Top Ten Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics
Discussion of the main objections put forth by climate change skeptics, from a fair and balanced point of view
Our Earth in 2050
Forecast for Earth if We Continue as We are
What to expect for weather, climate and related problems if we do nothing, as global warming skeptics propose.
Controversial Finding or Established Fact?
A short post on how, in general, to tell truth from hoax, and why a scientific finding may appear controversial but actually be established fact, and vice versa.
Definition of a global warming skeptic
Our definition of a skeptic is a person who does not believe in measurements or in theories supported by measurements that are accepted by a large majority of scientists in the relevant field. That is, a skeptic is a person who denies the realities of the situation, preferring instead to believe that there is a vast conspiracy, that scientists worldwide are faking their results, etc.
A person who accepts that there is global warming caused by humans, but doesn't agree with generally accepted solutions, is not a skeptic by our definition. This blog is not focused on solutions in any case but on the very dangerous denial of the existence of an important problem facing our planet.
COMMENTS made by readers, and replies from this site, follow directly after the main text of each post, in order of date posted. If you wish to contribute a comment, click on the comment link at the very bottom of the most appropriate page.
Please, if you want to convince others of your point of view, give whatever background you can for what you say. If you think the Earth is warmer because the sun's output has increased lately, please let us know where you read or heard this idea, and any evidence that was given for it. I myself have no idea at all where people are getting some of the ideas stated, and I would really love to find out more about the ideas and what their sources are.
COMMENTS
-
This is a very skewed definition of skeptic in my very humble opinion. How about this for a more honest description.
A climate change skeptic is a person who is well versed in the scientific method and when reviewing a particular hypothesis is unable to reproduce the reported effects by the original researcher. Thus through multiple requests for original data and methods of statistical manipulation to arrive at the "value added data" the "skeptic" is still unable to replicate effects that have been reported in multiple published papers. Then and only then does a skeptic truly become a skeptic.
Show us the raw data, the un-massaged, un-adulterated, real data. Then show us the specific methods you used to arrive at your value added data and why you did the manipulations you did.
But, only do that if you want a legitimate, honest and forthright discussion. Which so far you and all like you have failed to do.
Nice to hear from you, again, Gary. But, before we reply more fully, could you possibly address the following point directly?
It is reported that 97% of climate scientists now agree that global warming is real, and that humans have most likely been responsible.
Do you agree that global warming is real, etc.?
If you don't, you are a global warming skeptic by our definition.
While I do have a Ph.D. in physics, I am not an expert in any area of climate science. I would not presume to argue with results that the vast majority of the specialists agreed on. And it would not do me any good to look at the mountains of raw data, etc., any more than it would you.
Universities and government agencies all around the world are paying experts good money to be experts. We all ought to listen to them. Instead of repeating mindlessly those arguments that have been injected like a virus into American society by special interest groups, arguments intended to confuse people and delay any process of responsible change.
March 27, 2010. Gary said..
I agree that the Earth has been undergoing a warming trend for the last 10,000 years. I do not ascribe the cause to man however. Your base definition is an example of Experimenter Bias and is not worthy of a scientist. Climate scientists have abandoned two basic tenets of science that were drummed into my head 35 years ago when I was obtaining my degree, namely, correlation does not mean causation and Occams Razor. Geologists can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that there have been three major periods of continental glaciation over the last 200,000 years the latest of which, the Tahoe, ended 10,000 years ago. Since then there have been periods of warming The Roman Warming Period, the Medievel Warming Period and cooling the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe, and the Maunder Minimum to name a pair of each. Now what is significant about this?
All of the warming and cooling was accomplished without mans input. So here is a question for you. According to Occams Razor which is more likely, climate change is a natural process independant of man or the current warming period can only be attributed to man caused pollution?
Game on!
March 28, 2010. David Mills said...
Gary, be fair. At least pose the last question so that it covers the playing field. The two possibilities are: 1) Most of the current (last 200 years) climate change is a natural process independent of man, or 2) Most of the current (last 200 years) climate change is attributable to man-caused pollution. I say that, since the Industrial Revolution started 200 years ago, and the CO2 increase mirrors exactly the growth of industry since then, that Occams Razor shaves you. It is the simplest hypothesis that fits ALL the facts.
In terms of the scientific method, I do not believe that several hundred climate scientists have independently and simultaneously made the same basic mistake in their thinking about science.
This is a very skewed definition of skeptic in my very humble opinion. How about this for a more honest description.
ReplyDeleteA climate change skeptic is a person who is well versed in the scientific method and when reviewing a particular hypothesis is unable to reproduce the reported effects by the original researcher. Thus through multiple requests for original data and methods of statistical manipulation to arrive at the "value added data" the "skeptic" is still unable to replicate effects that have been reported in multiple published papers. Then and only then does a skeptic truly become a skeptic.
Show us the raw data, the un-massaged, un-adulterated, real data. Then show us the specific methods you used to arrive at your value added data and why you did the manipulations you did.
But, only do that if you want a legitimate, honest and forthright discussion. Which so far you and all like you have failed to do.
Hello Dr. Mills,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Earth has been undergoing a warming trend for the last 10,000 years. I do not ascribe the cause to man however. Your base definition is an example of Experimenter Bias and is not worthy of a scientist. Climate scientists have abandoned two basic tenets of science that were drummed into my head 35 years ago when I was obtaining my degree, namely, correlation does not mean causation and Occams Razor. Geologists can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that there have been three major periods of continental glaciation over the last 200,000 years the latest of which, the Tahoe, ended 10,000 years ago. Since then there have been periods of warming The Roman Warming Period, the Medievel Warming Period and cooling the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe, and the Maunder Minimum to name a pair of each. Now what is significant about this? All of the warming and cooling was accomplished without mans input. So here is a question for you. According to Occams Razor which is more likely, climate change is a natural process independant of man or the current warming period can only be attributed to man caused pollution?
Game on!
Hello again Dr. Mills,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delay in responding but I was south of the equator on business and just recently got back. Now to your argument. Why must we stop it at 200 years ago? AGW theory absolutely does not match up with any of the empirical data that is certified accurate. GISS publicly admitted that their data was inferior to the CRU data and with Climategate we found out that the CRU data (at least the raw data) was non existent due to the ludicrous excuse that it was lost.
AGW theory is based on computer models that to date have never been accurate. The UK's Meterological Office predicted that last winter would be exceptionally mild even forecasting that there would be no snow potentially and then whammo the worst winter in decades slammed them and they still had the gall to claim it the warmest winter on record. Until of course some more logical folks pointed out to them just how far off the mark they were...and oh yes the BBC decided they were no longer competant enough to use anymore.
To date, no AGW climate modeling program has accurately predicted anything. They can't even accurately re-create past climate that is known. However, a Danish research group led by Henrik Svensmark has found an exact match with the level of sun spot activity on our sun. What is even more interesting is the fact the match is spot on over the period of the last 1,500 years.
Your turn..