Man-made global warming proponents and skeptics - how do you feel about your cohorts and opponents?

Question

There has been a bit of frustration by some of the more intelligent man-made (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW) skeptics that their cohorts are failing to grasp the basic science of the issue.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApgP6r0Gm0I5AnvFFGjNpffsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080615141945AAPwIgO

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aj2AKn922YRSpy9Our1dcgES.Rd.;_ylv=3?qid=20080616234651AAFSja9

And some of the skeptical scientists have been caught making purposefully dishonest claims.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqoX..0i_MrBmeZVxavKWxTty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080529085034AAjg0z2

Personally I feel like most AGW 'skeptics' are either dishonest or don't understand the fundamental science. There are a few exceptions, of course, but I won't name names. I also believe that sometimes AGW proponents make errors, but for the most part tend to be a very smart group. This includes both scientists and YA answerers.

How do you feel about the two sides?

Answer 1

Well, first of all, I'm not a scientist, so my point of view on global warming is based on only a modest ability to interpret published data and research.  That being said, I do have an opinion; my opinion is that global warming is occurring, it is a long term trend, and that the weather extremes and climactic shifting that seems to be going on is symptomatic of the event.  As far as mankind's influence on global warming, I believe the majority of scientific opinion that there is a high probability that mankind is having an effect on global warming; we just don't know how much of an effect for sure, exactly what will occur as a result of our influence on climate, or if modifying our behavior will slow down natural processes enough to prevent our climate from 'going over the edge' and causing global warming to rapidly accelerate, resulting in changes over decades rather than centuries.

My belief is that the risk is high enough, and there are other factors such as the world wide demand for oil, resulting energy crisis and political tensions to name just one, that it will behoove us to rapidly adapt to alternative energy sources and change our behavior in other ways that will minimize the impact that six billion+ human beings have on the  environment.  Nothing else makes sense.

So now that I have outlined my opinion and position on the matter of global warming and mankind's impact on the environment, perhaps my response to the question you asked itself may be received in the proper context.

We are, as a global society, presently in a pitched political battle about what steps we should take to protect the environment, act on the matter of global warming, and make those decisions based on the data we have so far even as research continues.  On the one side, we have people who talk in terms of probability of outcome and propose both technological adaptation and legislation designed to provide incentives to those who adopt new technology as well as provide disincentives to those who pollute.  On the other, we have people who denounce those technological advances, incentives and disincentives, saying that we should do nothing.  Their rationale is that AGW-and in some cases, global warming itself-is not just a hoax and scam, but a series of hoaxes and scams, some of global proportions, designed to advance a series of agendas.  These range from certain individuals wishing to enrich themselves-Al Gore chief among them-to such gargantuan schemes as bringing down the United States and even western culture, perpetuated in some cases from within by political activist groups who wish to destroy their own country by fomenting a revolution against democracy.  Their primary argument is an objection to the costs involved in becoming more environmentally responsible via the expense of adopting technological advances and opening the door to excessive taxation.  Again, their solution to the problems we are debating is to do nothing-to maintain the status quo, even as the money they object to spending more of flies out of their wallets at stunningly and ever-increasing rates with no end in sight to pay for the very status quo they support.

Now, who exactly are the people that headline each camp?  On the GW/AGW side are thousands of scientists, politicians, world bodies and individuals who are analyzing data and conducting research on the environment, talking about it in terms of statistical probability, and suggesting that we adopt more environmentally friendly practices, accelerate the march toward alternative energy sources, and set up a system wherebye those who adopt greener technologies receive tax credits and those who do not pay the cost of those credits, a relatively straightforward system of incentives and disincentives, not unlike the 'gas guzzler' tax imposed some years ago, wherebye people who could afford costly vehicles could still buy and drive them, but paid a fee for the impact their habits had on the environment.

In the other camp, we have people who denounce any and all efforts to adapt to changing times-not just with regards to the issue of global warming, AGW or otherwise-but also regarding all of the other issues before us.  They would reject alternative energy and developing new sources of fuel such as ethanol based fuels, biomass...in some cases wind and solar energy, in favor of drilling for more oil and building more refineries here at home, using more coal, and other sources, the negative impacts of which are well known aside from any possible influence on global warming, investing in more infrastructure for outdated technolology that will use more of a finite resource, and in general again just following the status quo and it's expotentially increasing costs.  Rather than engaging the worlwide political body diplomatically, they favor simply walking away from the table because of the perception that the negotiations were slanted in such a way as to be excessively punitive toward the United States...likely true as that may be, rather than trying to modify the agreement to make it more palatable, the headliners of the opposition camp simply surrendered our position at the negotiating table and along with it our global environmental leadership.

And while we're talking about costs, let's just think about this-given the escalating tensions of maintaining petroleum supplies in face of increasing demand worldwide, at what point do we intervene militarily?  How much of our present military involvement is really about control of oil supplies?  And those people who object to alternative energy development based on cost...hmmm, do we ever calcuate the true 'footprint' of a gallon of gasoline based on what the military costs are for getting it into our tanks, both in terms of pure dollars and human life?  NO.  Nobody mentions that-but they sure talk about the costs of ethanol in terms of total 'footprint,' don't they?  Well...that's a sidebar.  Sorry.

On another level, the opposition pronounced scientific consensus not science at all, and that hue and cry was adopted as a rallying point for the opponents of GW/AGW.

They liken global warming proponents to flat earthers and talk about how the 'consensus' at the time was that the earth was not round until the people who believed that the world was flat were proven wrong.  Of course, the logic is reversed-the proponents of global warming and mankind's possible influence on it have not been in the mainstream of opinon, as were the flat earthers; the people of ancient times who believed that the earth was round were villified, laughed at, and the data that they held which indicated that the earth might indeed be round was mocked or ignored in favor of the dogma of the past.  While the flat earthers rested on their smug laurels, the believers in the 'theory' of a spherical body continued their research in the face of-at best, passive ignorance, and at worst, heated opposition with dire consequences.  It doesn't really take much interpretation to see which society back then equates to which global warming camp today-yet inaccurate and in some cases downright deliberately deceptive comparisons abound in the opposition to global warming camp, all of which crumble under the most minor examination-along with the scientific underpinnings that are sometimes quoted, but usually not.  And who was it, exactly, that got this whole 'consensus' ball rolling that has lead to the ridiculous and absurd debate about 'predicting the future?'  A radio pundit.  A talk show host.  Someone with no scientific credentials whatsover-someone whose claim to fame is a resonant voice and the ability to schmooze over the airwaves.

Finally, in the face of all the reasoned research, data, discussion in terms of statistical probability, and debate about being better stewards of our environment not just to anticipate the possible negative affects of global warming but in favor of advancing technology that will benefit us in an increasingly dangerous world where energy demand and control of resources is the 'tipping point' that is throwing us into social chaos, we have people that denounce and ignore all the evidence in favor of their opinions here.  They pretend to KNOW for sure that global warming is NOT occurring and that mankind's activities are NOT influential in the outcome.  No doubt about it-they KNOW.  Oddly enough, the premise of their 'knowledge' is that the best scientific minds on the planet CANNOT know that global warming IS occurring.

How about that.  You ask how I feel about cohorts and opponents?  Well, I'm just here for the entertainment value and I don't know that I have any real cohorts, but the opponents of global warming are looking pretty weak to me, and I don't put much stock in the obviously tainted and archaic opinions of anyone I only know as a dessert confection, to single out the "prominent" top contributor in this category.

Answer 2

I think that governments(including the UN and Al Gore) are more corrupt then corporations so why should I side with the greenies? And the environmentalists have there bad self interests so I don't think of them very well...

That, along with the science which shows that global warming has plateaued and that CO2 isn't the cause...

Answer 3

Being a "Denier", I obviously feel that the scientist representing teh natural causes are more truthful. In general, these scientist will attack data within reports, but not the scientist who promotes it. Unlike the pro AGW side which attacks the scientist personally, but not the data. If they had science on their side, they would go after the data, not the person.

I also see a lot more distortion and censorship coming from the Pro side. The IPCC does not publish the scientist who did their studies, trying to get their methodology is next to impossible, and they attack critics as opposed to promoting their science.

If you want to see lies, I think only Al Gore's movie has been in court and found to be a political piece, not a scientific documentary. Also, look at Mann's famous Hockey stick. It was either gross negligence on his part or out right lying when he came up with that graph. we could also look at NASA and how they have consistently adjusted their data higher in recent years, and lower in years past.

As for grasping the science, I see the pro AGW hiding behind models which have never predicted any future climate. They have all said the temps are to increase, but in reality, the temp has been on a downward trend for the last several years.

Basically, I have yet to see any scientific study which supports the man made cause to global warming. I do see a lot of AGW proponents either lying or telling half truths about the available data. Maybe they could start by telling the public that water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas out there. That would be a start.

I reviewed the link and Bob is in fact incorrect. At some level of CO2 (I do not pretend to know what that level is), adding more will have ZERO greenhouse effect. Also, there is a diminishing return on increased CO2. reference page 22 in the following link

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_...

or this link

http://www.carbon-sense.com/wp-content/u...

Final point, I have noticed the Pro AGW supporters love to use real climate as a reference guide. Yet, Michael Mann perpetrated one of the all time hoaxes on the IPCC Third report with his "Hockey Stick". This along with the fact that the IPCC has no credibility based on your own criteria (those with a specific motivation, whether it is oil or IPCC, can not be trusted as valid data), seems to invalidate most of the pro AGW studies. Sorry, your side made that rule (I attended Al Gore's slide show and even they advocated not allowing studies from agenda driven sources. Of course, they meant "big oil"), I am only here to make sure that it applies to both sides.

Answer 4

I get equally frustrated at both sides. One extreme side keeps worrying that GW will bring on the end of the World. And the other side using Al Gore as an arguement. How many times do we have to hear his movie was a farce and he didn't deserve his Oscar or a piece of the Nobel Peace prize. (Now that I think of it, he did deserve the Oscar, since all movies are made up anyways and as for the Nobel Peace prize? Only time will tell on that one, but so far I feel more harm has come than good.)

The problem is we are focusing on the wrong issues. We need to start looking at the things we need to do now. (I'm not talking about what individuals need to do, but what we need to do as a World.)

1.) Move people away from the Rain Forest and protect them. And hopefully find away to start replanting what was lost. - This to me is the only thing that governments should do.

All other businesses that I've checked out on the internet over the last few months have been working on alternatives fuels and some even appear to have been doing it far longer than people realize. - Believe me the private sector is more efficient when running things than the government ever will be.

Answer 5

I don't feel there are many skeptics who qualify as 'worthy opponents,' someone who can stand on the science to corroborate his/her argument.  I'd love to argue a point and concede it!  To have a skeptic do the same, when I can document the facts of a particular point I'm making. Somewhere in the give and take of a dialogue lies consensus. I love it when a question clicks and people pour out great answers.  It doesn't happen often, but it does.

There are people here who claim to be skeptics, but haven't budged one way or the other in eons.  That's not skepticism, that's denial.  I'm sorry, but I've got a tremendous list of sites with an incredible amount of information.  You look impartially at what's out there -- I'm still finding great sites as my parameters narrow and improve -- and there's simply too much information to say, "Well, I don't know."  They're sitting on a fence that doesn't exist.

As for proponents, there's a  number of people on this site who I sense are  knowledgeable and dedicated and frustrated at the flaws and limitations we're faced with.  The desire for meatier questions, fewer insults seems to permeate questions and answers alike.  

There's some neat people on this site though.  I like how each voice comes through strong and clear, with a peculiar insight that makes their answers unique and valued.

Answer 6

I'm impressed by how knowledgeable many of the skeptics are.  This seems to confirm to me that this view is where real science is supported.  

Based on this article, which side sounds like they want to get rid of science and dumb everyone down?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

"Children should no longer be taught traditional subjects at school because they are "middle-class" creations, a Government adviser will claim today.

Professor John White, who contributed to a controversial shake-up of the secondary curriculum, believes lessons should instead cover a series of personal skills.

Pupils would no longer study history, geography and science but learn skills such as energy-saving and civic responsibility through projects and themes."

Answer 7

Dana I have always been skeptical of the models mainly.  I do not like the Al Gore is an Idiot argument.  

While yes we are 37% of the way to a doubling in CO2; That effect will be 6.3 *ln(380/280)=.1.9 W/m^2 6.3*ln(560/280)=4.37  That is about 45% of the effect of doubling CO2 has already been seen.  Some people object to this equation, saying it is to linear and we are already up to 60-80% of the effect.  Up until 1940 the effect of CO2 would have been less than .05 deg C.  If we say that .2-.25 of this increas is natural.  This leaves us with .4-.45 degC from CO2. (some of this could also be from natural causes).  Is it not a good estimate then to say the temperature in the year when CO2 doubles will be .4 deg C *1/45%= about 1 deg C.  Or about .5 deg warmer than we are now.  

I have actually taken the time to model the climate of the last 40 years then project it to the future.  Their is also a less publisized division in the proponents that do not feal we will have catrostrophic results.  

As an engineer I know a few things about power and the use of power, I really get short when propenents support things that will or could actually hurt the environment.

Actually Crazy Conservitive was correct,  The earth will only emit so much energy in the wavelength obsorbed by CO2.  Once all that energy is absorbed, it will no longer have an effect.  You can argue this will have at leathal doeses of CO2 etc.  but theoretically he was correct.

By the way just as many propenents of AGW fail to grasp the science.  Like Al Gore.  You get feelings from both sides.  Currently, while I do admit it makes some since their is no links between extreem weather and global warming, etc.

Answer 8

Its doesnt really matter its too late. The real problems of peak oil and population have overtaken globalwarming. If one doesnt get us the others will.

Answer 9

Its not about "feelings"... it's about science.