Is it a coincidence that global warming “skeptics” make a lot of scientifically questionable claims?
Question: Is it a coincidence that global warming “skeptics” make a lot of scientifically questionable claims?
Roy Spencer is a huge proponent of Intelligent Design (he also claimed the lower atmosphere was cooling until his analysis was proven wrong). Roy Lindzen doesn’t think secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. Neither does Fred Singer, or that CFCs caused the hole in the ozone layer.
An article written by columnist Christopher Booker has recently been cited by “skeptics”. Booker has previously argued that asbestos is “chemically identical to talcum powder” and “poses no measurable risk to health”.
Why is it that these sources of global warming “skepticism” so frequently make such scientifically questionable (or more often, just flat-out wrong) claims?
Answer:
Answer by Cheezass H. Kriest
Something tells me they won’t just go away.
So if its the rate of climate change your worried about?
Ok skeptics lets put forward an argument that helps explain that the rate of climate change isn’t drastic!
I saw it somewhere on the Bushvision youtube channel.
Its not climbing THAT fast!
You guys gotta help me and no this isn’t homework!
Are there any prominent climate skeptics who have received death threats?
Climate skeptics here think the media are biased when they report on climate scientists who support the conclusions of the IPCC receiving death threats. They seem to be suggesting that the media are not reporting that climate skeptics also receive death threats. However, I’ve never heard of that happening, and from the rhetoric here, it is the skeptics who sound more violent and unhinged.
Does anyone know of skeptics receiving death threats?
Dana: Thanks for the Tim Ball reference. He made that claim in 2007 and nothing since.
Mike: You would think, from your videos, that death threats to skeptics would outnumber those to the scientists by 10:1. Instead, there is one alleged incident involving one skeptic 3 years ago and nothing before or since. Why do you think it doesn’t happen more often?
How can global warming skeptics deny the scientific consensus is important and real?
Consensus is important in science. The only way it can be cleanly decided if something is "scientifically proven" is whether or not the scientific community accepts it as proven. There is no "Supreme Court" to decide, and there are always a few skeptics. The scientific community decides what the rules for proof are, and applies them.
You can personally choose to believe the Earth is 6000 years old or that NASA faked the moon landings. But that’s not science. In doing so, you are rejecting science and proven scientific facts. The same is true for global warming.
The scientific consensus that global warming is real and mostly caused by us is documented by hundreds of papers in the peer reviewed literature, and the resulting support from virtually every major scientific organization.
See the hundreds of references contained in: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html and
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, or any scientific program at the [climate] meetings. If you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at [the meetings] on this topic that support your view – you won’t be able to."
NOAA Ph.D.
"There’s a better scientific consensus on this [global warming] than on any issue I know …
You really can’t find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."
NOAA Ph.D.
Bob TV – You quote a few skeptics. Your own site says they’re a small minority. Why believe them over the vast majority? Compact fluorescent light bulbs don’t pollute, they REDUCE mercury pollution.
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/sustainable/Powerplay%20articles/16Powerplay.Mercury.CFL.html
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp
Ken C – There have been natural changes. But the scientific data clearly shows this warming is not natural. The websites above show that that’s the view of the vast majority of scientists.
"Global cooling" in the 70s was the idea of just a few scientists, with little data, and no backing from any major scientific organization. The "global cooling" guys were like the minority skeptics of today, not like the majority.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
eric c- The Oreskes study is correct. The criticisms of it are the lies.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/14/1511/4868
Once again two skeptics are cited. Their views have been considered and rejected by the scientific community.
Read MoreWhat is the current alternative explanation to manmade global warming?
The proponents of manmade global warming have consistently stated it’s because of greenhouse gases.
To counter this claim skeptics have provided alternative explanations but they’re forever changing. Recent explanations have included cosmic rays, the oceans, increased solar output, Pacific decadal oscillation, blackbody radiation etc. Could someone please let me know what the current explanation favoured by the skeptics is?
Each of the many explanations is, in it’s own right, claimed to account for the recent warming and thus prove human activity isn’t responsible. Assuming the skeptics are correct and they’re not just coming up with anything that might sound plausible, shouldn’t the planet be warming many times faster than it is?
RON C: Another good answer but again, key points are omitted. Your logic and reasoning are sound but it doesn’t ‘add up’. There are several skeptics who claim that all the current warming can be attributed to alternative factors and in many cases a single factor is cited as being the sole cause of the current warming. If these skeptics were correct then there would be many factors each responsible for the same level of warming that humans are supposed to be responsible for. It’s true that doubling the forcings doesn’t double the temperature rise but when equated, if the skeptics are correct with all their different explanations, then the world should be warming at least 7 times as fast as it is now (and possibly as much as 20 times as fast).