Indisputable facts about global warming?

Question

What is wrong with this logic?

Climatology is a relatively new science. (indisputable)

The climate is a HUGELY complex system. (indisputable fact)

All new sciences are filled with TONS of mistakes for a VERY long time until they get a better handle on things. This is true of Climatology and not at ALL to be embarrased about nor is it in any way unscientific for you to agree on this point. Its just plain true.

Politicians s***w up science. (another indisputable fact... i offer no examples as its beyond belief anyone can deny this).

If the largest body of politicians in the world (the UN) has so QUICKLY determined that a specific theory in such a new science is absolutely true to the extent of calling the opposition DENIERS and FLAT EARTHERS (10's of thousand strong by the way.. a fact)..

then something is STINKING in Denmark.

What is wrong with this logic?

Answer 1

What's wrong with your logic? Nothing......it all serves nothing more than your opinion based on no real factual "scientific" evidence. Your reasoning is no more or less flawed by also saying that dropping a bowling ball on your foot must hurt. But you've never done it, so how do you know? Logical isn't it?

What you fail to understand in your premis is that there is plenty of web research published by scientists specializing in the earths climate to all agree with one element.......

1. Going back some 60,000 years, the earth has experience a major shift in global warming about every 10,000 years. The planet then cools itself and life would go back to normal. Guess what???? No humans were alive during much of this period. And when homo sapiens did occupy the planet, I think it's "LOGICAL" to assume that while hunting dear and cooking around the camp fire did very little to cause any global warming cycle they may have experienced.

2. When factering in geothermal activity, the earths compass, tidal patterns and weather pathology......no much man can do to cause or prevent any planetary warming.

3. My favorite............recent science studies ( do your own web search ) going back to 1940 until 2000.......the earths temperature is actually 3 degrees less than it was 60 years ago.

Is that enough logic for you?

Answer 2

Using the same logic, you should probably also avoid computers, airbags, most modern antibiotics, certainly genetically modified foods (good luck feeding yourself in the US), most plastics... all quite "young science." Who knows what mistakes they may contain.

Oh, but in any case:

Perhaps the earliest person to hypothesize the concept of climate change was the medieval Chinese scientist Shen Kuo (1031-1095 AD). Shen Kuo theorized that climates naturally shifted over an enormous span of time, after observing petrified bamboos found underground near Yanzhou (modern day Yan'an, Shaanxi province), a dry climate area unsuitable for the growth of bamboos.

Early climate researchers include Edmund Halley, who published a map of the trade winds in 1686, after a voyage to the southern hemisphere. Benjamin Franklin in the 18th century was the first to map the course of the Gulf Stream for use in sending mail overseas from the United States to Europe. Francis Galton invented the term anticyclone. Helmut Landsberg led to statistical analysis being used in climatology, which led to its evolution into a physical science.

Ain't Wikipedia grand?

--------------------------------------...

In reaction to all the "Deniers" as you call them - who all seem to be on Yahoo Answers today - how much of your reaction is based on actual scientific knowledge and inquiry (your own, not just something you heard on Fox News), and how much of it is based on the pure desire not to have to change your own lifestyle in order to benefit others? Be honest with yourself.

If GW is all a vast conspiracy, please tell me who is gaining from it? The richest and most powerful nations and corporations have an interest in *denying* global warming. So who is perpetuating this theory? The vast underground network of wealthy vegans? All those mega-recycling corporations? Who is the conspiracy?????

Answer 3

Something does indeed stink in Denmark, nothing is wrong with your logic.  

I have a few questions.  

If carbon causes global warming than why did the temperature of the earth increase between 1910 and 1940 before humans started producing mass quantities of hydrocarbon?

Why did the earth's temperature go down between 1940s and 1970's when we were producing large amounts of hydrocarbon?

Why does the earth's air temperature more closely follow solar activity than increase in carbon emissions?

Approximately 600 scientists were involved in authoring the IPCC report suggesting that global warming is human-caused to meet their political objectives.

Over 31000 scientists (over 9000 of which were PHD's) signed The Global Warming Petition Project.  The petition included a 12 page paper which went through the peer review process before the final paper was published.  This paper uses science to prove global warming is not human-caused.

Who would you believe a publication put out by a political entity written by 600 scientists...

or...

A publication produced by the scientific community, that was subjected to the peer review process and signed by 31,000 over people (over 9000 of which have PHD's).

My bet is on the latter.

Global Warming is occuring, but...

HUMAN-CAUSED Global Warming IS NOT.

Answer 4

Your question is, "What is wrong with this logic?"

<All new sciences are filled with TONS of mistakes for a VERY long time until they get a better handle on things.>

“Science” means knowledge in Latin. As a human race, we will never have absolute knowledge over every aspect of the physical world. Science is also a quest for a better understanding of that physical world. This quest is accomplished through observation and/or through experimentation.

The scientific method is an established process for finding the solutions to gaps in our scientific knowledge. It is useful to brainstorm on what is still unknown, but perhaps it’s also helpful to gather together what is known and what is likely.

<If the largest body of politicians in the world (the UN) has so QUICKLY determined that a specific theory in such a new science is absolutely true …>

This is a false attribution. The IPCC (UN) reported that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is ‘very likely’ due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”[1] ‘Very likely’ means that to greater than 90% likelihood their understanding is accurate. Scientists never talk about “absolutely truths.”

<to the extent of calling the opposition DENIERS and FLAT EARTHERS.>

This is another false attribution. The IPCC reports have never labeled anyone a denier or a flat-earther. The IPCC reports are simply a compilation of the current climate research. For this information to be useful to policymakers worldwide, its members, using expert opinion, have also assessed likelihood of certain results or outcomes.

<[The anthropogenic global warming deniers are] 10's of thousand strong by the way.. a fact>

This is an “Argumentum ad populum,” or an appeal to the masses. This is a fallacious argument because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct. In addition, the world has a population of over 6.5 billion people, so tens of thousand of people can by no means be considered a majority or even a significant mass.

I hope that this was helpful.

Answer 5

I don't feel like arguing science tonight, so I'll argue logic.

If science is so uncertain as you say, then there is an equal likelyhood of it being true as there is untrue.

If it's true, we have to deal with loss of life from natural disasters, loss of property and therefor money, and loss of food (crops affected by drought and seafood that cant adapt to changing temp).

If not, and we act anyway, at least we solved the economic side of the oil crisis.

I have to say though that there isn't much justification for saying that its untrue. There were a number of scientific reports suggesting as much, but we know know that the more prominent ones were edited by Bush and Cheney's guys do downplay it.

True, science is often wrong, but that's a lot of scientists that you're calling wrong.

There have been a lot of floods this year...

Answer 6

Now there has been a declaration of MARTIAL LAW  in Spokane WA,because of the fire storm in the Eastern WA city of Spokane!

Record high winds have started over 100 wildfires in heavily populated areas !  No more friggin' 'deniers' there!