What is up with this GW denier argument?

Question

I said since I'm an engineer, not a climatologist, on global warming I put my trust on what the majority of scientists are saying, not the pundits.

This is what some GW denier said:

"Accepting something someone else tells you is nothing more than religion, not science."

Excuse me, but where do people in practically every profession learn their trade?

BOOKS. Now just because I put my trust on what the author/engineer wrote in my compressible fluid dynamics or spacecraft dynamics book, does not mean it is RELIGION. That is a weak argument.

Society has created a division of labor where certain people are experts in one subject, and not so much in others. When you need to get surgery done, you go to a doctor. When you want to your wisdom teeth removed, you go to a dentist, and when you want to know about the climate, you ask a climatologist.

You don't go to some ametueur armchair wannabe scientist who gets his facts from political websites.

Answer 1

Some global warming deniers will equate anything AGW-related to religion.  They say global warming models and projections are just guesses.  They say because scientists use the term 'believe' it's just like religion.

Basically they're just grasping for straws, trying to make any argument possible to undermine the AGW theory.  Because the scientific evidence and consensus supports the theory, they have to try and undermine those.  So they say that accepting the conclusions of the experts is just religion, when in reality the smartest thing we can do is listen to the scientific experts when we ourselves are not knowledgeable about the subject.

Global warming deniers know that deferring to the experts is not an option if they're to maintain their denial.

Tuba - I'm an environmental scientist, not a climatologist.

Answer 2

"Accepting something someone else tells you is nothing more than religion, not science."

I accept the math that they teach, not just the spoken dogma.

Science is objective, not subjective on the ruling of some consensus.

This is why no matter how much co2 is pumped into the atmosphere, the climate just doesn't increase.  There is no link between co2 and temperatures, as we can clearly see this winter.

Answer 3

Your right that nobody on here is a REAL climatologist but most are like you and I.

The "Environment" section of Y!A is more of a debate then anything else.

This is actually one of the only places in the world where people will actually debate with all of their evidence and findings on the issue of Global Warming.

So here's my opinion.

The true science says that it is the Sun that is causing most of the recent warming that we have been hearing about.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only accountable for less than 5% of greenhouse gases and we only make about 5% of that. (About 90-95% of Greenhouse Gases is Water Vapor)

The reason for increased CO2 is because as the oceans become heated, they cannot hold as much as they could if they were cooler, so the oceans release the excess into the atmosphere. From what I hear, the oceans can hold many times more energy and heat then the air. This meaning that the atmosphere should have very little effect on the oceans and that the sun or perhaps the Earth itself is heating up the surface since those are two of the only things that could heat our vast oceans.

Also, the Earth hasn’t warmed in nearly a decade but has actually fallen and it has fallen greatly within the past 2 years. Many scientists believe we are about to go through another little ice age.

http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+...

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/531436...

Many scientists are skeptical about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

These are some resources:

http://sepp.org/policy%20declarations/he...

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Ar...



Al Gore had a chart in his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" that showed the similarities of Carbon Dioxide and temperature. The thing that he doesn't tell you is that there is a gap in which the temperature rises before the CO2 which should be the exact opposite if his theory is correct. Watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

Polar bears are NOT being endangered but actually the exact opposite.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/200...

That is my point of view on the issue and I strongly encourage you to watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=... all the way through even if you don't want to. It is a great source of information and if you want to know the truth, you need to see both sides of the story.

Another great resource is http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Techn...

Answer 4

You don't mention who this "GW denier" is, but it sounds like he meant that believing in a theory just because someone says to is similar to a religion.  There's an unproven theory that humans can control the climate with their activity.  So far with billions in research, no one has been able to prove such a thing.  Sounds like it would require a lot of faith with no real proof behind it.

And the term "GW denier" is vague.  Very few people deny that global warming may be happening, just like few deny the climate goes through changes.  At this time, more scientists believe that it is a natural cycle and not caused by humans.  More politicians are willing to blame humans because they see it as a way to increase taxes and control over the masses.

The real deniers are those who don't trust mother nature to take care of herself.  The AGW hoax has become quite a cash cow.

Answer 5

In regards to your comment:

"Accepting something someone else tells you is nothing more than religion, not science."

One can argue that everything we do we do in faith. When you take a step, you have an unjustified belief that the ground will support your weight. Science puts faith that if an experiment can be done many times over than the next time will yield the same result. This can be a long discussion so I will not go too much further into this discussion.

I think the reason why there is such a buzz around GW is the implications that it infers to people of this world. I don't think you should take anyones word beyond what you are comfortable with. If this is a matter you are passionate about do your research, be critical, this is how we get real answers. I think everyone should do this until they are satisfied.

If you think the analysis is incorrect find others that think the same and do your own experiments/analysis (there are plenty of data out there).

If you think the data is wrong make a proposal to do an experiment, I am sure you can find funding if you have a credible reason why you think the data is wrong.

I think there are too many that are uncomfortable of the possible changes and so they do not take enough action.

I will however agree with you on the claim that people do make outrageous claims without reading or thinking about what they hear/read and it does come off and wasted breaths in a debate which, if true, may have everyones best interest to act sooner than later.

Answer 6

Of course you're right.  Forming your own theory of everything is stepping on a roller skate and thinking you invented the wheel.  BTW, I think Dana actually is a "real" climatologist.  I'm sure he'll clarify if I'm wrong.  :-)

Answer 7

If you are an engineer then you know to pay attention to probability when seeing trends.

Since 1998 was the warmest year recently recorded. Probability says that we should have had at least a few years surpassing it . Likely by quite a bit if indeed global warming was happening. What I see is the opposite. I see global climate starting to cool and I teach probability.