Skeptics: what would it take to get you to consider that just maybe AGW IS real?

Question

I don't think it will ever be proven -- it's theoretical -- but what would it take to get you to believe it's a probably and legitimate concern that must be dealt with?

3-5 more years of warming?

Then again, I doubt many of you guys go by statistical data. If the Chief Oracle of the Temple of High Mystics told you it was a possibility would you believe him?

Answer 1

You say it's going to get warmer in the future.  

If that is true, tell us how much warmer it's going to be in 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years from now, and show your work to how you got there.

If your work holds up under review, then people will believe.

People don't believe guesses as facts, or opinions, or beliefs.

Answer 2

i agree

Answer 3

When these folks admit the truth.  

After the weather gets warmer, the CO2 levels rise, not the other way around.  

When the carbon offset people are exposed as frauds.  

As far as statistical data is concerned,  we all know how people can arrange the numbers to suit their needs and their funding.  These folks have been caught several times with bad data.  Checkout the data coming from NASA on the other planets.  They are getting warmer too.  Are we doing that as well?

The most important thing: When we are told the debate isn't over.  

Some of us believe the sun has something to do with the temperature of the Earth(crazy notion).  Try to explain all the temperature fluctuations before the industrial era without including the activity of the sun.  

I am all in favor of reducing pollution and waste.  We would all gain from better conservation practices, but calling us all ignorant isn't going to win anybody over.

Answer 4

When pigs fly, when Carbon Big Foot Al Gore gives up his jet, when all the celebrities start driving a prius, when manbearpig is found, and when my toaster tells me so.

Answer 5

One prediction to come true. a rise in temps of more than the calculated 1 degree celceus over the next 100 years. A tru consensus from scientist not getting grants from pro and con orginazations. Real solutions that do not hamper economies and or call for taxation of the things we need and use.

I think it is the pro groups that do not like facts for the record.

examples.

CO2 makes up 1/16 of the atmosphere and humans contribute 1/1000 to that amount. Seems harmless to me and definately NOT something to get excited about.

The weather can not be controlled and calling it climate change does not make it so.

The Sun is the biggest contributor to warming and it seems so obvious even to me.

Who really benefits from all of this that is the real question. Answer is people who want to sell carbon credits and the UN because they can openly tax people who never voted for them and all of this wants to stop progress and control populations which seems communistic in nature to me.

Answer 6

Considering that the earth's CO2 level is naturally about 3%, I'd need proof that the 0.0037% that's our fault CAN have a statistical effect on GW.

edit- Awww, they don't like it when we DO have real statistics for them! LOL

Answer 7

The disappearance of the inner ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica.  This is not happening yet, there is still a mile of ice on both, not going anywhere.  When we see bedrock that hasn't been exposed in hundreds of thousands of years, then I might consider it, but this is not the case, this is not what is happening.

Even 3-5 more years of warming wouldn't convince me because according to the sources Ive read, warming trends/climate optimums normally happen for more than just 30 years.  If you say we started warming 200 years ago, then it is very likely this climate optimum is over and we will most likely see another "little ice age".  And look, im not going to post any "sources" because as Ive said before, I cant post books up here, and any Internet site that has the information is just as unbelievable to you as the IPCC website or government funded site is to me.

I doubt you go by logic or your own thoughts.  If the media told you it was happening, would you..  Oh wait, that's what already happened.

Answer 8

global warming may be real

it is just not man made.

i go by data

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

my data tells me that we are in a ice age

and that someday it will end.

this my or may not be the end of the ice age.

it also tells me when the ice age does end nothing bad will happen.

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/...

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/...

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/...

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/...

earth has been there before.

and it would not be something that man would have any trouble living through.

where is the "the sky is falling" global warmer that claims that we would not be able to survive the conditions of the early Cenozoic that i have sited above.

my research also tells me that the far left radical enviromentist will pull any scam they think they can get away with.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/artic...

if it was anyone else pushing global warming i might believe them.

but these radical are just plain stupid,

i have been seeing there radical bulls**t for 40 years. and they have never told the truth.

by looking at paleoclimatology i can show that this ice-age that has be going on for about 3 million years was caused be mans ancestors Australopithecus.

and was made worse by Cro-Magnon.man that caused the ice sheets to come down into what is now the US.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/ner...

when this interglacial period ends we will ether go into another glacial period or into a Interstadial period of warming.

that life folks.

Answer 9

I did did consider that global warming was real.But in the absence of facts I had to conclude that it was a hoax. You know, like UFO's and Bigfoot. A lot of people believe in them and they have some eye witness accounts and some fuzzy pictures and blurred video but no proof.

There is no proof that global warming exists. All they have is computer models and a "consensus of opinion."

About 600 years ago the earth was much warmer than it is now. The Vikings had established settlements on Greenland and were thriving. Then along came the Mini Ice Age and wiped them out. Today the earth is still cooler than it was when the Vikings colonized Greenland.But if we keep going we will reach those same temperatures in a few thousand years.

Answer 10

Do you know big company's want GW. They will make the money. VP AG is getting rich off GW. Lot of people say it is fact, lot of people say it is not fact. One is for sure we will pay tax for it.

Answer 11

How about when the AGW loonies start actually publishing all the data and admitting to their errors  (ie: The Hockey Stick). How about when the IPCC actually allow the scientist, not politicians to write the "Summary for Politicians". How about when the AGW loonies stop calling deniers names and actually address the studies, not "Paid for by big oil" or "Not real scientist, just geologist" or " n**i Denier". How about when they actually start using past data in their future predictions (negative feedback vs positive feedback). How about when the AGW crazies stop relying only on computer models and start using the empirical data available. How about when the AGW's start showing that the temperature does not track 95% correlation with the sun. How about when the AGW "scientist" start correcting all the main stream media lies (20' sea rise, the picture of the polar bear, more and stronger hurricanes, etc) All of these items have been lied about, yet the AGW people never correct anyone. How about the AGW scientist actually start using the scientific method. Just because the earth is warming (which we know) and they can not think of anything to cause it, the answer does not become "human intervention" by default. How about showing how the earth warmed about .6 degrees from late 1800's to 1940's with only minimal man made CO2. What made it start, what made it stop. What caused the earth to warm during the Medieval Climate Optimum, or cool during the little ice age. How does CO2, a minor greenhouse gas, warm the planet by 4  to 6 degrees, when its has a decreasing effect every time you add more. Why would we consider putting polar bears on the "extinction" list when they have thrived the last 20 years, and have shown a good ability to live in warmer weather than today.

I can go on, but it is late. The list of lies and half truths goes on. Basically, anything you see on tv regarding AGW is either a lie, a half truth, or just plain stupid, and yet, all the AGW sheep follow along. Baaaa!

Answer 12

I'd settle for one of their predictions to come true or seem faintly realistic. Sea rises of 20-30 feet would take 1000s of years and thus far there is ZERO rise in sea level.

I don't think you need to convince me or many others that some AGW is real, we do add to the CO2 level in the air, albeit in small quantities compared to natural sources. Eventually that will add up. Where we differ is in seeing the reason for alarm and literally panicking school children over this issue when frankly no one knows what impact we're having now. Or what we will have 100 years from now. Nothing is without a price and our additional CO2 is no different, same as ozone and other pollutants, CFCs and so on.

I guess that despite knowing all this, the hysteria just seems too familiar. We've seen and heard the sky is falling many many times before, from Rachel Carson and DDT, from Paul  Ehrlich and the Population Bomb, from dire predictions of massive increases in skin cancer from the ozone hole. There is a part of the US population that is unhappy unless there is something to protest and be passionate about. How many 19th and 20th century end-of-the-world predictions failed to materialize? All of them or we wouldn't be here.

It may continue to warm for the next 500 years but personally I doubt it will be as extreme as even the lowest estimates of the IPCC. If I'm wrong I'll admit it. Exchanging carbon credits is just a way to transfer wealth and I've seen three-card-monte so I think I'll pass. Carbon sequestration and means of dealing with actual pollutants will come from science, not carbon credits or political maneuvering or hysterical warnings and threats.

I don't understand your comment about the Chief Oracle, is that a joke? I prefer to rely on scientists but I am able to see the effect of the funding agencies controlling the outcome of scientific studies and even re-writing the reports after the scientists have all gone home. That doesn't inspire my confidence but it doesn't destroy it either. They're human and have mortgage payments and orthodontic bills the same as the rest of us so it would be hard to publish a finding that clearly refutes AGW since they'll suffer financially, not to mention being attacked as oil company stooges by the AGW advocacy groups.

What would it take to convince you AGW is not real? 100 years into the next ice age some of the AGW advocates will still be claiming this was predicted by their computer model. If Greenland's glaciers magically melt away in the next 10 or 100 years, I'll buy all the carbon credits you want but it's far more likely to take 5-10,000 years to do that.

Answer 13

Why should I trust the statistical analysis or the peer review process from the climate science community.  From the government sponsored Wegman report:

In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.

It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical

community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.

What evidence will it take?  That depends on the next solar cycle.  NASA has predicted that the next cycle will be 50% greater than the last one.  If that is the case temperatures should rise.  Others are predicting that the fact that this solar cycle is late means we will have a period of low sun activity.  If temperatures keep rising, despite  very low  sun activity, then that should lay the sun theory to rest.

Answer 14

good! 3-5 years and it`s over.. that's good news

Answer 15

the problem is that chances are most will continue to believe the way they do regardless of evidence. even if the earth warms it is impossible to prove 100% that humans are responcerable.

Answer 16

When large al changes his focus from CO2 to water vapor as the predominant atmospherical element in the mickel moore movie, inconvenient truths, and advocates its elimination.

Answer 17

Warming is cyclical. If Temperatures dropped and we were still belting out CO2, then would you believe it's not us?

Answer 18

The left has embraced GW theory because it ties into their pantheon of beliefs that white european males are responsible for the world's problems.

Answer 19

"Chief Oracle of the Temple of High Mystics "  

Naw we dont buy Algores hodgepodge of voodoo science.

Where he gets on a scissor lift that he admits he dont know how to use to go up his foolish giant graph to point to the imaginary graph line. then he starts some serious whining about his kid and a car wreck. I really tryed to watch the pucky show for u yall but I was starting to gag.

Answer 20

I used to believe in it. Does that count? If the evidence against it wasn't so strong, I might still.

Answer 21

Hmmm....why your at it, I sure could use some good stock market advice.I think they use statistics at the dog races and, the lotto also...any input?

Let me guess you lost your tarot cards?