Who here is a global warming skeptic?

[iNow]

If you don't care what the average person thinks, why do you care what I think?

It's not so much that I care what you think, rather that I care to live in a world where people are not ignorant of basic facts and where obvious flaws in thinking no longer serve as obstacles to important actions.

 

You're posting your ideas openly in a discussion forum rooted in a passion for science and evidence-based thinking. I care because what you've posted, while understandable and disappointingly common, is rather trivially false and easily corrected.

 

If you have a good reason for denying the human role in climate change then I'd love to hear it. Perhaps I'll learn something new and be better as a result of the exchange. Part of me is here to learn, to fill gaps in my own thinking, and correct errors in my mental model of the cosmos. If you can assist me with that, then I'll be forever grateful.

 

With that said, you've been challenged on your ideas in a respectful way, yet thus far have only managed to support them by citing a blog and stating that you disagree because some people who support AGW are rude.

 

Given the weakness inherent in your current stance, I don't anticipate you changing my mind or correcting flaws in my thinking, but perhaps through the engagement I may at least be able to change yours and help you come away from the interaction better informed and more aware.

[MigL]

Whether the models make accurate predictions can be questioned, and you're right, the variables affecting climate change are not fully understood ( complicated interdependencies ).

What CANNOT be questioned, and indeed can be verified in a laboratory experiment, Is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and CO2 levels ARE increasing in the atmosphere.

The conclusions you draw from that are up to you.

[Shelagh]

If you have a good reason for denying the human role in climate change then I'd love to hear it.

 

I am not a denier. The topic title of this thread is: "Who here is a global warming skeptic?" I am sceptical about AGW. A list of deniers, of which I am not one, can be found here:

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_Change_Deniers

 

Whether the models make accurate predictions can be questioned, and you're right, the variables affecting climate change are not fully understood ( complicated interdependencies ).

What CANNOT be questioned, and indeed can be verified in a laboratory experiment, Is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and CO2 levels ARE increasing in the atmosphere.

The conclusions you draw from that are up to you.

Yes, and as of now the data are inconclusive. The mountain of research to date only suggests a link between climate change and human activity. Many scientists believe that the overwhelming evidence is sufficient to make predictions, but those predictions are not happening. A case, maybe, of the more we know, the more aware we become of how little we know.

[swansont]

Evolutionists do not attempt to convert creationists

No? That comes as a great surprise to me. Was I hallucinating that whole time I was on talk.origins back in the usenet days?

 

The parallels between creationism and climate science rejection are quite striking

[John Cuthber]

Evolutionists do not attempt to convert creationists;

OK so he wasn't the first evolutionist but I think you would have to accept that Darwin's book on the origin of species was a pretty clear attempt to convert creationists to evolution/

 

In any event, the fact that there are now many evolutionists whereas they ere previously very few shows that evolutionists don't just attempt to convert people; they clearly succeed.

[Shelagh]

The parallels between creationism and climate science rejection are quite striking

I don't reject climate science, but supporters of AGW are making claims that are not bring met, which leads to scepticism.

 

OK so he wasn't the first evolutionist but I think you would have to accept that Darwin's book on the origin of species was a pretty clear attempt to convert creationists to evolution/

 

In any event, the fact that there are now many evolutionists whereas they ere previously very few shows that evolutionists don't just attempt to convert people; they clearly succeed.

It's years since I read Bronowski's Ascent of Man. I still have a copy of the book, so maybe I should read it again. I don't remember any reference to Darwin trying to debunk religion. He was passionate about animal and plant life. His scientific discoveries were a natural outcome of his research. When his daughter, Annie, died his grief actually helped him to make the decision to publish his work: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100597929

[John Cuthber]

The point remains; Darwin was an evolutionist who put a lot of effort into converting creationists.

I know I said this before, but I think it stands repeating

 

I still don't understand why this topic is controversial.

We know that carbon dioxide blocks outgoing IR from the earth.

We know that the earth's surface is warming

We know that there is more CO2 than there used to be

We know that it's from our use of fossil fuels.

It's like saying "I know that we put another blanket on the bed, and I know that I'm now warmer. But I don't know if I'm warmer because I put another blanket on."

[Prometheus]

medical practices even accomodate homeopathy.

 

And is fiercely resisted in some quarters. One day, soon hopefully, it will not be offered on the NHS.

 

"Climate models are highly misunderstood."

 

"In the simple model, the recent history of the climate looks a lot like the sum of its parts."

 

"In the more complex model, this isnt true anymore, especially for precipitation, because different kinds of emissions are interacting with each other. This complicates the whole business of attribution. It may be possible to attribute observed climate changes to specific phenomena: ozone depletion, for example, or increased aerosol concentrations. But when we go one step further and try to attribute these changes to the emissions that caused them, things get a bit harder. ...

 

... we have to be careful in selecting the models we use, and to ensure that theyre fit for purpose. Climate models are not perfect representations of reality, nor are they intended to be. ... They are simplifications, and useful ones at that. The trick is deciding what to leave behind."

 

http://marvelclimate.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-whole-sum-and-parts.html?view=classic

 

By her own admission, the models climatologists are using are incomplete, which is the main reason for my scepticism.

 

...dissent regarding the existence of cancer stem cells, while not surprising, actually represents more of a misunderstanding than true controversy...

 

 

Confronted with the vast array of mathematical approaches being used to study tumour growth^{19, 20, 21, 22, 79, 80}, it can be difficult to decide what type of model is best suited to a particular problem and what level of detail to include. The situation can be further exacerbated when we realize that different mathematical approaches can reproduce the same experimental results (Fig. 2)!

 

 

Biology is not physics. Statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, relativity, and string theory have given rise to complex mathematical problems which can be happily studied by mathematicians with no knowledge of physics. However, in my twenty-five-year experience of working on problems that come from ecology, genetics, and now cancer, 80 percent of the problem in a biological application is to figure out what the question is, what mathematical tools to use, and, in my case, how to find a model that is simple enough to study analytically and that can say something useful about the application

 

By their own admission, the models cancer biologists are using are incomplete.

 

Hence, to be consistent, you should be sceptical of cancer.

[swansont]

I don't reject climate science, but supporters of AGW are making claims that are not bring met, which leads to scepticism.

]

I don't recall seeing any examples you've presented of scientific claims that are not being met.

[Ophiolite]

By her own admission, the models climatologists are using are incomplete, which is the main reason for my scepticism.

I cannot think of a single model in any science that is complete. There may be exceptions - I would be happy to learn of them - but certainly all the models in my own range of interest are incomplete.

 

Plate tectonics: incomplete. Theory of evolution: incomplete. Planetary formation: incomplete. Geomagnetism: incomplete. Abiogenesis: incomplete. The list continues.

 

Models are, by definition, simplifications and therefore are necessarily incomplete. I asked you a question in an earlier post that you chose to avoid answering. I ask you again. Do you accept the current theory for planetary formation? If so, why? The models for that are less complete than for AGW.

 

Evolutionists do not attempt to convert creationists

As several others have pointed out, this is completely untrue! I have devoted considerable effort, over the last dozen years, on at least seven forums, in scores of attempts to do exactly that. Along the way I have seen dozens of others attempting the same thing.

 

medical practices even accomodate homeopathy.

A limited number of fools can be found in even the most honourable professions.

 

Conversely, AGW advocates are very scathing about doubters.

Certainly, I am scathing about doubters. This is not simply a matter of a doubter l indulging themselves in ignorance. This is not just disappointment about a doubter failing to use critical thinking skills. This is about individuals choosing to ignore the consequence of a major problem, a problem that if not addressed threatens the future of my grandchildren, the human race and the planet's biodiversity. And you think hiding behind a fake skepticism and thereby ignoring a process with those potential consequences does not merit a scathing response?

 

You keep repeating that you are simply skeptical, yet thus far you have offered nothing that justifies that skepticism. Your concern over the limitations of models arises from your ignorance of what a model is. Your references to the man-in-the-street are irrelevant. Your claim that there are objections that have not been met has not, so far, produced any examples.

 

I appreciate that you must feel as if you are being ganged up on. That can't be pleasant. Nor is it pleasant to witness an obviously intelligent person fail to use that intelligence effectively.

[Shelagh]

Ophiolite,

 

The question asked was: "Who here is a global warming skeptic?" not: "Who here can justify being a global warming sceptic?" Gang up on me all you like; it won't make any difference. Force of argument is no substitute for reasoned argument. I am sceptic about AGW, and nothing on this thread has persuaded me to think differently.

[Prometheus]

Why would you participate in a discussion thread about global warming if you didn't want to discuss global warming?

 

And are you also a sceptic on above mentioned issues of cancer and planetary formation? The reason i ask is because some people have a much higher threshold before believing something - fair enough if consistently applied.

[iNow]

I'll just leave this here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

[Shelagh]

Why would you participate in a discussion thread about global warming if you didn't want to discuss global warming?

 

And are you also a sceptic on above mentioned issues of cancer and planetary formation? The reason i ask is because some people have a much higher threshold before believing something - fair enough if consistently applied.

Discussing a topic out of general interest is a valid reason to join in. You are trying to pigeon hole me into being something I'm not. Bullying takes many forms. One aspect of bullying is to try to assert authority: if a group of people can persuade someone who is plainly opposed to their point of view, they can influence many more who are less opposed to their viewpoint. That seems to be happening here.

[dimreepr]

Ophiolite,

 

The question asked was: "Who here is a global warming skeptic?" not: "Who here can justify being a global warming sceptic?" Gang up on me all you like; it won't make any difference. Force of argument is no substitute for reasoned argument. I am sceptic about AGW, and nothing on this thread has persuaded me to think differently.

 

 

 

That sounds rather closed minded.

Maybe you should have given this post more thought.

 

 

If you don't like a smart alec then maybe this isn't the forum for you, most of us throw in a dumb comment now and then; learning from the mistake won't disappoint, excuses might.

 

[Prometheus]

Discussing a topic out of general interest is a valid reason to join in. You are trying to pigeon hole me into being something I'm not. Bullying takes many forms. One aspect of bullying is to try to assert authority: if a group of people can persuade someone who is plainly opposed to their point of view, they can influence many more who are less opposed to their viewpoint. That seems to be happening here.

 

Yes, discussing. Bear in mind this is a science forum: it's not enough to simply state a belief, people will generally expect you to back it up. Is that unreasonable or unexpected?

 

As for the bullying: it's an interesting claim.

 

Many people here have tried to change your mind. But note that the majority have either given links to evidence or provided reasons in their posts, such as pointing out inconsistencies. You have generally ignored these (including one of mine), and simply reiterated your belief. This annoys people, so people may become curt with you. This is not bullying, though it may be impolite.

 

I have some respect for you holding onto your views despite peer pressure. But you lose that respect by ignoring people's attempts to discuss evidence. Is that the same as bullying?

[Ophiolite]

Ophiolite,

 

The question asked was: "Who here is a global warming skeptic?" not: "Who here can justify being a global warming sceptic?" Gang up on me all you like; it won't make any difference. Force of argument is no substitute for reasoned argument. I am sceptic about AGW, and nothing on this thread has persuaded me to think differently.

I found this interesting. Do I correctly recall that in another post you said you were an editor? If so I am surprised that you have misread my post. I very carefully said that "you must feel that you are being ganged up on". (Emphasis added.)

 

You are not being ganged up on, you have simply encountered several individuals who have noted the same apparent weaknesses in your position and have sought to help you address these. That addressing could either be by demonstrating that your position is valid, or by changing that position.

 

I also note a peculiar use of the phrase "force of argument". This, in my experience, is generally used to describe a well constructed, strongly supported argument - exactly what you call a "reasoned argument", yet you set these two close synonyms in opposition . Odd!

 

The "force of argument" concept you propose seems tied to your later mentioning of bullying. You imply you are being bullied. I regret you feel this is so. You are simply being challenged on your persistent refusal to explain the basis of your skepticism. At the risk of being accused of bullying I note that such refusal is contrary to forum rules, forum etiquette and is, ultimately, rude. I don't think you are by nature a rude person, so will you now explain why, apparently, you will accept the flawed explanations and models for cancer and evolution and planetary formation, but will not do so for AGW?

[Shelagh]

My level of intelligence seems to be as much up for debate as the topic under discussion. That is unacceptable.

[Prometheus]

Where specifically?

[Ophiolite]

My level of intelligence seems to be as much up for debate as the topic under discussion. That is unacceptable.

 

This is a discussion about AGW and peoples attitudes to it. It has nothing to do with your intelligence. Despite repeated requests you seem reluctant to actually discuss the topic in depth. So, once again....Will you now explain why, apparently, you will accept the flawed explanations and models for cancer and evolution and planetary formation, but will not do so for AGW?

[puppypower]

I remember that the occasional science writer, seeking to convey the long term variability of climate and to educate their audience about the Ice Ages, would reflect on the fact that we were in an inter-glacial and could expect the ice caps to grow again in the future - that was the distant future. It was tied, largely, to recognition of the Miklankovitch cycles, not to human activity.

 

There were no intergovernmental panels on climate change, no UN sponsored research, no great public debate. Nothing. Just an occasional piece of educational (or sometimes, sensational) journalism.

 

Do you have any citations that will counter these assertions? If so, please share them.

 

 

Fear can be used by science to get funding, because if you make enough people afraid, they will help you leverage funds via their representatives to the government.

 

Back in the 1970's, this was the beginning of the OPAC oil shortages, as well as the movement toward more efficient cars with stricter emission standards. It is funny how big business and government coordinate. The speed limit was also reduced to 55 mph in the USA by President Carter-D, who was presiding at the time.

 

The smog from cars you could be seen over LA and other large cities. This was an example of the aerosols that needed to be addressed. Some in science and media took advantage of the opportunity that presented itself, to come up with a theory that conformed to the needs of the times. The environmentalists connected to the democrat political party were the most behind the need to do something about man made global cooling. I was a democrat back and saw the need, being young and naive. This movement did not gain the same traction as today, but still cars were forced to change anyway. That may have been due to President Carte only having one term, the Iranian Hostage crisis and President Reagan appearing on the scene.

 

If you were around back then, you could see the parallel to today and the same political party running the football.

 

As far as a consensus of data and publications, who ever gives money to science can buy a consensus. If you go to a tobacco company, the consensus of their scientists will find that cigarettes are good. They will not publish if a study says cigarettes are bad. They might fudge data or change the experiment to get what they are being paid to do. The consensus of scientists working for big oil think oil is good, based on the experiments they do to that end. Who would bite the hand that feeds it?

 

There is more money spent on climate science than ever before. For this large gravy train to continue, they need to keep their eye on the ball and the goal line defined by those with the money. There was no outrage when data was fudged because they were team players. The CO2 running flat is not the result anyone would have published, even if this was anticipated by someone. It would makes the cigarette look bad, so to speak, and may be a grounds of losing funding.

 

If you divided the funding 50/50 between pro-man made and anti-man made, each could buy half a consensus, since each team will tailor to the needs of their employer.

Edited December 23, 2015 by puppypower

[Phi for All]

I am sceptic about AGW, and nothing on this thread has persuaded me to think differently.

 

We established from your first post that you hadn't read the whole thread. Has that changed significantly?

 

My level of intelligence seems to be as much up for debate as the topic under discussion. That is unacceptable.

 

If it had happened, it would be unacceptable. We're pretty clear here about attacking ideas, and not the people who have them. If you detect some kind of smear campaign, know that I certainly haven't seen it, but you should feel free to Report Posts that attack you personally.

 

 

 

Again, much of the frustration comes from you still calling yourself a skeptic after supposedly reading this whole thread and learning why a consilience on a particular model is the most trustworthy form of evidential support, no matter if it's a point of history, law, or science. Skeptics don't take any single source's word for anything, but they due their diligence and when they come across a consilience like they do with AGW, any person who still calls themselves "skeptical" is what we simply call a "denier".

 

Do your parents or friends work in oil?

 

 

Fear can be used by science to get funding, because if you make enough people afraid, they will help you leverage funds via their representatives to the government.

 

Back in the 1970's, this was the beginning of the OPAC oil shortages, as well as the movement toward more efficient cars with stricter emission standards. It is funny how big business and government coordinate. The speed limit was also reduced to 55 mph in the USA by President Carter-D, who was presiding at the time.

 

The smog from cars you could be seen over LA and other large cities. This was an example of the aerosols that needed to be addressed. Some in science and media took advantage of the opportunity that presented itself, to come up with a theory that conformed to the needs of the times. The environmentalists connected to the democrat political party were the most behind the need to do something about man made global cooling. I was a democrat back and saw the need, being young and naive. This movement did not gain the same traction as today, but still cars were forced to change anyway. That may have been due to President Carte only having one term, the Iranian Hostage crisis and President Reagan appearing on the scene.

 

If you were around back then, you could see the parallel to today and the same political party running the football.

 

As far as a consensus of data and publications, who ever gives money to science can buy a consensus. If you go to a tobacco company, the consensus of their scientists will find that cigarettes are good. They will not publish if a study says cigarettes are bad. They might fudge data or change the experiment to get what they are being paid to do. The consensus of scientists working for big oil think oil is good, based on the experiments they do to that end. Who would bite the hand that feeds it?

 

There is more money spent on climate science than ever before. For this large gravy train to continue, they need to keep their eye on the ball and the goal line defined by those with the money. There was no outrage when data was fudged because they were team players. The CO2 running flat is not the result anyone would have published, even if this was anticipated by someone. It would makes the cigarette look bad, so to speak, and may be a grounds of losing funding.

 

If you divided the funding 50/50 between pro-man made and anti-man made, each could buy half a consensus, since each team will tailor to the needs of their employer.

 

You have the most messed up, caricature-driven, biased view of science I've ever seen. It causes you to blend fact with conjecture and wishful thinking to form a very stubborn, ignorance-enabling, manipulatable perspective on intelligence.

 

You disparage efforts to clean up smog during the Carter administration, but neglect to consider that much of those clean air efforts continued, despite active Republican efforts to downplay the need (like Ronnie removing Jimmy's White House solar). You don't stop to consider that if we'd done nothing back then, it would be SO MUCH WORSE NOW. We did the same things in Denver, and our once famous "brown cloud" is less than it was before we acted to do things about it.

 

How can you ignore that?! How can you claim it's all science climbing on a "gravy train" of funding, when it's done so much good? How can you ignore the fact that if we didn't have so much pushback from the very people who want to keep polluting, things would probably (historically supported, at least) be even better?

 

I've gotten to the point where it seems anyone who claims to be skeptical after really learning about the consilience, or outright denies AGW, is most likely working for big oil and its subsidiary industries, or has friends and family who do. Or they're lying and they haven't read the evidence.

[Strange]

As far as a consensus of data and publications, who ever gives money to science can buy a consensus.

 

You have evidence of this, presumably?

 

If you go to a tobacco company, the consensus of their scientists will find that cigarettes are good.

 

You have evidence of this, presumably?

 

There is more money spent on climate science than ever before. For this large gravy train to continue, they need to keep their eye on the ball and the goal line defined by those with the money.

 

Why aren't there "people with money" funding both sides of the argument then?

 

There was no outrage when data was fudged because they were team players.

 

What data was that? You can't throw around insults like this without any supporting evidence?

 

The CO2 running flat is not the result anyone would have published, even if this was anticipated by someone.

 

And yet ... and yet, it has been published.

 

And, of course, people have anticipated and modelled what will happen as CO2 levels stop rising (on the assumption that sooner or later people will act). So the idea that no one would publish this is just silly.

 

If you divided the funding 50/50 between pro-man made and anti-man made, each could buy half a consensus, since each team will tailor to the needs of their employer.

 

The oil companies have masses of money, for example. They are, no doubt, funding research in this area. So where are their results contradicting the work of the climate scientists?

 

ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

 

I wonder why they couldn't just "buy a consensus"...

[Shelagh]

We established from your first post that you hadn't read the whole thread. Has that changed significantly?

My first post with your response:

 

 

The climate is changing all the time; it always has and it always will change. Global warming is the new religion of twenty-first century: it can be neither proved nor disproved, and requires a certain amount of belief.

I had high hopes you were going to present some good scientific arguments, based on other posts (hard to believe you called science a religion after your views in another thread about atheism and religion - it's almost like you're two different people). You can't have read even a small portion of the rest of this thread.

That's an assumption on your part; unless you know something to be true, you really should not speculate.

 

Do your parents or friends work in oil?

 

No, do yours?

[Ophiolite]

Do your parents or friends work in oil?

I've gotten to the point where it seems anyone who claims to be skeptical after really learning about the consilience, or outright denies AGW, is most likely working for big oil and its subsidiary industries, or has friends and family who do.

I really have to object to this Phi. I believe my credentials in recognising the dangers presented by AGW are well established by my posts on this and other forums. Here you make use of stereotypes, suggesting that anyone in the oil industry is automatically going to be a climate change denier.

 

For the record I have been working in the oil industry for most of my working career, since 1971 and intend to continue until health, boredom or my bosses decide otherwise. A significant proportion of my colleagues share my concerns and I find more deniers outside the industry than in. Anecdotal evidence of course, but it belies your implications.

 

I trust you will refrain from such unwelcome and inaccurate aspersions in future. If you have no plastic components in your home, make use of no gasoline for your transportation and are otherwise pristine in your avoidance of oil consumption, you have a sliver of a right to attack the industry. You do not have a right to attack employees in the industry who are making a net contribution to the global economy at work and are pursuing personal goals in support of environmental issues.