Has the 'skeptics' primary argument against global warming shifted again?

Question

Over the years, the primary argument against man-made (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW) has shifted many times.

1) The planet isn't warming

2) The planet isn't warming as much as scientists claim

3) The planet is warming, but it's natural

4) Maybe humans are causing it, but warmer is better

5) Okay now the warming has stopped

Lately it appears that there's been a shift toward a new primary AGW 'skeptic' argument - that while arguments 1-5 may be wrong (they are), the future warming projections may be exaggerated because they're based on feedbacks which we don't understand well. Several answers to my previous question made this sort of argument.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApgP6r0Gm0I5AnvFFGjNpffsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080715094518AAFRfCw

There is certainly some validity to this argument, because water vapor and clouds are some of the highest uncertainties in climate models.

So do you think the argument is shifting, and what do you make of this point?

Answer 1

Are you changing your position on this?  You keep saying that AGW theory is a proven as the law of gravity.  Now you are saying there is uncertainties?

  As far as I am concerned, well known skeptics like Lindzen, Spencer and Christy, have not changed their positions on this issue.  They have always had a problem with the positive feedback theory.

We have not changed our position on natural variation.  Co2 warming without any feedbacks will be minor. The only way we could have gotten the temperatures increases we have, is through positive feedbacks.  Saying that natural variation has played a role (ie sun) means that the positive feedback theory is false.  

Saying that the sun has also played a role in warming means that the parameters of the computer models changes and we should get less future warming.

We still also maintain that the warming has stopped.

Answer 2

Bull.  My arguments haven't shifted one iota.  They aren't in your list above.

What proportion of energy absorption in the first 30 feet of the atmosphere  is due to water vapor?  Reid Bryson says its 80% and CO2 is 0.08%.

When solar magnetic warming & the impact of cloud cover variation is left out of models used by RealClimate and IPCC/NASA those models cease to be realistic.

My GW criticism is that (1) it is primarily human-driven, (2) it is the end of the world, and (3) it requires government action and reduction of economic freedom by taxes.

For goodness sake glance at the history of global warming by the AIP (Arrhenius on...) and you can see that the arguments FOR the theory have shifted more than the skeptical arguments by far.

Answer 3

Funny! Thanks.

No the argument against global warming hype has not changed.  There are so many things wrong with global warming theory it takes time to get to them all.

Answer 4

# 5 refer back to number 1

# 2,3 and 4 usually is prefaced by saying ( if it is )

The argument hasn't shifted from our side but we are constantly forced into deflecting every angle because as you lose every argument you just shift to a new one without ever proving the last point.

You green weenies are masters of the shifting argument. And as real time data disprove your assertions you just change the subject and go on another tangent, that is whats shifting there shifty.

Answer 5

If I had to rely on such slippery flip flopping beliefs to support my position, I would instantly recognize that my position is not worth holding onto. But it doesn't seem to phase these people one iota. They are like religious zealots who won't believe in it no matter what.

Answer 6

When one's position is based on opinion (especially ideologically driven) and not scientific evidence, of course it will shift.  In contrast, you can see scientific papers spanning over 100 years moving toward a pretty solid consensus that a doubling of CO2 will cause a global SST increase of 2 - 3 C.

http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSe...

Answer 7

The earth was warming slightly.  That ended in 1998 and there has been no further increase.  It was not AGW.  It was natural, and yes, it's stopped.  So what's the big deal?

The term 'global warming' is understood to refer to manmade global warming in today's lingo.  It's manmade warming that has a few lefty scam artists supposedly worried while making billions of dollars.  The myth of AGW will stick around until it's no longer needed and then will fade away.  The alarmists will replace it with something else that benefits their agenda.

Answer 8

my position hasn't changed.  I have substantiated that AGW is a scam from day 1, and I hold to that position.  I am not a religious zealot (Atheist, actually) as Aaronesque proclaims.  I am not basing this on opinon, as Ken posits all Anti-AGW skeptics do.  I base my position on science, and research, and data, and everything there has shown me that AGW does...not..exist.  

Randel E made a great analogy about the Rams playoff chances (Not good, btw, but thats another topic).  AGW proponents like to talk about different aspects of AGW- when we choose to respond to those different aspects, its not a shift in position, its simply a different discussion.  the topic and position remain the same; the information we discuss is what changes.  

there may be some who have shifted their position.  you can't fault people for that.  maybe they are educating themselves further, or had a knee-jerk reaction at first, or any other condition that may have driven that person to formulate his or her opinion.  but there is nothing wrong with shifting a position, especially regarding science.  what if the geo-centric theory of the solar system had been accepted, carte blanche, without ANY discussion?  the helio-centirc model that we now know to be true would never have been discussed.  same thing with AGW.  As more and more data regarding CC & AGW comes out, it is natural to change opinions, or shift your argument, as you learn more.  My general premise (AGW is a scam) has not shifted.  the data that I use to support that (Growing  Ice Depth in Greenland's northern glaciers, highest levels of sea ice in the Arctic, pre-CO2 emmissions era outpacing post-CO2 emmisions era for temp. increase, etc...) is what has changed.

Answer 9

6)HIGH GAS PRICES HAVE SLOWED GLOBAL WARMING

Answer 10

Addressing the myriad holes in the case for AGW isn't "shifting positions."

If you ask me why the St. Louis Rams won't make the playoffs next year, I can start with a paragraph about the o-line.    If my next paragraph focuses on the receivers, the next one focuses on the running backs, the next one focuses on the d-line, the next one focuses on the linebackers, the next one focuses on the secondary and the next one focuses on special teams, I didn't "change my position" - I just covered all of the deficiencies.

I GAVE you a comprehensive list of my main objections in my answer to the last question.    They're not mutually exclusive.   In fact they're quite complementary - if most of the warming was natural, then you'd expect there to be an occasional flatline or reversal, as we've seen.

It's not a question of going into court and "ignoring the law" as Nickel posits - - it's a question of going into court to defend yourself against murder 1 charges and pointing out, not only is someone else's DNA on the body, and not only do I not have powder residue on my hands, and not only is my gun different from the one that was used to shoot the victim, but I have 21 witnesses that swear that I was at my regular soccer game on the night in question.

I notice you refer to 'skeptics' - in quotes but at least that's better than "denier."   Sometimes I swear you're going to jump through the screen and yell "denier denier pants on fire!"

Answer 11

Global averaged temperatures have dropped substantially over the last 18 months, because of what is believed to be the PDO cool phase shift. This was somewhat predicted, if this turns out to be true, that means a large percentage of the global warming of the last 30 years is directly attributed to the PDO warm phase shift which occurred in 1977. That's the main shift I see, except for the cool phase PDO and diminished solar activity combining to potentially cause significant cooling.

Answer 12

the aruements have shifted because the alarmist have change their stance on global warming. since there is no credible evidence that the world is warming or cooling .

Answer 13

I shifted from a man-made global warming believer to number three on your list.  Humans aren't causing global warming any more than rocks are.

A lot of the graphs on Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth were retracted (such as the infamous "Hockey Stick Graph" and the false Nasa temperature data [now Nasa says the hottest days on record were actually in the 30's...and that's just ON RECORD]).  Also, the so-called correlation between CO2 and temperature is actually the reverse of what Al Gore was claiming.  Temperature raises, THEN CO2 follows.  Not the other way around.

Also, there's a natural warming and cooling cycle the earth goes through.  It warms, it cools, and so on.  There was a medeival warming period, then a little ice age, and now we're in a warming period yet again.  It happens.

Answer 14

I seem to recall something called the hockey stick theory that was used by alarmists for quite a while.  That is, until it was totally debunked, hence shifting the cause to your problem to something else.  But far be it from me to proclaim your hypocrisy.   You're pretty good at doing that yourself without my help.

Answer 15

I wasn't going to chime in, I was just reading through the answers, but this one's a keeper:

"Humans aren't causing global warming any more than rocks are."

Answer 16

Great question! First time I've actually seen both sides put forward reasonable, logical and rational arguments (there will always be a few exceptions and it was easy to discard those).

I'm torn here - I am a 'believer' in the sense that I fnd the science compelling (but that does not mean cetrain) and that, where doubt remains, I find the consequences of not believing and not acting and being wrong are far worse than believing, acting and being wrong (i.e. catastrophe versus potential, minor economic disruption).

That said, the situation is so complex with many variables causing much 'noise' in the data that it is possible to put up countervailing arguments that have validity even after discounting the obvious loony-tunes ones (e.g. coolng since 1998, undersea volcanoes, solar activity).

So, the fact that the 'skeptics' have adjusted their arguments to suit the prevailing 'proofs' or data is not, in itself, sufficient to say that their arguments are wrong.

I think it a shame that there aren't more (any?) skeptics capable of putting together a good argument against AGW. It hasn't helped that some of their arguments have been internally inconsistent or gainsay their previous ones as you point out in your question.

The final point is that the majority of dissenting opinions seem to be based on psychology - mainly the typical initial response of people when confronted by bad news: denial - rather than science, logic, fact.

This means that most of the counterarguments are not arguments at all, simply denials - 4 of the 5 points you note can be classified as denial statements.

Answer 17

No...the PRIMARY argument has always been man can not affect planetary cycles.  AGW theory has yet to prove otherwise.  1-5 (with the exception of 4) are merely arguing where within the natural cycle we're currently located.  Number 4 is taken out of context, as most everyone would admit a gnat striking the windshield of a car will make a calculable impact....just not a perceptible one.

Answer 18

The last and best I heard was that "free choice is needed".

Let´s vote on gravity today to find out if it is true.

Let the science students vote on who has the right answer... and let´s even modern art students vote on it to make it more democratic !

It is like saying to the court "you will not only try to apply the law, you are free to invent or ignore whichever law you like to apply".

Answer 19

Dana

I will deny the Club of Rome’s doctrine of AGW just as I will deny the churches doctrine of original sin. They are both false concepts promoted to enrich people too lazy and corrupt to go out and do an honest days work. So until you AGW faithful can provide some real solid evidence of it I will for one continue to deny it.

Answer 20

There temperature is incorrect and does not represent the true picture. Taking the temperature of our major cities and trying to average it ,and say see there it is hotter. Sorry but there are many more cities in the warm part and a lots less in the cold climate.

Answer 21

Hum-- global warming = climate change

2 degrees become .7 degrees then .5 degrees, and the latest .3 degrees

Oceans can rise several hundred feet-- no 30ft--- opps 20ft--- how about 2 centimeters per decade

we did not anticipate the strong La Nina--

or that volcano back in 1998

and on and on ---------------------------------