Is it fair to characterize certain global warming denier arguments as "amateurish"?

Question

Let's face it - we're all amateurs here when it comes to global warming. We're not climate scientists (except Trevor), we're not experts, and we're just discussing our opinions of the science (or politics) of the issue.

However, I think we're all capable of making informed arguments. For example, in reference to whether or not global warming has "stalled". The argument has often been made that global warming has stopped because on average, 1998 has been the hottest year on record. However, as has been explained repeatedly, 1998 was so hot due to an abnormally strong El Nino cycle, every year around 1998 was cooler than every recent year, and if you do any kind of simple statistical analysis, you see that the global temperature trend continues upward:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/giss-15yr.jpg

So when a person argues that global warming has stopped, I call this as an "amateurish" argument, because a very simple analysis disproves it.

Is this a fair characterization?

Answer 1

I am probably not answering this in the way you would expect.

    I think all life influencing occurrences should be studied and left an open topic and no conclusions made until a resolving of the problem is established  in which you could give conclusive evidence to support your theories. I mean that you would present a non arguable, and active solution, to the problem at hand and start fixing it.

Answer 2

Yes.  But calling them puerile would send more to the dictionary.

Answer 3

Yes, that is fair. That particular argument, that 1998 was the warmest year, will go away soon enough. It may be that 2007 will end up hotter than 1998 after all the numbers are averaged. But if not, some year soon will be hotter. Then that particular excuse will go away. But people who do not want to accept that facts will find another excuse.

Answer 4

As long as you are honest, which means that stating  how anomalous global temperatures have been from 2002-2007 without mentioning that the temperatures are more than likely related to a positive ENSO status, which no AGW advocate ever does, including Trevor. Every year from 2002-2007 had at least one month which exceeded the Oceanic Nino Index.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/an...

.

.

Answer 5

That's putting it very charitably and diplomatically.

Answer 6

but you know as well as i do that everything is not clean cut, especially the environment.

even if we never existed, the climate would still change. The world does not depend on us to change.

and if you call us all amateurs, then saying someones response is amateurish is a little redundant

Answer 7

You are obviously extremely well schooled in matters of Global Warming & I appreciate that you are bringing this matter to as wide a public awareness as possible,but don't you have any other interests

Answer 8

Well yes.

I'm not a climate scientist. I am a student attending High School who happens to be very interested in this sort of stuff. I am always reading and looking more up on the subject and i take two science courses when no one else in my grade (10th) really does. And i am still going to take two science classes in 11th and 12th grade because i want to be a meteorologist, climate scientist or an environmentalist.

I might be an armature, but i want to do have a career somehow relating to the atmosphere.

Yes the person who says global warming has stopped is an armature argument because he/she might not know about the topic or they could just be on that side of the argument. So in a way it is and its not an armature argument. It depends on how you look at it.

Answer 9

We still get these people who think this is only another warm/cold cycle.  The scientific evidence points rather drastically otherwise.

While there have been ice ages & warm age cycles for millions of years, researchers have recently been able to bore down thru the Antartic ice cap & recover ice cores dating back 600 thousand years.  The cores show annual rings of snowfall that look just like tree rings   These snows trapped bubbles of air when they fell and the researchers have been able to annalize the that air.  They show that the warm & cold ages match remarkably with the CO2 content of the air.

But while the CO2 content has fluxuated between 180 & 230 during these ages, the CO2 content of our air has risen to over 350 since 1970.  And its still going up.  We are in for a astronomical warm age without equal in at least the last 600 thousand years.  

That's scary.

In answer to the Masked Masala,  you can't point to any  local weather extreme no matter how strange and draw conclusions from it.  Since the 70's scientists have placed temperature recorders in the hundreds of thousands not only on land, but throughout the oceans.  So it snowed in Bagdad.  How does that compare to the fact that the entire artic ice cap is melting?  And the Greenland land ice?  And the antartic ice cap?  Or the diappearance of Lake Chad in Dafur - once the largest lake in Africa - now only a mud spot.

These are a little bit bigger disturbances than a snow fall in Iraq.

Answer 10

Amateurs discussing Global Warming is OK.  It's the blatantly stupid arguments some post that are annoying.  When people (many clearly never having taken any science above elementary High School level) who can't even read a chart correctly belittle those who actually can, that's plain offensive and those people deserved to have their ignorance pointed out.

Answer 11

Here is an astute observation by someone who answered this question " It may be that 2007 will end up hotter than 1998 after all the numbers are averaged. But if not, some year soon will be hotter. Then that particular excuse will go away".

Wow, I didn't know the word "may" was a scientific term. And the ambiguious "some year soon will be hotter (than 1998)". Wow, that is a stretch. By that, AGW must be real.

Answer 12

No, the attempt to cherry-pick one piece of weather data (like U.S. temps in 1998) and claim that weather fluctuation disproves long term trends showing global climate change is a transparent attempt to deceive.  While the description "amateurish" may be an accurate description of much of the skeptical reasoning that is presented against climate science, as a propaganda technique, it is very professional.

There will always be a certain percentage of the population who will prefer to dance or play in the band while the Titanic sinks.  Many Americans are self-absorbed and would do nothing to save their own children.  Others simply don't want to be inconvenienced and will desperately cling to the belief that they are not sinking our ship faster, so they will go to great lengths to accept the wild selection of simplistic arguments that the media willingly presents against climate science.  

Since people are falling for it, it's very profitable for the oil industry to protect its billions of dollars in profits per week through propaganda.  They'll keep feeding those people reasons, even poorly conceived ones, to live in denial.

Many people have found it comforting to deny that the actual global temperature data that shows that the earth is warming:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2...

Why would people ignoring the problem care about the symptoms that result?  Why would they pay attention to the resulting ice melt that is accelerating in the Arctic, on Greenland, and in Antarctica?  They don't care that "the southern continent contains enough ice to raise ocean levels by about 60 metres."  They don't care that "the mass loss increased by 75 per cent in 10 years."  If Americans can't control themselves to avoid something as immediate and obvious as their smoking or their obesity, how could they possibly accept or take responsibility something as seemingly abstract as global warming?

Apparently it hasn't occurred to them that their water supply and their food supply are likely to be threatened.  They can't imagine that their area could be innundated with desperate refugees.  They refuse to look far enough ahead to understand that the next world war may be over water, that their economy, eventually their currency, could collapse.  

They argue that humans went through climate change before.  At that time humans simply migrated or perished.  Once again people will be forced to leave their homes to go search, scrounge, and fight for food.  

Humans have also been through societal collapse before.  Every complex human civilization has eventually expanded to reach its breaking point.  We've simply found ours.  Every complex human civilization has failed to control its own overuse of available resources.  Get over it.  We may have missed our opportunity to stop or even substantially slow global warming.  We'd all better brush up on our hunting and gathering skills, because we're going to be competing with 6 billion hungry and thirsty people for diminishing resources as the planet's ecological systems fail.

Why are scientists insisting on portraying an unrealistic, Hollywood-style happy ending?  Many indications point to the IPCC report as being grossly optimistic.  

Population crashes are the earth's way of restoring balance.  Come to terms with the fact that being "right" about AGW is an insufficient level of preparation for the changes that are in the works.  Accept, adapt and survive.

Answer 13

It is, when someone doesn't present data to support the argument. Let's be honest. There are some people who post questions that aren't even questions, on one side or the other, that are nothing but rants. It's creating an environment such that there is very little actual, sincere debate.

I think we are all guilty.

Answer 14

Would it not also be fair to say that there isn't enough imperical evidence to point to man made global warming?   What is the 'ideal' temperature for earth?   How is that the dinosaurs lived in very tropical temperatures before man made influences?  How is it that ice ages appeared after dinosaurs before man made influences?  

I believe in climate change, the climate changes naturally via earths own processes and the Sun.  I'll agree that 'man' can do more to save energy, recycle and reduce our waste, I know I try my best.

Answer 15

How can you possibly say that? There have been some fantastic questions recently regarding the 'myth' of global warming.

For example;

"Does anyone still believe in Global Warming ? I think that it's “bogus,” and “dreamed up” by environmentalist"

And who could possibly forget this one? The number of question marks alone really stopped me in my tracks.

"Snow in Baghdad??? 1st time in DECADES?!? Where's your Global Warming theory NOW?????????????"

And then of course this one.

"Who else thinks this "global warming" stuff is a load of c**p?"

Pretty persuasive stuff.

Answer 16

Some people have not realized yet that the northern hemisphere is into winter.

Or that Global Warming has several faces.

Answer 17

"We're not climate scientists"

2 more years.... and I may be, depends on whether or not I continue on to a masters or stick with a Bsc.

I am still not sure about "amateurish". It suggests good intentions, almost correct.

I am leaning towards "mis-informed"  , I think it fits better- and is less likley to be construed as offensive.

Answer 18

I grok....

Answer 19

That is a somewhat fair characterization, however the issue is much more complicated.  But yes, I am an engineer, and it bothers me when people make "arguments" on either side of the debate that have no grounding in science, and since they don't know anything about science you can't really convince them by showing them the actual facts.

Answer 20

No more then some of the pro-man made global warm arguments are amateurish. By the way real difference between an amateur and a professional is one get paid that other doesn’t. It doesn’t make the amateur is less qualified then the professionals.

EDIT

I see at least three people didn’t like my post. Was it pointing out that some of the pro-man made global warming arguments can also amateurish? Was that hitting a little too close to home?

Maybe it was me pointing out the differences between professional and amateurs? Not every professional knows what they are talking about, and likewise an amateur may know more then some professionals. Of course we all know professionals would never say something that untrue, just because someone is paying them, oh wait they might work for big oil, and of course they’ll lie then, but not when they work on the other side. Silly me.