How do the "skeptics" explain the position of the major scientific organizations?

Question

EVERY major scientific organization says global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

The National Academy of Sciences (the most prestigious in the US), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union (which recently strengthened it's official position), the American Meteorological Association, etc.

These guys don't take official positions on controversial issues (particularly the NAS) only on settled science. They don't want to anger any significant group of their members.

So; are they stupid, ignorant about the data, or engaged in a giant conspiracy?

Or is this true:

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know. Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

The world's leaders think it is.

Answer 1

I think all people treat science just like they do any other religion. It seems that many involved in this debate are exercising absolutism just as is done in many major religions. I think we should confess that we really don't have a consise understanding of the big picture. At this point, I don't believe scientists know enough to intelligently interpret the data In fact, I don't thing any of us do.

Answer 2

You ask: "So, are they stupid, ignorant about the data, or engaged in a giant conspiracy?"

Do you really think anyone can give you anything but a humble opinion? Scientists can go to the moon but they can't find a cure for cancer. I can wonder all I want if they are stupid, ignorant of data, or engaged in a giant conspiracy to make money off study grants, cancer treatments, surgeries and medications.

Bottom line: Be very aware that research studies almost always ultimately give the findings which were desired by the persons or groups funding their study. Just like politicians jump when the persons or groups who funded their elections tell them to jump.

Answer 3

they are stupid, ignorant of the data, AND engaged in a giant conspiracy.

Answer 4

These organizations always write their declaration in a subjective manner.  They start off by implying a biased stance on the subject.  It would be much more scientific and formal if they started with an objective stance, and worked towards an answer with the information they have found.

Are you denying any possibility of there being other, greater influences other than co2 in the atmosphere just because these organizations have made up their mind before reading the whole book?  Are you denying that the last 3 months have been below average in temperature, indicating there are greater influences than co2?

We know co2 warms the atmosphere, but its very INSIGNIFICANT, and these major organizations are moving along with mainstream science right now.  The only thing is they dont know how much warming is caused by co2, but they assume that all of the temperature anomaly is caused by co2, and many others believe otherwise.

I think the media has made it impossible for anyone to speak out against it, honestly.  The way they make it sound, if you arent part of that crowd, then you are the devil.  They do it with george bush all the time.

The concensus argument isnt valid.  Clearly they havent asked every scientist.

Answer 5

they must be reds.

Answer 6

Hmmmm... Consensus by groups who receive millions in grants to study Global Warming...  Nope.  Nothing suspicious there.  And the fact that there was scientific consensus about Global Cooling (The New Ice Age) 30 years ago doesn't mean anything either, of course.

Enjoy the Kool-Aid.

Answer 7

Just to correct the mind set of most proponents,it was skeptic's that brought the tetraneutron theory to light.I love the blanket statements and selective comparisons that are being made.Try being real occasionally,people will be more apt to believe you.

Answer 8

While most everyone agrees global warming is indeed occurring, the "skeptics" argue the extent to which humankind is responsible due to greenhouse gas emissions.  Unfortunately, the global climate system is a bit large..well, global.  It makes modeling and predicting very tricky.  Therein lies the difficulty.  When scientists try to predict the results from global warming, they often fail in some way, shape or form because of system variables. The planet is a big place and everything works together as a system.

We seem to get better at this each year but alas, the skeptics can always find a crutch to lean on to save face. The most sensible approach to me is to use the "precautionary principle".  If you know you contribute negatively to the problem, then stop doing what it is that aggravates it.  Translated -  that means if you place your hand on a burner and feel the heat, you know you need to remove your hand to stop the burning or turn off the burner.  

We simply need to continue taking actions to reduce our individual and collective impact to warming the planet - even if it turns out we are not solely responsible for the entire phenomena.  What difference does it make how it's happening, we owe it to future generations to stop aggravating it.

Answer 9

Those who don't understand science (or the scientific process of self-correction, peer-review, replication, etc.) can easily dismiss it.

Then there are the conspiracy junkies who somehow think Al Gore is all-powerful and able to influence the scientific organizations of nations all over the world.

Answer 10

What the skeptics either don't understand or disregard is that scientists base their conclusions on scientific data.  If there isn't a single group of scientists which opposes such a critical issue as AGW, that tells you the scientific evidence is extremely robust.

Let's examine the 'skeptics' answers.

1) Discusses politicians instead of scientists - ignores the question.  Then misrepresents the conclusions of scientists.

2) Seems to think scientists are idiots.

3) 'Consensus isn't always right'.  Ignores that scientific consensus is based on scientific evidence, and is usually right.

4) Does not answer the question.

5) 'Skeptical scientists are bullied and kept quiet'.  Simply absurd.  We hear from skeptical scientists a disproportionate amount because the media likes to be 'fair and balanced'.

6) Compares reality to fiction.  Fiction.  'Nuff said.

7) Claims scientists are in it for the money and raises the '70s cooling myth.  Simple ignorance.

8) 'Scientists don't know enough to draw conclusions'.  I think the scientists are better equipped to make that decision.

9) 'Hockey stick and MWP'.  Not even worth arguing about with this guy for the billionth time.

Answer 11

They say we are at the end of an Ice Age or they are complete religious freaks who are incapable of thinking.....either way...they are dumb.

Answer 12

I see no difference between these organizations and the State Science Institute in the fictional work "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand.  

Government involvement eliminates objectivity and credibility.  No different than those "backed by big oil".  Hitler's scientists made huge advancements in physics and mechanics...and published works establishing the superiority of the Aryan race.  They were the leading scientists in their respective fields, and in their country.  

I openly question all assertions with a simple statement:  Prove it.  So far, the data doesn't.

Answer 13

Interesting posts all, but I agree with the one by evans_michael_ya

What scientists say does not make it the gospel truth. In fact, some scientific organizations are behaving like religious zealots.

Answer 14

If you supported the hockey stick and were willing to just throw out what the history books have said about an event since it happened based upon tree ring studies, WITHOUT verifying them, and knowing the limitations of tree rings as proxies, all because of the need to "get rid of" what the history books said, then I really can't view your group as authoritative.

You need to understand - even if it's us this time, it wasn't us last time, and last time DID happen.   The evidence of it is from around the world, not just "the North Atlantic" or "Northern Europe."

I know that it's not just the ability to call the late 20th century warming "unprecedented" and to make it look, on a graph, as if it is "unprecedented," but also the fact that it is those same models that predict the future warming.    If they can't replicate the past, then they can't be trusted to predict the future.

But even without the models, I'd be more inclined to give these organizations the benefit of the doubt if they hadn't rushed to re-write the climate history to support an agenda.

The re-writing of the climate history pushed a lot of the skeptics from open-minded "jury's out but I'm listening and thinking about it, maybe we should do some small things to hedge our bets" skeptics to what you see on this board.

I mean really when you people refer to the MWP as a "local" event in the "North Atlantic" - - - - the Sierra Nevada tree line isn't in the North Atlantic.    The American Southwest isn't in the North Atlantic.   The Swiss and German Alps aren't in the North Atlantic.   The Sargasso Sea isn't in the North Atlantic. Kenya isn't in the North Atlantic.   China isn't in the North Atlantic.

Answer 15

Argument at pabulum

The number of people doesn't make it right or logical.

Two names come to mind.

Copernicus and Galileo

Here are few that disagree should they be listen to also?

http://bridgetdgms.wordpress.com/2008/02...

Answer 16

Bob, It doesn't matter how much data we present these deniers. They will scream conspiracy! When they don't like the answer, you are blocked from presenting the data. It's fortunate for the rest of humanity that world governments don't listen to their opinion columns for policy. Now, those governments might not act on all the mainstream scientific data, but they do listen and are listening more and more to the mainstream scientific organizations, such as the ones you've listed.

Deniers are so desperate, they want to use 2 months of cold weather in parts of the world as proof of no AGW, after decades of warming. Decades of warming to them does not a trend make, but 2 months is their "I told you so." That is their mindset.

Answer 17

Why? Because an honest scientist would have to say they don't yet know, and they don't like the double standard of politicians preaching the talk but not walking the walk.

Yes, there is evidence that we need to be much more concerned with our own cause and effect on global warming. BUT - a well known scientist named T.M.Gerlach has stated that "Human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times."

That said, there is still the fact that volcano activity seems to balance the situation with global cooling. And even though we cannot control volcanoes, it still does not give us the right to destroy our planet and waste fossil fuels.

I think that scientists are worried that too many politicians who are gaining fame on the 'global warming' issues are in it for selfish reasons, or because that issue was the last one left for them to hold onto like a lifesaver in rough political waters. Scientists see the hypocrisy in those politicians and their cronies using private jets nearly every day and then getting up and preaching against pollution and waste.

Also, scientists are aware that there's new discovery of undetermined levels of volcanic activity under the oceans, which covers about two/thirds of the earth. Oceans are the largest reservoirs of CO2. When they are cool, they absorb the heavier CO2. BUT when heated oceans release CO2.

Answer 18

No doubt that politicians believe "global warming" is real.  Now they can enact policies to "save" the people and make themselves look important.  

Politicians once embraced the "science" of Eugenics as well.  How did that work out?

Many scientists are now looking at the Sun as the major cause of warming.  Even NASA is saying that reduced activity on the Sun is going to give us colder temperatures.  And NASA has always stated that the Sun is responsible for at least 1/3 of the warm spell we experienced, and the Sun could be responsible for at least 1/2 of all warmth.

There is still more knowledge that needs to be discovered to say man is the cause for all warming.  1 degree is still within natural variability.

[Edit] Galileo wasn't the scientific consensus.  The scientific consensus was that the Earth was at the center of the universe since  Aristotle and Ptolemy.  And it's important to know that models of a geocentric solar system were made and they WORKED!

Galileo was the skeptic who questioned this theory.  He had the facts and data on his side.  He knew from the math where the planets would be 6 months from a specific date.

And yet, even though you believe, you STILL cannot say if it will be warmer than average 6 months from now any better than a toss of a coin.

Answer 19

Simple answer, MONEY!!  Doesn't Bob's questions count as a "rant" anymore?  They are the SAME questions OVER and OVER again without any scientific explanation, besides what he cuts and pastes from his biased sites.  His vocabulary is not that of a scientist, and very much the same as Dana1981 (most likely the same person with different screen names).  They post links to the same biased sites, use the same arguments, ask the same questions, and never really state anything in scientific terms.  Stop with your propaganda already.

Answer 20

"Every" organization does NOT believe global warming is real.  Just as many believe it is not real and is just pollitical fodder for the newspapers.  They've just been "bullied" into keeping quiet by the people who want "their" position to be upheld!

Answer 21

The answer to your question is literally, INCOHERENTLY.  Some people never ever snap out of denial on certain issues and there is absolutely NOTHING one can do to make them see the reality of the situation.  So, for the most part, skeptics will skeptics, to the death.

Answer 22

Simple.

They keep denying it because their stubborn or they go egg the cooperation's. I can tell you its going to happen one day.