Is global warming "skepticism" now an unscientific fringe belief, like a 6000 year old Eartn?

Question

Or the idea that NASA faked the Moon landings?

Fossil fuel companies accept the reality of mostly man made global warming. The Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant because of global warming. The Fish and Wildlife Service has ruled that polar bears are threatened because of global warming, after a multi year public process (including public hearings), reams of data, and 670,000 public comments.

Articles in the newspapers and segments on the TV news no longer describe global warming theory. They talk about melting ice caps, disappearing coral reefs, and floding Alaskan villages without feeling the need to explain that these are due to man made greenhouse gases, or quoting a "skeptic" for "balance".

Are we now at a place where it's simply understood that science has proven this is real, and mostly caused by us?

Answer 1

But yet when people ask the question what proof that global warming is caused primarily by man, none is forthcoming.  They give the sound scientific process "we can not think of anything else", as proof.

Answer 2

I think that's fair to say.  I've engaged in a couple of debates with more informed skeptics than any of those on YA on a climate change discussion board, and even they haven't been able to come up with a decent scientific argument.

In terms of scientific studies, there are very few which even undermine AGW, let alone disproving it.  In fact, two of the main data-model discrepancies (ocean heat content and temperature, and tropical tropospheric temperature) were recently resolved as problems with data collection.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

At this point the only way to remain 'skeptical' is if a person either ignores or denies the science.  That's why virtually the only arguments we hear from the 'skeptics' are "global warming has stopped" (false) and "the Sun is to blame" (completely disproven).

The difference is that there is strong motivation for people to reject AGW (fear of change, addiction to oil), whereas there's little reason to believe the moon landing was faked.  There is also a wealthy group (oil industry) with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, which can create loads of informaton to make it possible for people to maintain their 'skepticism'.

BB provides a great example.  He makes claims like "your cause is losing momentum as the voo-doo science is exposed...'man-did-it' climate change....has been found to be full of holes...claims are exaggerated or downright wrong. "

Yet he provides not one single example of "voo-doo science", holes, or exaggerated/wrong claims.  It's just empty rhetoric.

Answer 3

I would rarely call the majority held belief a "fringe belief".

Answer 4

For rational people?  Yes, big time.  For others I'm not so sure.

Logic and facts and proof won't stop the denialists any time soon; it hasn't stopped the creationists in 150 years.

The comparison is apt and the most telling analogy we have.

The creationists are unable to get over the fact that man is no longer the center of the universe; and that the literal interpretation of the Bible amounts to nothing more than superstitious nonsense.

The anti-environmental denialists are unable to get over the fact that man has not only been demoted from demigod, he is no more or less than one part of creation with no special right, no special insight, no special ability to circumvent the laws of nature; and that the idea that our current actions have no adverse effect on the environment is more than specious nonsense - it's a dangerous fantasy.

Naturally, this comes as a shock to the majority of people.  

Some of those people will never accept it and fight to their dying day.

This fight will go on for the rest of our lives.  We must be ever vigilant.  Every time you turn your back the creationists try a new trick - from stacking school boards to inventing intelligent design.  

I'm so proud of what we did in Chester PA.  Lets hope we get the global warming deniers into a lawsuit so they can get their asses handed to them too.

Answer 5

"Science" proved the world was flat at one time.

You are made of carbon, you breathe CO2.

YOU are the cause of global warming, fuel companies have made great strides in cleaner burning fuels so don't blame them.

They are selling us what we need/want.

Why do you think food price have risen?

Corn for ethanol that people like you demanded be used for fuel?  How much $$$ has been made by Al Gore and his ilk since this fad started? Look at who profits and who pays?

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/...

Answer 6

Bob - The difference is simple.  If a person wants to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, and that the Moon Landing was filmed in a hollywood basement, or the earth is flat, we just laugh at him and go our own way.

When a person believes the earth is warming, they demand everyone think like they do, demand others to live as they determine best for them, and demant that their money be taken from them by force to fix something they don't believe.

This is a big difference Bob.  And when someone wants to raise my taxes because they want to fix a flat earth, I'm sure you would be a skeptic as well.

Answer 7

Factually false statement.

The Supreme Court is full of hot air, so I guess they should know.

The Polar Bear population is growing.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS. A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

Media is negligent in their reporting.  They are not looking at the science, they are propagandists. Truth doesn't sell papers. They have an agenda, to which factual dissent is an inconvenient truth.  

No Chicken Little, we are not.

Answer 8

just because some people that don't believe in global warming may be nuts,doesn't mean all are. but those that accept global warming as fact are nuts because there is no true and reliable data to show warming or cooling since areas where temps are collected are not exactly the same over time.

Answer 9

Journalists are 95 per cent democrats.  Is it any wonder that they don't question the science behind global warming.  They don't care to learn it.  They are simply content to parrot the party line.  Skepticism plays both ways.  When it comes to science, skepticism is healthy.  Galileo was a skeptic. Global warming alarmist are more analogous to the religious zealots that wanted to tar and feather Galileo for his blasphemy to dare to question the "scientific" theories of the day.

Answer 10

you would think so with the overwhelming amount of evidence backing up global climate change....but reading some of these answers in this forum is painful.....

i thought it was a fringe belief but if the rest of the world sees it like this then idk.....o wait thats because we are in America where the Hummer is more important than the environment....silly me

Answer 11

These example are great oil companies accept the fact that global warming is man made.  Ok are they going to change the way they act, no probably not.  So they really don't care.  The supreme court ruled it a polluntant, ok great we know the supreme court is highly knowledgeable on climate change.  And were still talking about polar bears and extinction, can't you find a different animal because the polar bear one is just like beating a dead horse.

Answer 12

Global Warming is not debatable. The CAUSE of the warming is. The earth has warmed and cooled many times during its multi-billion year existence, none of which were caused or affected by humans. To take a sampling of less than 100 years and extrapolate the data into Chicken Little's theory that "The sky is falling" is stupidity. Yes, I said that Al "Ozone" Gore is STUPID!

This "theory" is all about money and control. Those that believe otherwise are lemmings.

Answer 13

The problem with the religious faithful that are promoting the agenda of the billionaires Club of Rome is that because they have no real and documented facts to back their fictional conclusions with they need to resort to terrorist tactics like their Islamic brethren. Bob and Dana like the rest of their religious brotherhood engage in intimidation tactics to frighten and oppress those who do not have either the education or nerve to face them down with facts. Like their hero Al Gore they produce an agenda first and then phony up some quasi scientific fictional supporting material to prove their point. When real scientists and knowledgeable people point out the supporting data is neither true or scientific they then resort to their normal fall back tactic of threats and verbal abuse, even going to the if you do not shut up we will report you to mama and get your ID banned tactic.

This is a very normal tactic of the National Socialist and Communist religions and it is also a true and normal tactic of any religion that claims to be the one and only true way to salvation. Any religious/political organization that practices this is only intended as a means of separating the suckers from their money with the least physical effort on the part of the person running con as possible.

Answer 14

Oh come on, Bob!  You must admit that your cause is losing momentum as the voo-doo science is exposed for what it really is.

The so-called 'science' of 'man-did-it' climate change....or global warming.... or whatever it's called this month..... has been found to be full of holes..... claims are exaggerated or downright wrong.

Well-meaning scientists... both in and outside of the climate study field... have allowed themselves to be 'used' by politicians and entrepreneurs.  Scientists would have done well to distance themselves from the likes of Gore and politicians and their not-so-well-meaning agendas.  If scientists are allowed ...... on their own terms.... to study thoroughly..... Earth's climate and its history... a much more credible and accurate finding could be made.

Scientists were shoved and perhaps even coerced into going along with a less than admirable agenda, and are now facing the prospect of lost respect from those who did not allow themselves to defect from the ethics of their profession.

Edit 1:  Dana.... you go on at times about the skeptics not coming up with a study disproving AGW.   When are you pro-AGW proponents going to provide one to buttress your claim???  I'm serious.... and I'm not talking about speculation.... I'm talking about hard scientific proof.

Edit 1:  Dana.... I noticed that you provided NO hard scientific proof.  You folks just continue to spew the same copy and paste links to conjecture..... NOT FACTS.... regarding the 'man-did-it' climate change cause.  Even the British courts found that the Gore movie was flawed (to put it nicely).  William Gray.... and a host of others are perplexed (again, to put it nicely) at the whole notion of 'man-did-it'.  You folks have seen the sources citing those experts (not some ex-admiral) finding NO link to man's activities.

Nice try..... but no banana!!