Why do you doubt global warming?

[bascule]

All right, I think I'm able to group people by their underlying motivations finally.

 

Why do you doubt global warming?

 

I'm really curious how many people will vote #6 then link some crackpot web site. I'm assuming we'll see some Lindzen papers here, but then again he's never been able to advance an alternative model.

[ecoli]

are you making a distinction between global warming and global warming with anthropogenic sources? Because those are two completely different questions.

[bascule]

are you making a distinction between global warming and global warming with anthropogenic sources? Because those are two completely different questions.

 

Yes, just like natural selection and the common ancestry of all life on earth are separate questions, right?

 

I mean, no one could doubt natural selection, but all life, from a single common ancestor? Ludicrous!

 

No, I'm not making a distinction, because the science is clear on both issues. Both satellite measurements of forcing response (Hansen 2004) and climate models scientifically demonstrate that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the primary radiative forcings of climate change.

 

If you want to play the "I believe half of science but not all of it" game, go for it. In which case I suggest you vote for option #5, because you're in the same realm as Answers in Genesis creationists who accept the fact of natural selection, but are unwilling to admit what the totality of evidence shows, instead preferring to make some arbitrary distinction about what science gets right and where their religious beliefs can realistically stop.

[gcol]

I do not doubt the effect, but I am not convinced as to the real cause or series of causes. Too many vested interests, too much ill-informed media frenzy, too much political and financial capital being made and to be made, one juggernaut of a politically correct bandwagon rolling out of control. One part of the world will be forced to pay through the nose for gesture politics while another part quietly goes on turning our world into a toxic waste-pit for corporate profit.

 

I will pay lip-service to the new cult, while remembering the usual fate of early-adopters which is to be lab rats for beta technology and experimental initiatives, then at the end of the day pick up the tab and chuck away that which has been found wanting. Then be forced to buy the new junk and start again. The ultimate throwaway energy cycle.

[1veedo]

Just so everyone is perfectly clear we are talking about anthropogenic global warming here (if it wasn't already obvious).

 

Btw I think we need more options (eg some common claims like the sun is causing global warming, volcanoes put out more CO2 then humans, or an option for "I read it on a website").

[Icemelt]

are you making a distinction between global warming and global warming with anthropogenic sources? Because those are two completely different questions.

A most important distinction I think

Surely nobody actually doubts global warming, yet there is large contingent, of which I am one, who consider that CO2 may not be the primary driving force behind global warming.

Sure there is little doubt that CO2 contributes, along with umpteen other factors, but what's in dispute is whether it is the primary driving force.

[geoguy]

I do not doubt the effect, but I am not convinced as to the real cause or series of causes. Too many vested interests, too much ill-informed media frenzy, too much political and financial capital being made and to be made, one juggernaut of a politically correct bandwagon rolling out of control. One part of the world will be forced to pay through the nose for gesture politics while another part quietly goes on turning our world into a toxic waste-pit for corporate profit.

 

I will pay lip-service to the new cult, while remembering the usual fate of early-adopters which is to be lab rats for beta technology and experimental initiatives, then at the end of the day pick up the tab and chuck away that which has been found wanting. Then be forced to buy the new junk and start again. The ultimate throwaway energy cycle.

 

Good post.

[waitforufo]

1) All scientists should be skeptics. Without doubt a scientist will not move past pre conceived notions.

 

2) Computer models are used to predict anthropogenic global warming. I write computer models for dynamic physical problems in Matlab every day. I get paid quite well to do it. The science behind the problems I model is well known. Even with this knowledge, it is very easy to get it wrong. Our climate is a very complex dynamic system making it even easier to get wrong.

 

3) Our climate is still within the expected statistical distribution.

 

4) Climate is an average of weather which is chaotic. Someone on these GW threads keeps claiming that our climate is full of interacting feedback mechanisms. All chaotic systems have interacting feedback mechanisms, each feedback mechanism producing its own competing stability point or chaotic attractor. Having interacting feedback mechanisms does not guarantee a chaotic system but does make it quite likely.

[SkepticLance]

As others have said, these polls mean very little, because they never ask the right questions. I am a GW sceptic, but accept that the world is warming and human activity is a prime cause. However, I believe that the computer models are dubious, and a lot of the conclusions drawn by GW enthusiasts are plain wrong. There is no category in the poll for my kind of sceptic.

[Sayonara]

Catch-all option added to poll.

[Dak]

3) Our climate is still within the expected statistical distribution.

 

interesting claim; do you have a citation?

[geoguy]

As others have said, these polls mean very little, because they never ask the right questions. I am a GW sceptic, but accept that the world is warming and human activity is a prime cause. However, I believe that the computer models are dubious, and a lot of the conclusions drawn by GW enthusiasts are plain wrong. There is no category in the poll for my kind of sceptic.

 

That's why pay no attention to such polls. Any poll with an open question but a finite set of options is meaningless.

 

Is your favorite ice cream? (a la the logic this thread's poll)

 

a) chocolate

b) chocolate ripple

c) chocolate chip

d} strawberry

 

The results mean what? Nothing.

[gcol]

That's why pay no attention to such polls. Any poll with an open question but a finite set of options is meaningless.

The results mean what? Nothing.

Well, not quite in this case. It means that, in the questioner's opinion any contrary view to his own (1st option) is idiotic. Put another way, in the language of the true believer in the new cult: "Believe in me or be damned to the hell of the loony bin".

[MolotovCocktail]

I think this is just one of those threads made by people trying too hard to discredit the nay-sayers.

 

I mean, seriously, in both threads (i.e. the Inconvenient Truth one and the Global Warming Explained one) the people who were pro-GW already won the debate by a landslide. They don't need post threads like this to prove their point, all this does is that it makes them look like crazy cult fanatics and jerks.

[JTM³]

"Other", because of the likes of Al Gore and his stupid little schemes(i.e., "carbon offset" bonds and banning incandescent lights), and his hypocrisy.

 

Also, when you say:

 

I don't! I'm a scientific thinker well aware of present evidence

 

That's degrading to those that disagree; it's sort of saying that if you don't agree you're not a scientific thinker, etc etc ad hominem.

[bascule]

That's degrading to those that disagree; it's sort of saying that if you don't agree you're not a scientific thinker, etc etc ad hominem.

 

Oddly enough the option to present peer reviewed research to the contrary is sitting at a big fat 0.

[SkepticLance]

Bascule said.

Oddly enough the option to present peer reviewed research to the contrary is sitting at a big fat 0.

 

Actualy, there is a very large literature of peer reviewed research which is sceptical of the central catastrophist global warming dogma. If you are suggesting that such research papers have to deny global warming to be sceptical, you are applying a personal definition of sceptic which bears little resemblance to reality.

 

If we see, for example, a Richard Lindzen paper describing a negative feed-back mechanism, involving clouds, which will reduce the impact of global warming, do you define this as sceptical? I know this paper exists. I call it sceptical because it is contrary to the catastrophist paradigm.

 

Similarly, there are plenty of 'sceptical' peer reviewed papers by many climate scientists, which suggest that the catastrophe is exaggerated.

[Sayonara]

I think he was referring to the poll options.

[gib65]

I have a feeling most people who deny GW are afraid of being blamed. That always seems to be the tone of their angst.

[bascule]

Bascule said.

Oddly enough the option to present peer reviewed research to the contrary is sitting at a big fat 0.

 

Actualy, there is a very large literature of peer reviewed research which is sceptical of the central catastrophist global warming dogma. If you are suggesting that such research papers have to deny global warming to be sceptical, you are applying a personal definition of sceptic which bears little resemblance to reality.

 

If we see, for example, a Richard Lindzen paper describing a negative feed-back mechanism, involving clouds, which will reduce the impact of global warming, do you define this as sceptical? I know this paper exists. I call it sceptical because it is contrary to the catastrophist paradigm.

 

Similarly, there are plenty of 'sceptical' peer reviewed papers by many climate scientists, which suggest that the catastrophe is exaggerated.

 

Can you link one of these mystery papers along with the responses of their peer reviewers?

[SkepticLance]

To Bascule

 

One global warming sceptic paper in a peer reviewed journal.

 

Climate Research : Vol. 13 pages 149 to 164

Soon and Baliunas

The environmental effects of increased carbon dioxide.

 

I am sure you can attack this paper, and I am sure that other people adhering to the catastrophist dogma have already attacked it. However, it meets your demand for a named sceptical paper on global warming in a peer reviewed journal.

 

If need be, I can search out others.

[1veedo]

To Bascule

 

One global warming sceptic paper in a peer reviewed journal.

 

Climate Research : Vol. 13 pages 149 to 164

Soon and Baliunas

The environmental effects of increased carbon dioxide.

 

I am sure you can attack this paper, and I am sure that other people adhering to the catastrophist dogma have already attacked it. However, it meets your demand for a named sceptical paper on global warming in a peer reviewed journal.

 

If need be, I can search out others.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?um=1&tab=ws&client=firefox-a&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&q=%22The+environmental+effects+of+increased+carbon+dioxide.%22

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+environmental+effects+of+increased+carbon+dioxide.%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

Hardly what I'd consider peer-reviewed. I cant find it in ebsco or jstor either. Just to keep things simple, lets try to find something important enough that at least google knows about it. This isn't necessarily to "shoot down" your paper, I'd just like to be able to read some of the peer-review that these papers generate (and I am genuinely interested here to play nice).

 

Btw vol 13 was published in 1999 anyway so it'd be a little outdated by now in this field.

http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v13/n1/

 

Link to SkepticLances report: http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/13/c013p149.pdf

 

Just so everyone is clear, this paper is not what he's trying to make it out to be. All it does is say that the warming of the 20th century produced few negative side-effects, which is actually true, and is not contradictory of the consensus. It then goes on to say speculatively that future warming may not be a bad thing either. Global warming does increase global farming output. What this paper does not do, however, is prove that global warming is nessisarily a good thing in the long run. Contemporary research (Climate Change 2007: The Scientific Basis) points out possible negative side-effects of global warming that contradict this paper. Furthermore, ecosystem analysis have found many negative environmental side-effects after 1970 caused by global warming which directly contradict a central premise of SkepticLance's paper (working group 2)

[waitforufo]

Oddly enough the option to present peer reviewed research to the contrary is sitting at a big fat 0.

 

Bascule,

Aren’t you putting the cart before the horse? Global warming proponents are advocating a new proposition. Aren’t they the ones with something to prove? If I agree with the commonly held scientific understanding of gravity, and someone comes along and says “no that’s wrong” you are suggesting that I need to write a paper to prove that I’m correct. If I wrote such a paper, no peer reviewed journal would publish it. They would all say “this is well known science, come back if you have something new.” If journals didn’t reject such papers, they would be full rewrites of old papers written by people trying to pad their curriculum vitae.

[jackson33]

I have a feeling most people who deny GW are afraid of being blamed. That always seems to be the tone of their angst.

 

most people who argue MAN is not responsible for the GW, figure GW is not happening to begin with. what is going on is a very common phenomenon which has happened a thousand times to extremes well beyond the current changes. these have occurred with no humans on the planet and many times when we were. the last thing i fear is blame for something non-existent.

 

you might place your fear factor on the pro-stance. to instill fear is the purpose of the pro-arguments; the idea that if i don't do this or do that the world will change in some manner to cause life to become whatever. then if we elect this person or that we are doomed. if Exxon Mobile doesn't do this and that we are doomed. if some species dies off, we are doomed. if the water levels increase 10 inches we are doomed. you know i could go on for hours giving you all the scenarios for doom and gloom...

[Dak]

Bascule,

Aren’t you putting the cart before the horse? Global warming proponents are advocating a new proposition[...]

 

...that they have supported with evidence/science, and which has been accepted by science. so, now, the burden of proof is on the skeptics.

 

the statement 'global warming is occouring, is almost certainly occouring due to man, and is probably occouring due to human-induced increased atmospheric CO2 levels, and will probably be overall bad, with the potential to be catastrophic' has been suported, and it's now up to the 'deniers' to offer proof to rebuke this statement.

 

Aren’t they the ones with something to prove? If I agree with the commonly held scientific understanding of gravity, and someone comes along and says “no that’s wrong” you are suggesting that I need to write a paper to prove that I’m correct. If I wrote such a paper, no peer reviewed journal would publish it. They would all say “this is well known science, come back if you have something new.” If journals didn’t reject such papers, they would be full rewrites of old papers written by people trying to pad their curriculum vitae.

 

but it's the deniers who are saying, of accepted science, 'no that's wrong', so it's up to the deniers to provide reasons.

 

the idea that if i don't do this or do that the world will change in some manner to cause life to become whatever

 

yes, but if it's true that if you don't do x then the world will probably change in some manner to cause human life to become whatever, then it's true. the fact that it's somewhat disturbing, and that polititians will jump on it to help them get elected is irrelevent to it's truth.

 

-----

 

unrelated to this (biased) poll, i do think it's somewhat telling that the people who argue in favour of anthropogenic GW can tend to back up their stance with science, whereas those who can't tend to never, ever have any science that backs up their claims.

 

the poll is biased, but it seems to be an attempt to get the 'GW deniers' to put up or shut up; no-one's seemed to have 'put up' yet. how curious