lives through scaring you about something that is not a problem and something you have no control over.

"Mother Earth", as many environmentalists refer to the planet as, is much more powerful than man and she controls her own destiny.

Answer 8

There are a few places to look for true facts on global warming. NASA and NOAA used to have charts from which you could make judgments on GW. Now you can only find charts on calculated global temperature anomalies not actual temp measurements. We have tremendous incite into our planet due to satellites and its scaring everyone to death. But we ONLY have 30 years of data. From that people are trying to make judgments. Impossible.
If it is to warm, it is GW
If it is to cold, it is GW
If there is a flood, it is GW
If there is a drought, it is GW
If an island is eroding it is GW
The web site below has the best compilation of FACTS.
We have pollution in specific areas which needs to be dealt with. But CO2 as the big evil gas, a waste of money and recourses.

Answer 9

My skepticism comes from my years of study. I am a geologist and an environmental consultant. It is clear to me that those that support man-caused global warming do so based on emotional and political reasons. If they did not, they would quickly understand that climates always change. To attribute the current change on humans is unjustified because there is almost no evidence that isn't anecdotal. They want humans to be blamed because they believe human activity is inherently harmful, especially if it is from oil, corporations, or industry. I know you are a liberal politically, and there is no way I would know that if global warming wasn't a political issue, and not a scientific one.

Answer 10

Many of the people that you have been insuilting by calling them names such as "deniers" actually agree that the scientific literature does support the notion that some warming of the climate is caused by carbon dioxide emitted by human activity.

What they disagree with is that the evidence in the scientific literature does not support the hysterical articles that have been planted in the popular media that would have us all believe that this is a terrible crisis that will kill us all.

For example the data in the IPCC reports show that there is a correlation with increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and warming of the climate.

What the data in the IPCC reports does not support is the hysterical notions that have been planted in the popular media that Global Warming and climate change will kill us all.

The fact that you call people names, such as "deniers" if they do not agree with your notion that climate change is a crisis and a catastrophe merely destroys your credibility as a spokesperson for the people who believe that climate change is a huge crisis and a catastrophe..