Have global warming theories been worked out, figured and corroborated by other people?

Question

A "skeptic" posted this in a question as a criterion for scientific truth. I quite agree, and say that global warming theory amply meets this test.

The IPCC doesn't do research together. They meet every five years to share results. Only those which have been independently verified many times make it into the final report.

"The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be."

On the other hand the "skeptical" theories flunk this test, big time. The skeptics rarely agree with each other.

Thoughts?

Answer 1

If we were to really take global warming seriously,  we would have to make profound and fundamental changes in the way we do almost EVERYTHING, especially in how we deal with money and wealth. Because money and wealth as we know it today depend on a steady and massive amount of production and consumption.

That means that for all of the people with money and or power, dealing with Global Warming would mean an enormous loss of both money and power. It is therefore very much in their interest to convince people, and probably even to believe, that these theories are simply an aberration of some sort, and to reassure the 'public' that only token measures will suffice.

Not so long ago, Tony Blair, then Prime Minister of the UK stated quite clearly that people do not hav eto change their lifestyles more than upgrading to efficient lighting, and perhaps not flying off for holiday weekends, when it is far more likely that we really do need to reduce our 'carbon footprints' by about 85%!!

Alas, there are usually so-called scientists willing to oblige the program of disinformation, and others who reject the suggestions without any investigations at all. i knew a senior Professor of physics at a UK university who denied even the possibitty of acid rain being connected to pollution until his dying day.

Answer 2

I heard a talk by a UN scientist that participated in the global warming report.  She kept interspersing the accepted UN theory with the large amount of uncertainty in all this.

That was her way of saying that she had to eat, but also wanted people to know she really was a scientist and knew the data wasn't that solid.

As it stands now, if anyone even thinks about questioning the party line, they are threatened and crucified.  And they ask themselves for what.  Better to stay silent, let it blow over, and know that nothing is really being done to reduce CO2 emissions.

I read a paper by a scientist that discovered trees grow faster in elevated CO2 concentration (not exactly a controversial result), but he still apologized and said global warming was problem, etc.

There is no requirement people agree on theories.  And even theories like Newton's law of gravity and the wave theory of light, which explains their phenomena nearly perfectly to this day, are known to not be entirely correct.

And there is no requirement that "skeptics" agree upon any theory.  The null hypothesis is that temperatures today are within normal variance experienced by the earth in the past.

Anyone dispute this?  Anyone think they can find an air temperature measured today that they believe is higher or lower than experienced by the earth in the past?

Before anyone falls in love with "peer review", check out the number of retracted scientific papers, scientific fraud uncovered, etc. that was all "peer reviewed".

For that matter, check out the number of people freed by new DNA evidence.  All the jurors, the prosecutors, judges, etc. all agreed beyond all reasonable doubt ... and they were still 100% wrong in these cases.

Last comment.  Most people like warm weather, not cold.  Asking people to reduce their standard of living for COLDER winters ... is a political non-starter.

So take a step back, clear your head, and notice all the folks moving to Florida and Arizona and LA.  All evidence points to people being a h**l of a lot happier in warmer climates.

Answer 3

Bob, you make a big thing about how popular your ideas are.  You idea is blame without actually doing anything about it.  Lots of people go along with that.  

Just wait and see how popular your idea is if you want to take people's SUV's away.  See how quickly a fickle public turns from sure, scientists know everything to what would those pot smoking hippies know about anything.  Only reason they work at a university is because they couldn't get real jobs.  

And who could blame them - it's not like any climate scientists somewhat arrogant predictions have actually come true.

Answer 4

I'm getting really sick of these statements about global warming that are masquerading as questions.

To the person who said that trees grow faster in elevated CO2... I learnt that when I was 18 and I'm now 28. Welcome to the world of science, where the answers aren't simple and organisms change their behaviour based on their environment.

That doesn't mean that natural systems are capable of absorbing and storing (aka sequestering our excessive CO2 emissions). There are studies on this and the fact that our oceans are reaching saturation point should scare the poo out of you.

Is it only Americans who are so sceptical? Most of the people that I meet are aware of climate change and believe it is a problem worthy of solutions - but then, maybe I'm associating with educated people?

Answer 5

Scientist from around the world have been monitoring the effects for decades...They all agree that the Earth is warming by several degrees and that the polar Ice Caps are definitely shrinking...

Answer 6

Yes, all aspects of the AGW theory have been verified by countless studies.  Climate model simulations have been run since Hansen's first in the mid-1980s, and so far have stood the test of time with a high degree of accuracy.  All satellite measurements of solar output have shown that its output has decreased over the past 30 years (though there is a little disagreement about how much between ACRIM and PMOD), all surface temperature measurements have shown the surface warming at the same rate, and the greenhouse effect has been long-documented.