At this point is it possible to take seriously the AGW skeptic complaints regarding science?

Question

AGW skeptics frequently complain that anthropogenists dismiss them and/or their scientific arguments and/or won't debate them.

It seems as though virtually every AGW skeptic has bought into the amateurish misconception that global warming suddenly magically vanished because January 2008 was a relatively cool month.

My question is this - when the skeptics can't differentiate between weather and climate, signal and noise, and make a huge deal about the global surface temperature of one month (from the same surface temperature record which many skeptics claim is unreliable), how can they expect anyone to take their attempted scientific arguments seriously?

Answer 1

"OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades," writes Lorne Gunter in the National Post.

"But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature."

The oscillation of the oceans is not weather, it is climate.  Something that no climatologist was able to predict last year.  So if our understanding of the earth's climate is so limited, that we are not able to predict a major climatic change a year ago, how can we predict with confidence the climate 100 years from now?

The AGW predictions of catastrophe is based on the assumption that 90% of the 20th century warming is due to the buildup of greenhouse gases.   With this data they are  making predictions that if co2 has risen from 280 to 360 ppm and has caused temperatures to rise 0.6 degrees celcius, then if co2 doubles then temperatures should rise by a certain amount.  And we are asked to make major sacrifices based on what the computer models say the temperatures might be.

It is safe to assume that this La Nina is not influenced by levels of Greenhouse gases.  But how about the El Ninos of the 80's and 90's, were they influenced by co2 levels?  Based on this year, there is no evidence to support it.  But the El Ninos averaged the temperatures up.  This in term will affect the parameters of the computer models, which means temperatures will not rise as much as predicted.

So this winter is a major blow to the theory of co2 causing major catastophic damge.

Answer 2

Past that point.  It's a philosophical argument now, a curiosity.

I answered Trevor this way:

...the absolutely insipid, inane nonsense that pops up over and over in spite of the fact that it:

1) Has no basis in fact.

2) Has no logic.

3) Has been so thoroughly and repeatedly refuted, debunked and deconstructed it begs the question of the motives of those who would post it.

The rest of the world is moving ahead with the solutions.  I asked a question about what it will mean if the US gets left behind and got more inane, insipid nonsense.

Well, it's more than a curiosity if you look at it this way.  It's a serious problem for our standing in the world.

Answer 3

In my experience the arguments used against AGW are much the same as those used against evolution.  Misunderstanding of the science, testimony from 'scientists' who really aren't scientists or are from the wrong field,  converts, people who formerly thought the theory to be correct and now say otherwise, plus they have an ability to make a lot of noise, most of the 'evidence' against AGW comes from a small and select group of individuals who appear time and time again and gain credibilty through blogs rather than peer review.

So no, given the level of misunderstanding present it can't be taken seriously.

Answer 4

I have no clue why I even answer you questions? Now that's a mystery. I just thought two response were interesting.One about philosophy,the other concerning evolution. I certainly don't want to digress anyone's opinion.

A lot of science has been derived from contemplation,just a expansion of knowledge...some say to a higher degree.

Evolution is a little more complex,but natural selection can be proved.This may be seen in as little as 3-7 days, by first year med students.The two are not interchangeable but one process controls the other.

Now to answer your question : The environmental reactions between one system and another are link to a chain of events.These are not readily observable nor can all the events be monitor simultaneously. We are just now understanding the fundamentals of Ecological balances.Basically a new science,if you included GW.Just what do you think are the drivers behind surface temps? It doesn't appear spontaneously...one theory I don't agree with.I know there's a lot more to this but I'm going to end it here.

Answer 5

Not just the date you state but the entire year of 2007. Is it a misconception that all four earth climate monitoring sight, including NASA, have come out and stated that last year the temperature of the earth dropped 1 degree, negating 100 years of warming.? You seem to be the one that is choosing what SCIENCE to listen to. Don't forget that they also told us the earth was the center of the universe and that you could fall off the edge.

As for being an amateur, I am well aware that science is wrong nearly as often as they may be right. Can't you think of one time they were mistaken?

Answer 6

Reminds me of the old saying. You may lead a cow to water but you cannot force it to drink.

Answer 7

You're absolutely right. It's only reasonable that we make global policies based on 50 years of estimated temperature readings drawn out to the thousands of years the Earth as been around and cartoons of poler bears. How foolish it is to doubt such irrefutable proof.