What turned you into an AGW non-believer?

Question

Was it various skeptical websites? A political pundit?

What was it that made you finally decide that every major climate science organization in the country is wrong in their belief that man is the primary cause of global warming?

Answer 1

I'd imagine that 99.9% of them were anti-environmental movement and/or anti-liberal before they even heard the terms "global warming".  As the evidence became more conclusive that AGW was real, they started seeking out skeptical websites and political pundits who supported their position.  It's a classic case of post-conversion apologetics.

Answer 2

when i saw the linkage between the leading AGW scientist and the far left radical tree huggers

Answer 3

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one's self in the ranks of the insane."

-- Marcus Aurelius 121 - 180 A.D.

About six years ago I looked into the subject, and thought a lot of WAGs (wild-a**ed guesses) were being made about an enormously complex non-linear system called "weather".

When I found out the climate models don't model water vapor or clouds, that was the final straw.

The most important feedback in the entire global weather scheme, is just ignored.  So these models don't really model anything.  (Without some feedback mechanism, with water vapor being a potent greenhouse gas, the oceans should have evaporated a long time ago.)

There are only three pieces of data most folks agree upon.  CO2 concentration has risen by a third, coinciding with the industrial revolution.  This rise may be due to burning of fossil fuels, and in theory CO2 should enhance the greenhouse effect.  (Exactly how much influence CO2 has, and what significance, no one knows.)

After that you need a string of assumptions, of varying plausibility, to conclude that the-end-of-the-world is at hand.

Somewhere along the line, serious researchers who were  trying to figure out some of the variables and their significance, were drowned out by assorted protestors, do-gooders, hypocrites, UN officials, tabloid media, and outright frauds.

A whole lot of people that never studied science or completed an experiment, were suddenly talking about "consensus".  One person stated carbon dioxide was a dangerous industrial poison.  Warming started to cause all sorts of bad stuff, culminating in confidently predicting hurricane activity would increase the year after Katrina.  No one can adequately explain past ice age glaciation cycles, but this current cycle is definitely anomalous.   And so on.

When people see patterns or connections in random or meaningless data, it is termed "apophenia".  AGW seems to be full of it.

Answer 4

ROFL master of science!!!

Weatherman said so?

Global warming is natural, but man has made it spike over the past couple years.

Answer 5

Satan

bwah ah ah ah ahhhh

Answer 6

book:"State of Fear" by Michael Crichton and  a documentary: "The Global Warming Swindle" but i didn't really believe global warming is human made even before that

Answer 7

AGW theories have been around for a long time.  20 years ago when I first started investigating the subject, the real world data just didn't fit the theory so I was doubtful.  Then in the 90's we had some more warming, then 10 years of cooling.

That and watching the religious experiences of people who receive the message of AGW and know in their hearts and souls that it's real and they should spread the message of how the evil corporations are poisoning the Earth for their own selfish ends.  Talking to AGW believers is like talking to born again Christians.  The appeal to authority is same.

(edit) The standard of proof required to get believers triumphant is very low.  Some adademic that you've never heard of  draws a hockey stick and you act like it's the second comming.

Answer 8

Micheal Crighton-"State of Fear"

Answer 9

The premise of global warming is wrong, just like your statement that "EVERY" major science organization believes global warming is man made.

Like your statement, the data collected is very subjective.  If the data or the scientific group agrees with you, then it's included, if it goes against your premise, then the data, the person, the group is excluded from your collection.

There is no proof that so-called "man made global warming" is occurring.  There is no correlation between co2 and temps.  Co2 has increased steadily for the last 10 years without any increase in temperatures.  In fact, temperatures have been declining for the last 10 years.

What you want to believe is that man can predict the future.  That is an impossibility.

Answer 10

John Coleman, "a major scientists in climate modelling", NOT!!!  How about a burnout case meteorologist who couldn't make a financial go of a cable TV station in the nineteen-freakin-eighties!?!!?!  Nowadays he'll peddel his name-recognition and meager reputation to anyone with a buck, like that Heartland Stooges conference Bush put toigether, before he reversed his position and admitted Global Warming is a real threat.

Answer 11

6 years of post secondary education

Answer 12

1)  A major scientist in the field of Climate modeling said that the issue was political and not based on science.  (John Coleman)

2)  The hockey stick graph is based on bad data and the algorythm used to calculate temperatures was shown to be inaccurate.  (why do they need an algorythm anyway?)

3)  I believe those that say big oil companies are trying to disprove AGW, but on the other hand, when I see who is funding the AGW research I also look for hidden agendas and I tend to find many of them.  When research is based on who is funding, and not who wants the correct answer, it is always suspect.

4)  Every single year since 1998 has been the "second warmest year on record" according to many of thes same organizations, yet the actual temperature record shows different.

5)  Almost all of the graphs used to promote AGW do not use actual temperatures, but are based on computer models that estimate temperatures on some other esoteric circumstance, even the parts of the graphs where accurate temperatures were recorded for those years.

6)  Any evidence of AGW, no matter how short a period of time is considered conclusive evidence, yet any cool period, no matter how long a period of time, is considered "weather, not climate."

7)  AGW was first proposed by scientists who were not climate specialists but did work for the UN.  Any Government funded scientist should be considered suspect.  Just look at the science behind Alar and DDT.

Is that enough yet, or do you want more?

Answer 13

For a minute I forgot all of my scientific knowledge and then tried to make 'common sense' arguments based on complete ignorance.  For example:

'A TV weatherman said global warming is a scam, so it must be!'

'Volcanoes emit CO2, so they must be responsible for global warming!'

'Climate changed has happened naturally in the past, so the current warming must be natural!'

Then I decided that ignoring scientific evidence is just stupid.