Do global warming 'skeptics' necessarily have an aversion to scientific data?

Question

Some claim that the surface temperature record is bad based on a few photographs, but the scientific data disproves this claim.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiX0VSCHB9ijxFOCLskQgqLty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080323064744AAjGAbQ&show=7#profile-info-NqGkbDetaa

Some claim that volcanic CO2 emissions alter atmospheric CO2 readings or that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans, but the data disproves both claims.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ai1HOU0iXKM5_iQhqhdFzrbpy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080324082817AAMopi2

Some claim that the Sun or 'natural cycles' are responsible for the warming over the past 30 years even though the data proves otherwise.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/207/4434/943

Some claim global warming has stopped.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Do you think the reason that they're 'skeptics' is because they refuse to consider the full body of scientific data?

Answer 1

Skeptics in general LOVE scientific data.  Unfortunately, they tend to only pick and choose data sets that support their arguments.  Even if only 5% of the data available supports their contentions.

Answer 2

Do you have an aversion to scientific data?

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-w...

http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/cry...

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/Morn...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

Answer 3

The new data is that Mars is showing the same climate changes as we are experiencing....will you ignore that?

Answer 4

Wow!  all that data and STILL no one knows if it's going to be warmer or cooler any time in the future unless they guess.

Since when did guesses count as science?

Answer 5

Gelatin isn't one to listen to. He can't decide whether we're heading into an ice age or the sun has increased output and that is the reason for GW.

Hey gelatin, I don't know if it will rain on July 4th, but it's almost a sure thing it will be 90+ degrees F.

Answer 6

I would like to know where people are getting their misinformation. I think they do a search on the internet and find the "skeptics" point of view and hold it at equal footing with mainstream scientific opinion. They themselves don't understand the science, so they assume there is a 50-50 debate, or that it's a big made up conspiracy since there are so many skeptic web pages with debunked and outdated info.

Answer 7

No but, global warming enthusiasts refuse to debate their 'evidence' in a public forum. This is why the PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF THE WEATHER CHANNEL, who himself is a scientist wants to sue Al Gore so, that the evidence pro and con will be looked at by all and debated somewhere. I see people who really buy into global warming not wanting to look at evidence to the contrary.

Answer 8

Ive looked at some of your links, they hold no evidence for global warming being anything to do with man at all. you say "but the data disproves this" continually, and show a link, that, actually, contains absolutely no data at all.

wheres your evidence?

you can find my sources at the bottom.

global warming is a scam.

watch "the great global warming swindle" or various other movies, available at video.google.co.uk.

people quickly forget that plants breath  in c02.

and they breath out o2.

In a c02 rich atmosphere, plants and fruits can easily grow 2/3x bigger/faster. As the plants themselves have more food to develop with.

These bigger plants then produce 2x/3x more o2. balancing the situation.

not to mention, c02 has never even been proven to correspond to temperature.  there is actually more data to suggest that the earth either warms or cool, and this effects the c02 in our atmosphere.

Also, the sun is more radiant than its ever been, moons which used to be ice around jupiter and saturn are turning to seas.

global warming is a scam created from nothing for the sole purpose of business and to create another reason for worldwide panic (along with terror)

just the fact that David De Rothschild, from one of the most insanely RICH and evil families on earth,  has written a book, directed at kids, to brainwash kids. about this subject, is enough for me to know, it is absolute rubbish. never mind all the other evidence. you can hear David talking to Alex jones on the subject here:http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doci...

Answer 9

The answer is yes, by definition.  As you pointeed out, there is a wealth of data available demonstrating that globalwarming is real and caused by human activity.

The "skeptics"  are, for the most part (there are a few exceptions, but not many) drawn from the segment of American society  often called the "religious right."  That is relevant because their "opposition" to global warming is not anything special, and is not based on honest skepticism.  This segment of American society is actively opposed to science in genral.  To be specific, they have a particular "world-view" (based on their own intrepretation of the Bible) and it includes rejecting the scientific knowledge--and the supporting evidence--in the following fields (this isn't a complete list):

Astronomy

physics

biology

paleontology

archeology/anthropology

geology

meteorology/climate science.

Note that I am not talking about moral objections to application (as with stem cell research) but to rejection of the facts of the science itself. And yes, they do refuse to consider the "full body of data."  This group refuses to consider anything that conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible.

Answer 10

I cannot speak for others, but scientific data from sources such as NASA and NOAA are the basis of my skepticism.

Answer 11

I think this is partly the case. I also think that the deniers of global warming do so out of political beliefs and religious convictions, and also due to the basic problem that global warming is not a simple subject.

Sport utility vehicles have up until recently been immensely profitable for Detroit to make.  Suggesting that they contribute to warming by emissions is bad for the auto industry's profits, in much the same way that increasing the CAFE standard is - increased fuel efficiency means less v-10's and less luxury options.  

"McMansions" are good bets for the construction industry.  Any notion that suggests that less is sometimes better attacks this industry's profits.  

The poorly understood concept of stewardship of the Earth.  The notion that the Earth is merely here for us to exploit and consume.  

The complexity of global climate.  This issue does not lend itself to sound bites well.  Many factors contribute to global warming - not all of them man made, and not all to the same degree.  Even in the absence of political bias, the potential to misunderstand the problem is great.

Answer 12

oh ya show us a chart from nasa giss.

James Hansen is a tree hugger from way back plus he claimed in the 70s that we were going into a ice age.

go to this site and see how the AGW people change the data to fit AGW.

http://www.climateaudit.org/

we don't believe the data because the data is not PURE it has been altered by the same people that are pushing AGW.

and the climateaudit web site shows how they do it.

When you have weather data that has to be adjusted because the weather collection sites are badly placed and then a known treehugger like James Hansen does the adjustment.

how can you trust the data

its like a prisoner in prison guarding the prison.

part 1 of your question

there are more then a few sites that are bad a large number of weather recording sites are bad

and the AGW people know they are bad and they use the adjustments to inflate the temp even more.

part 2 claiming that CO2 levels are rising based on levels from a observatory in Hawaii when it is a volcano observatory on a active volcano.

then don't back it up with reading from other places around the world that are not on volcano's.

there has to be many sites that take CO2 reading around the world.

don't tell me that there are not instruments in other places.

because i worked in the chemical industry and the mining industry. as a safety man and used to check CO2 levels on a daily bases.

part 3

no one has proven that the sun is not the cause all they claim is they can find no evidence that it does.

lack of evidence does not prove a fact.

all it proves is that they could not find evidence.

part 4

evidence from a known treehugger like James Hansen proves nothing

the fact that he has made over a million dollars in awards speaking fees and grants from the environmental movement.

makes his evidence suspect.

we look at ALL the data and the source of the data , how the data was taken. and who used the data and how.

AND the BACKGROUND of the PEOPLE involved.