Which side of the global warming discussion do you think provides more scientific evidence?

Question

I'm just looking for everyone's honest personal assessment here. Do you think that anthropogenic global warming skeptics or proponents provide more scientific evidence to support there arguments?

Note - providing more evidence does not necessarily make a person correct. I'm not asking which side you believe is correct or which side you believe provides accurate or correct evidence. All I'm asking is which side of the global warming discussion more often provides scientific evidence to support their claims.

Answer 1

skeptics

Answer 2

The  scientific side of course

that was too easy

although at times it takes skill to separate it from the political side ,But the skeptics have a political side as well

Answer 3

The skeptic's side...hands down!

The proponents opened things up a bit with Al Gore's movie, but there was so much misleading information in it that nobody could take it seriously.   When it's shown in Britain it has to be accompanied by an explanation that it's wrong in so many ways.  These weren't mistakes as much as they were deliberately designed to deceive.

The data isn't there to support the AGW arguement.  There are lots of scare tactics and bullying on the AGW side.  And the fact that nobody is allowed to debate anything...well, that's not scientific at all.   Here in YA it's just chat and it allows people to voice opinions and blow off a little steam.  But in the world community many countries, even poor ones, are paying through the nose through new carbon taxes which they can't afford.

All based on a weak theory that nobody will talk about.  What we do know is that a portion of it is based on lies, and the whole thing really seems to be political instead of scientific.

Answer 4

By my count it's about nine bazillion to zilch.

But the anti-environmentalists have been winning.

Guess that's what this debate is all about.

--------------------------------------...

“The concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by man has risen significantly during the historical record and it is absolutely known (by reproducible, verifiable lab experiments on the physical properties of these gases) that these gases cause warming by absorbing the outgoing radiation from the earth. The skeptics have not produced any evidence that this rise in the greenhouse gas concentrations occurred by some natural process and they have also failed to explain how all the industrial emissions could have been absorbed by some natural process during the recent historical period. There is no way to explain the observed greenhouse gas concentrations without human interference, and there is no credible way to claim that the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations has not caused a warming of the Earth’s surface. While there are other natural processes at work and while the climate system is highly complex, trying to discount the role of human involvement in recent climate change is speculation and opinion, not science.” - Asher Siebert.

Answer 5

As far as actual evidence I think there is more physical data that supports the skeptics view point. If the hot spot in the equatorial mid troposphere for instance, was there I would not be skeptical. There are a number of physical measurements that do not support the AGW theory. There are experts at radiative transport who are very brilliant people, but that does not mean that they are experts in the field of climate science.

An example:

Hawking attempted to bridge the gap between the Theory of Relativity and Quantum mechanics, and for a while it looked like he did, the equations were so complicated it was beyond the experts in both fields, but the Quantum Mechanics theorists new that something wasn't right, and eventually the truth came out. This division still exists in the field of climate science, the degree of natural climate variation is still unknown and climate models are still in their infancy. So physics only describes the real world accurately if the physics modeling the real world problem are reasonably correct.

.

.

Answer 6

none,their are no control sample`s in modern mans possession,older than at best 2000 yrs.to have true scientific evidence there most be a control sample,we have none. to take the word of a person that say`s this rock is 10 million yrs old,without a sample rock collected,and dated 10 million yrs ago,is foolish.all scientific machinery,computers,x-ray,machines,are simply giving you the opinion of the man,or men,that designed,and programed the machine with their opinion.

Answer 7

Honestly, I think this is a rhetorical question because there is no doubt that  AGW has an enormous amount of science on its side, while skeptics mostly have a bunch of hokum.  I wish the skeptics on YA would actually find some real scientific evidence, it would be a lot more interesting here then.

Answer 8

The environmentalist chose the green house gas. They are complaining about about 300 ppm. CO2. There is 20.9% oxygen in our atmosphere . Convert CO2 tp percent and it is .000300% . That is nothing and if U try to measure it is much less.

Answer 9

The side Al w***e is on (the guy that made the movie "An Inconvenient Spoof") gets almost all of the publicity.  More scientists do not agree with "Global Warming" but Al w***e's side gets most of the publicity!

Al Gore made over 100 million dollars off his Global Warming propaganda!

Answer 10

I have found more unbiased sources on the "believers" side then on the deniers side.

But both sides provide almost an equal amount of scientific evidence.

The thing about scientific evidence is that if you want to prove something is right, you will stop at nothing until you have proof. So anyone with the means and the determination can produce evidence, it's all a mater of presentation.

That's why you also have to look at sources here. It's imperative for someone who has a limited knowledge of science to dig deeper and find out who is offering this proof, and what their motivation was for the research in the first place.

edit:

I would also like to add that Al Gore did not "discover"  Global Climate change, he is just the messenger. Makes me wonder how this message would have been received if it had been the Pope in the movie, or 50cents or Angelina Jolie... Just saying. How much credibility does the message gain or lose by the person delivering it...

Answer 11

I feel that the AGW skeptics provide more accurate scientific evidence overall.

I know that Al Gore overstates the possible effects severely, even according to those who believe in AGW.

Answer 12

Let's see:  We give you historic climate change, historic solar activity matching historic climate change, climate change on other planets outside the influence of man-made CO2, proxies indicating historic fluctuations in cosmic radiation matching historic climate change, and your side gives us....manipulated stats, predictions of the future, and a majority vote for bigger government.

We win.

Answer 13

I have to admit - the scientists are providing better evidence than the self-styled "skeptics", the radio talk show hosts and others combined.

Funny how this science thing works!

Not funny how something like this topic can get politicized though.  Makes you wonder about this world.  I guess if I wanted to plant a garden I'm succumbing to the liberal commie plot to "socialize" food or something stupid like that...

... or if I do what Al Gore asked and just go change a freakin light bulb I'm proping up some money market scheme... puleeezzzz!!!  Gimme a break.... oh what's that Jello?  I don't deserve a break because I'm a weak minded liberal sheep...

Yeah... OK.  Well welcome to the wild west boys and girls!   Looks like the varmints are claiming good old fashioned "common sense" for themselves.  Typical trick of the Devil don't ya know?

Answer 14

Well the scientific community likes to pull out miles of table graphs and computer simulations that they say shows the earth warming up.

As for the skeptics like myself, I would just say as the ice in the Arctic melts and reveals more and more fossils of rainforest's and tropical plants that have been buried for eons, I would say, well we are not as warm now as we can see that it was then.  Can you prove that to be not the case?  I think not.

Answer 15

Being that there has yet to be a scientific study which supports Man made global warming, I think the obvious answer is that the science backs the anti AGW theory. We are all still waiting for the proof we are the cause.

Answer 16

I may not always provide links to my answers, since I'm at work and short on time, but if I find interesting things that counter what the believers are saying I share them and provide the link. I also gravitate to scientific papers and websites and stay away from news articles and blogs, since I don't trust those sources whether there touting skeptical evidence or pro-evidence.

I haven't looked outside the Internet yet, but I do intend to look for both pro and con research about this as well as research on sun spots and ocean cooling and warming trends. Those are just a few of the things I'd like to read more about. I'm also plan on following the cloud information NASA from the satellite they launched a few months ago to study clouds and their effects on our climate.

But to answer your question: I feel that neither side on YA does a great job presenting their arguments. I guess that's why I'm trying to do more research on my own, so I can hold my own with the most knowledgeable answerer's on both sides of this issue.

Answer 17

I'll follow the Danish Space Agency who say that the Sun is causing warming rather than Wikipedia who is responsible for lower test grades among English speaking countries.

Answer 18

Within the popular press, perhaps the deniers give more evidence. But, as you said, not all evidence is equal. Any Joe Blow can write an article for the opinion page and start an internet blog, or even have a book publish if their battle chest is large.

When it comes to scientific evidence, then the answer is obvious. Within peer-reviewed scientific literature, there is little to no evidence that any of the deniers’ arguments are true. I agree with Pegminer below; this site would be more interesting if the deniers could provide scientific evidence to back up their arguments.

A few notes to the guys above:

Eric C, you prove my point. Your evidence is a blog, “TalkClimateChange” with has been hyped by another blog, “Junkscience”.

JOHNNIE B,

A. The current atmospheric CO2 concentration is 386 ppm,[1] not 300 ppm. This is more than a 35% increase over the historic concentrations that have not been greater than 280 ppm any time over at least the past 650,000 years, as measured by any Antarctic ice core.

A 35% increase is significant. The concentration of salt in the ocean is also measured in parts per million. It stands at about 35000 ppm. The environment of the ocean would be drastically different if the oceans’ salt concentration was increased by 35%, right?

B. Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas. You’re comparing apples and oranges. The three most abundant atmospheric molecules, nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, do NOT absorb outgoing infrared radiation. It would be naive to believe that trace molecules have no effect within the atmosphere. There are lots of things that are measured in ppm and ppb that have a significant effect, such as odors in the air, medications circulating in your body, spices in food. A 35% increase in some circulation medications could constitute an overdose.

Evan-Michaels,

A. It’s the scientists who first theorized that climate has changed in the past. What are some of the CAUSES of prior climate changes? Are any of these circumstances present today?

B. Solar activity and global average temperatures DO correlate, until about the 1970’s. That the correlation between sun and climate ended, tells us that something new is happening.

C.  Ã¢Â€Âœclimate change on other planets outside the influence of man-made CO2” What a boring argument. On which planets is climate changing? On which orbiting solar system bodies is climate NOT changing? There is no evidence that suggests that the sun is responsible for climate changes anywhere in the solar system. For example, changes on Mars are attributed to variation in the Martian orbit, not the sun. If you have any scientific evidence otherwise, please provide here.

D. It’s been theorized that cosmic radiation fluctuations CAN affect climate on Earth, but there is NO scientific evidence that there has been any recent changes in cosmic radiation.[2] If you have any scientific evidence otherwise, please provide here.

Answer 19

The side without all the pretty pictures?

Answer 20

I think that proponents provide more scientific evidence.  Unfortunately, skeptics seem to outnumber us here.

Answer 21

Are you talking about this forum, or in general.  If it is in general, I would have to say the skeptics.

This quote from a believer is very telling:

"When I launched the TalkClimateChange forums last year, I was initially worried as to where I would find people who didn’t believe in global warming. I had planned to create a furious debate, but in my experience global warming was such a universally accepted issue that I expected to have to dredge the slums of the internet in order to find a couple of deniers who could keep the argument thriving.

The first few days were slow going, but following a brief write-up of my site by Junk Science I was swamped by climate skeptics who did a good job of frightening off the few brave Greens who slogged out the debate with. Whilst there was a lot of rubbish written, the truth was that they didn’t so much frighten the Greens away - they comprehensively demolished them with a more in depth understanding of the science, cleverly thought out arguments, and some very smart answers. If you want to learn about the physics of convection currents, gas chromatography, or any number of climate science topics then read some of the early debates on TalkClimateChange. I didn’t believe a word of it, but I had to admit that these guys were good.

In the following months the situation hardly changed. As the forum continued to grow, as the blog began to catch traffic, and as I continued to try and recruit green members I continued to be disappointed with the debate. In short, and I am sorry to say it, anti-greens (Reds, as we call them) appear to be more willing to comment, more structured, more able to quote peer reviewed research, more apparently rational and apparently wider read and better informed.

Edit:  Can you tell me what part of the forum you corrected this "misinformation"  and your forum name.  It will be interesting in following that discussion.  

Yes I did answer your question.  To requote:  "In short, and I am sorry to say it, anti-greens (Reds, as we call them) appear to be more willing to comment, more structured, more able to quote peer reviewed research, more apparently rational and apparently wider read and better informed."

Answer 22

The answer is obvious. There is very little evidence in favor of skepticism. The skeptics remain undaunted by this however, because ( I have become convinced) most lay skeptics didn't bother themselves with a critical and dispassionate analysis of the evidence before they made their minds up anyways.