Global Warming Skeptics: Are GW Proponents Honest?

Question

Do you think the people promoting global warming are buying into a global earth worship cult, or do you think they are honest and intelligent, but wrong none the less?

Are they more scientific or dogmatic?

Answer 1

I don't like to make generalizations about an entire group. Sure, there are many honest, intelligent, and credible scientists and laymen who agree with the "consensus", but there are also many dishonest and nonobjective proponents of the theory.

Pegminer said:

"I'm interested in what the skeptics have to say about us too...I'm under the impression that most of the skeptics (non-believers would be better, since their minds seem to be made up) think that scientists are a bunch of crackpots, except for the few they can find that agree with them."

You know pegminer, I generally respect your opinion because you are studying climate. However, your responses have become less scientifically based and more about bashing the skeptics, which is unfortunate.

The reason I am a skeptic is because my mind isn't made up--I am almost certain that CO2 should have played a part in the recent warming, but no physical real-world observations have been produced that would make me certain of the extent of its role. And, of course, there are so many other poorly understood factors in our climate that it would be difficult for me to completely believe the theory at this point.

Those uncertainties and the overall complexity of our climate do not stop me from advocating "action", and I think that is all most AGW proponents, including you, really care about, which again, is unfortunate.

Answer 2

Dr. Stephen Hawkings is saying that the Earths temperatures will reach 450 degrees and rain sulfuric acid.

Al Gore tells us that we only have ten years to act before the damage is permanent.  He's been saying this for the last 30 years.  To show how bad global warming is, he uses animated polar bears and movie props to show ice breaking from Antarctica while making no mention that you are watching special effects.

Ted Turner is stating that in 20 years, people will turn into cannibals.

Prince Charles says we only have 18 months unless we spend $30 trillion.

Dr. James Hansen takes $250,000.00 from John Kerry's presidential campaign then tells us that it's just an award, he is still objective, then endorses Kerry's presidential campaign.

No, there are very dishonest people who are spreading lies and fear only to further their objectives.

The Earth's temperature will never come close to 450 degrees, and it will never rain sulfuric acid.  I know this even though I will never match Dr. Hawkins IQ level.

In 10 years or 18 months, the Earth will be just as it was 10 years ago in 1998, or 18 months ago like it was in 2006, even if we don't spend a dime.

We will never turn into cannibals.

And as long as global warming remains profitable and political people should always suspect the motives of those who resort to alarmism.

Answer 3

Yes, AGW proponents are honest.  That's why we provide evidence to support our arguments.  If you don't believe us, check the science.

To be blunt, the same is usually not true for 'skeptics'.

I wrote the wiki!  Try reading the answers to your own freaking questions.  I already explained this to you.

Answer 4

I think they are motivated by something I do n ot understand, so I will not pretend to know.

What I do know is this: the basic ideas they put forth are quite flawed.

Here is an example I saw earlier tonight on Discovery. Don't remember the title of the program but it was about how man made global warming is affecting the planet.

A scientist shows his chart, which very clearly shows the relationship between CO2 and Antarctic temperatures.

It also very clearly shows a regular cycle going back hundreds of thousands of years. About every 100,000 years, like clockwork, CO2 and temperatures rise together. They then dramatically drop off and things are relatively stable for about the next 100,000 years.

It clearly shows that right now we are about to peak on one of those high cycles.

It also shows the increase is no different, and we are in fact cooler now than we have been the last few cycles.

Now you must bear in mind this chart clearly shows the rise began hundreds or perhaps thousands of years ago. Also bear ijn mind it is right on time, not early or late.

Yet this scientist states the change on the chart is caused by man over the last 150 years. While he is saying this the chart is superimposed behind him, and he refers to it.

That is simply stupid.

How about a much cimpler explanation for which I have no proof beyond basic common sense and some basic understanding of science.

Earth gets hot "global warming". The heat evaporates a lot of water. The water vapor blocks out much of the suns energy. This cools the earth and that cooling squeezes moisture back out of the atmosphere. The suns energy begins to warm the earth again. That accounts for the temperature. As far as CO2...the amounts are so incredibly small, who knows? Scientists never refer to CO2 levels in absolute terms, only relative, like 30% more.  You will not here .015% of atmosphere. I believe they do this because the numbers are so small they know people will call BS on it from a simple common sense standpoint.

At the end of the day their own data proves this is regular cycle that has happened for a long time.

Answer 5

the problem with global warming, and the people who say it is man made, and the ones who say it is natural, and even those who say it isnt happening, all have one thing in common, they have theories, and a few observations regarding those theories as to what is happening, but nor real science behind them. we look at other planets in the solar system like mars and venus, and a couple moons around jupiter and saturn, and they are all warming but that is a natural event. but on earth it is caused by man.

the reality is that we dont truly know the science behind global warming, and these people that claim that warming trends int he past took 800 years ar full of c**p. looking at the geological record we find that many times in the past the climate change happened in a little as a few years, and as long as 100,000 years.

the biggest problem is that most scientists dont want to look at all the evidence because they have an agenda.

Answer 6

They're gullible, for sure.  And the fact they believe in this g/w thing proves that although some of them are educated (seemingly but even that's questionable) they are not intelligent.  Education and intelligence aren't directly related.

Any riff-raff can get educated, being intelligent is a different matter altogether.

I think that dishonesty is rampant in the cult.  From the upper echelons on down it permeates each level.  The alarmists, the scientists on the payroll, the lobbyists, the teachers and the accountants.  Maybe the warmers at the bottom aren't dishonest deliberately, but who knows.  

I believe there's a disturbing psychological factor which unites them, could be that they're all leftists.

Answer 7

I think most of them are honest.  Most are probably young, inexperienced and left leaning.  They seem to have a tendency to see the glass as half empty.  They seem to often want to save the world, even if it doesn't need saving.  There have been people with this mentality since Babylonians ruled.  With the choice between scientific and dogmatic, I would say they believe they are being scientific but are closer to dogmatic in reality.  My brother classifies them as a doomsday cult which is close to global earth worship cult, I suppose.

Note:  Ken gives a list of people smarter than him.  I think we could all do that.  Pegminer then declares that skeptics have their mind made up.  That one actually got a chuckle out of me.  It is pretty funny if you think about it.

Answer 8

Personally, the leaders of the movement (Al Gore, Hansen, etc ) are dishonest and have lied in the past (and will lie in the future) to further there own agenda. Others are knowledgeable of the situation and choose to ignore the truth because they want to further the anti capitalist agenda (go to any Global Warming Rally and you will know what I mean). Most of the population (my Mom and others like her) only get their info from TV. In this case, they believe what they are being spoon fed on a nightly basis (big loads of c**p).

Unfortunately, to really understand this issue, people must research it on their own. Most people are unwilling to spend the time. They would rather watch a TV special about how we are all going to die.

Answer 9

They are not honest!

For example, the wiki Master Dana posted claims that Ice Ages are simply due to Milankovitch cycles.  Now, if you knew anything about the theory, you would know that the wiki fails to mention that the periodicity in the theory falls apart.  It is only good for about out 600,000 years!  Earth's been around for over 4 billion years.  And, even if the periodicity were correct, it still can't account for the magnitude of global mean temperature change.  

Just because the wiki is posted does not make them correct or economically viable.

Answer 10

I think they believe they are being honest and intelligent, and, that they are trying to do what they see as the right thing, that doesn't make them right.

I am not denying that there is climate change, however I have yet to see solid evidence that it is man causing it.  When you consider that one forest fire releases more green house gasses than all of the vehicles on the planet do in one year, and when you consider that Mars is going through the same thing, yet there are no SUV's cruising around on Mars, I have to call their "science" into question.

Answer 11

They think their intelligent repeating all their facts from the internet or some advertisement on TV! but i'm a skeptic and sometimes think without them knowing that they are in a cult/religion state of mind.

Answer 12

Certainly there are some Snake Oil salesmen out there using the Global warming myth as a means of personal enrichment, but I prefer to think that the majority of 'Warmers' are simply mis-guided or....unfortunately.... coerced into getting on the bandwagon.

Some interesting excerpts from 'RealClearPolitics':

"-- The Left believes in experts. Of course, every rational person, liberal or conservative, trusts the expertise of experts -- such as when experts in biology explain the workings of mitochondria, or when experts in astronomy describe the moons of Jupiter. But for liberals, "expert" has come to mean far more than greater knowledge in a given area. It now means two additional things: One is that non-experts should defer to experts not only on matters of knowledge, but on matters of policy, as well. The second is that experts possess greater wisdom about life, not merely greater knowledge in their area of expertise.

That is why liberals are far more likely to be impressed when a Nobel Prize winner in, let us say, physics signs an ad against war or against capital punishment. The liberal is bowled over by the title "Nobel laureate." The conservative is more likely to wonder why a Nobel laureate in physics has anything more meaningful to say about war than, let us say, a taxi driver."

Answer 13

You tell us if these people are just a bunch of ignorant earth worshipers or honest intelligent scientists that know a heck of a lot more climate science than you or I:

http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/news/2007/Ba...

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/01/list-...

Personally, I'm intellectually honest enough to admit that the above people are more intelligent on this topic than I am.

Answer 14

I'm interested in what the skeptics have to say about us too...I'm under the impression that most of the skeptics (non-believers would be better, since their minds seem to be made up) think that scientists are a bunch of crackpots, except for the few they can find that agree with them.

Answer 15

I don't feel they are deliberately dishonest. I just feel they're misguided in their thinking and feel its right to follow someone they feel knows more than they do, even if its flawed science.