Why Dont Believers Just Prove Their Point By Telling the Skeptics If It Will Be Warmer or Colder in the Future

Question

Believers just tell us if it will be warmer or colder sometime in the future and show us how you came to that conclusion.

Once you show that co2 increases temperatures, and the formula you use to come to make this determination, than how could the skeptics ever deny that man made global warming is in fact true?

It seems like a simple task if "AGW" is real.

How 'bout it?

Answer 1

How in the world does telling you anything prove ANYTHING?  Facts aren't affected by what you believe or don't believe, only you are affected.  Why would anyone want to take up their time trying to convince you of something.  You're responsible for your education, not me.  If you dispute 3rd grade science, by all means, chart your own course!

Answer 2

I don't know...

Answer 3

That would mean they have to consult the tree rings, but wait that would mean killing a living tree.  Oh NO, that means more CO2 in the air.  But how are we going to prove that AGW is real?  Oh wait I forgot, The ice core samples in Antartica, thats right, they are very accurate at telling us what the weather for the whole planet will is going to be like.  We will put Al Gore on it!  He can fly right down in his private jet and get on it.  Don't worry about the Carbon he is pumping out, he buys carbon credits!  Yes he owns the company, but he still buys credits, and he becomes one with nature.

When he gets back, we will whip up a real good computer model that predicts the temps.  If the model doesn't exactly correlate, don't worry about it we will say that the data opposing it is faulty or corrupt and supplied by Big Oil!  It's great , it works wonders, just accuse any skeptic of sidng with big oil, and wipes away their credibility.  Doesn't matter if they have facts, politics isn't concerned about the facts.  All you have to do is run a smear campaign, and people eat it up.  And if the temps don't work out the way we want don't worry about it, by the time it is all said and done, the truth will get lost in the fog of warming and the money train will be rolling along.  Then it won't matter what the h**l the temp is, just keep towing the line..........

Answer 4

Been there, done that.

"Climate experts have long predicted a general warming trend over the 21st century spurred by the greenhouse effect, but this new study gets more specific about what is likely to happen in the 10 years after 2005.

To make this kind of prediction, researchers at Britain's Met Office, which deals with meteorology, have made a computer model that takes into account such natural phenomena as the El Nino pattern in the Pacific Ocean and other fluctuations in ocean circulation and heat content....

They say the real heat will start after 2009.

Until then, natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide."

Just because you ignore the predictions doesn't mean they haven't been made.

Answer 5

The system is not that simple. An analogy would be to say when the economy is doing well the stock markets usually go up. In principle this is true (at least we think it is so), yet to show exactly how the markets will move given a particular source of information would be too difficult to predict, or to make any real concrete statement.

That being said co2 and the relation with the global temperature seems to be related, however we are still not sure exactly what roll it plays and what other factors play a roll in the global climate.

Answer 6

Way to be specific there, dana.  So what will the temperature be in 2009 and beyond?  Did this new model predict the current plateau in temperatures prior to it happening?  (Giving us an article published in 2007 about temperatures after 2005 doesn't count either.)

I won't hold my breath waiting on a specific prediction or forecast although holding my breath would help reduce global warming...

Answer 7

What would be the point in that?  Any little short-term decrease would cause you to cry out that the longer term increase is fake.  Even if it did warm continually, you would only claim it was all natural.  Given the obstinance from the skeptics, why should anyone pay attention to satisfying them since since they are completely impervious to objective analysis?