AGW is now such a proven fact is there any point in continuing the debate?

Question

With the huge amount of data that proves AGW is taking place is there really any point to contiune the debate with people that deny it? Is there really any point in answering for the 1000 time "if its snowing here where is global warming?" It was pointed out to me recently that the people that deny global warming are still arguing about evolution.

Answer 1

Some scientists still deny the link between HIV and Aids... the problem is that some people, especially in the South African government listen to them... as if we needed this right now.

For global warming it´s quite similar but let´s not give to these people the credit they would like to have.

Answer 2

Aparently the debate is over and that in itself is touted as proof of the existance of AGW.  

The proof of AGW is not so much a scientific proof, but a 'everyone believes it so it must be true' proof.  While that's good enough for some people - others will insist on thinking for themselves.

Answer 3

Well in a forum like Yahoo Answers,  it's important to make sure the correct information is provided.  When someone ignorantly claims 'global warming is just a natural cycle/caused by the Sun', it's important to show why that's not true.

While the scientific experts and anyone who's studied the subject should realize that AGW is essentially a proven fact, many people still need to be educated about the scientific evidence.

Answer 4

If you really think the debate is over, you are not paying attention.  If you want to raise the level of the debate, why not bring forward the scientific papers you think provide the best proof AGW will be catastrophic and we can discuss them.  I am certain I know the arguments in favor of AGW better than you do, and they all have problems.  

In 2007, a great deal of peer-reviewed literature was published showing that rising CO2 is not going to be catastrophic - at least over the next 50 to 100 years.  Perhaps you are unaware of the research.

Roy Spencer from University of Alabama in Huntsville published his observations on a negative feedback he and his team found while studying the troposphere over the tropics.  They identified this at the "Infrared Iris Effect" hypothesized by Richard Lindzen of MIT.  This is very important and explains, in part, why the temperature has not risen as much as predicted.

http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07...

Peter Chylek from Los Alamos National Lab published an article on the cooling impact of aerosols and found it to be much lower than expected.  He also concluded the climate was not as sensitive to rising CO2 as once thought.

http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate...

Stephen E. Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab, and the scientist responsible for the Acid Rain legislation in the 1990s, published a peer-reviewed paper with a new estimate of climate sensitivity of rising CO2.  He concluded the climate is only about one-third as sensitive as the IPCC had estimated.  He concludes that AGW will not be catastrophic for a long time, if ever.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCa...

Just recently, people have begun to do "forecast verifications" on predictions about global warming.  James Hansen offered one prediction before Congress in 1988 (when Al Gore was still a senator) and the IPCC published one in 1990.  It seems both of them dramatically overestimated how much temperatures would rise.  We now have 20 years of data to look at and they were just flat wrong.  

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2602

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promet...

Answer 5

If you're so convinced Freddie,why bother to take the time and debate it here?

Answer 6

Debate

1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.  

2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.  

3. deliberation; consideration.  

Contradiction

1. the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.  

2. assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.  

3. a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.  

4. direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.  

5. a contradictory act, fact, etc.  

What we have here is a pointless forum of endless contradiction and not a debate. The same people contradict the facts of AGW again and again with the same meaningless rhetoric (the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.) and fail to bring any meaningfull facts into the disscussion, unless of course you include the never ending critisim of Al Gore.

  Not one of the deniers is even considering the other side of the disscussion and is no closer to changing their mind in spite of the mounting evidence that emerges daily. I would say the same for the AGW believers but I have yet to be convinced of any of the sources that are being brought forward and have also noticed that the sources are often media based as opposed to science based and therefore lack credibility, and am also slightly perturbed by the endless cheap shots at Al Gore.

Answer 7

Only an idiot would still deny the theory of evolution. I wouldn't exactly say the sceptics of global warming were idiots, outright deniers yes.

Answer 8

Well we should just change the debate on what to do about global warming instead of if it is real?

Answer 9

Yes, AGW is a proven fact.  There is no reason to have the number of researchers continually study it to determine if it is real or not.

It's time to let the scientist who study AGW go.  Let them get jobs in the private sector developing alternative energy sources, or cars that get 75mpg.

We know that co2 is the main cause of AGW.  It's time to start shutting down coal burinig electrical generators and start building nuclear power plants.  This could reduce co2 emissions over 50%.

Answer 10

If it is a proven fact, then why do only 56% of climate scientists believe that to be the case.

http://downloads.heartland.org/2086111.p...

Answer 11

There will always be a need to continue, just as there is always a need for the military. To protect the innocent. We must be vigilant and present the facts from trusted organizations. Science is there to provide those facts, even if they are not popular. The problem with people is that they don't want to hear facts that run counter to their interests.

The propagandists will continue to spread their ideology and we must always be there to refute them.

Answer 12

well gee, freddy, thats what they said about geocentrisim in the 1600's problem is, the vast majority of scientists have ALWAYS been wrong