Why do certain deniers think scientists don't understand the relationship of the sun with regard to AGW?

Question

I never said they did.

Answer 1

Well actually the scientist did realize that steel in the WTC is weakened by intense heat.  The planes stripped off the insulation.  It was a design defect.  It didn't actually melt but I agree with his point anyway.  Scientists are subject to errors.  I am sure they understand some aspects of solar variation but it is too complex for them to predict the effects reliably.  That certainly won't stop them from trying

Answer 2

Scientists are experts in their field of study. They are usually so focused on thier field of study that it can be safely said they know relatively nothing about anything outside their field of study.

Good example is 11 September 2001. Lots of scientists and engineers saying there is no way that the fuel used in an airplane is hot enough to melt steel. Here are the measurements from the lab to prove it. Yet the steel did melt. Mostly unexplained because the scientists can't understand the mechanics of a fire in a garbage heap as a scientist. Whereas any normal thinking person can but doesn't have the credentials to be taken seriously.

Same Same with respect to scientists and their narrowly focussed fields of study applying the relationship of the sun with regard to AGW.

The earth's environment is too complex to determine through scientific modelling; the scientists still can't tell you with any reliability whether it will rain this afternoon. But you and I can look outside and see the clouds and say yup its gonna pour'. Look maw, no science.

So there is a logic to apply here. The glaciers once came as far south as Toronto. There are no glaciers in sight and those that remain are retreating so it is obvious to conclude there is global warming and that the warming has been going on for a long time. The glaciers have mostly been gone since before history was recorded. So it is patent nonsense to state that glaciers are retreating because of human activity. Look maw, no science.

Answer 3

We are all aware that SCIENTISTS understand the relationship.  The problem is that the AGW promoters are not scientists.

Answer 4

I don't think they want to consider that possibility, because of the political implications.  If global warming is almost entirely natural, we don't need to research it and we don't need to stop burning fossil fuels and that disagrees with the political ideas of a lot of academics.

Answer 5

Scientist are constantly refining their ideas based on feed back form other scientist - often in different fields of study- to try to explain what they observe.  They try to quantify relationships that are very complex using models.  Models are just an abstraction of reality that incorporates what we think we know to help us make predictions of the future.   The basic stuff - the easy things like the major cycles of the ice ages, solar activity and such are know and incorporated.  They get tweaked once in a while if the relationship is refined, but typically this is not big deal.  

The "skeptic" community don't worry about the "state--of- the-science."  They just grab on to a small part of the puzzle and view it as the big picture  (Dr Jello grabs April or a day in April and forgets about the last 20 years, or ASSUMES it can't rain sulfuric acid - ever hear of acid rain?  pH 2 - it's sulfuric acid!).  Many non-skeptics at least partially rely on the judgment of scientist who have the background to solve the puzzles.  

The AGW issue requires people to solve the problem, not scientist, so that makes things very complicated.  Scientist can't just publish in journals and talk to policy makers to help them formulate a response to solve a problem of this magnitude.  We have to talk to people, and it gets old trying to explain that we know the sun is hot and INSOLATION may vary some over time, that there are natural variations and factors that control the climate, that plants use CO2, that volcanoes erupt, etc.  I mean, come on - I passed high school biology!  All this stuff is already considered.  Just read some SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.

Scientist model what we think is happening base on our understanding of the world, and list as many flaws with our model as we can think of (maybe somebody else has an idea that will improve it).  We put our ideas out there for others to evaluate that have as much or more training as us, sometimes in a different field of study. Laymen don't read the papers, only the news headlines, and may try to put things in a perspective they understand.    For some skeptics, I think this translates to "I'd s***w these people out of their cash if it was me, so I think they must be trying to s***w me."   I think others just try to put it in perspective using a high school science or maybe a college survey course science background. They feel very confident that they know something about the subject, but is is so huge it is really hard to imagine.  Basic course won't cut it. Others fall back on religion or the thought that man is too "small" to affect the earth's systems.  They embrace ignorance and even ignore the Christian teachings they profess to follow. The skeptics don't bother educating themselves most of the time and don't know the difference between biased and unbiased sources, but refuse to believe scientist because the scientist are all out to get them.  

Scientist tell people that human activity puts greenhouse gases in the air and CAN warm the climate (greater than a 99% chance)  so lets be careful and do some simple things to reduce our impact.  Some jerk says "can - you mean you don't know."  These people "know" they are waking up tomorrow, never realizing they only assume they are waking up.  It is not 100% certain.

We're as certain about climate change as we are we will get up and go to work tomorrow.  How certain are you you'll get to work tomorrow?  No chance you'll be in an accident, get called away on an emergency or something?  We are certain that we'll go to work in the morning barring any unforeseen events (our assumption).  

We are certain human activity is causing climate change given our assumptions about the way climate works is basically correct (yes there is wiggle room here - biological impacts may be much less than we predict, but they may also be worse - I stick with less because I assume life will adapt given enough time.  I'm sure about the link between the greenhouse gases and the warming climate though).  We are always adjusting and trying to get a better understanding.  The skeptics just assume scientist don't understand or that they are part of some global conspiracy to mislead the people of the world for some obscure gain.  They assume wrong.

Answer 6

Its not that they dont understand it, but rather that they dismiss it so readily.

I just left a symposium on a new (well relatively new) theory called "global dimming".

The whole thing revolved around particulates from pollutants cooling the Earth, while carbon dioxide heated the Earth.

The problem I had with the whole thing was, where is any mention of naturally occurring variables? It was as though mankind is the sole controller of climate through pollution.

I am about to look into how their data correlates to solar activity and volcanic activity in the time line.

Don't know what I'll find, but I will say that the whole discussion was interesting. Many of the physics and astronomer wern't buying into it yet.

Another problem I had with it was their own doomsday scenario proposed by their model. By 2018 (If I remember right, but it's close) the Amazon rain forest will literally catch fire. Hmmm.

Sorry, I went off track. But you get the point. The focus on carbon dioxide seems to have become a sort of monomania in the AGW movement.

Answer 7

I just do not think ALL scientists looked for it.  Most AGW was shocked to find that we might be able to attribute most of the temperature change until 1970 to the sun.  If you start with the theory that it is CO2, then you look for evidince that it is CO2, not for evidence it is the sun.  My last semester of my engineering degree I took a History of Science class.  The underlying theme in that class was since the beginning of time science tends to model the world around its own views.  In other words find what it is looking for.   I have always been skeptical of everything since then.

Answer 8

I don't think deniers actually believe that scientists don't understand the relationship between the Sun and global warming - I think they *need* scientists not to understand the relationship, because it's such a slam dunk that the Sun is not causing the current warming.  And if it's not the Sun, then it's pretty much down to humans, and well, that just *can't* be right.

Answer 9

Why do certain proponents of AGW believe they have a complete understanding of the complexities of climate?

I guess they have one thing in common: they're both pretty silly.

Answer 10

They can't even predict what the weather will be like three days from now, yet they claim to "know" the weather ten years from today and expect me to believe them!? Until they can accurately predict the weather a week in advance, then I will not even give their so called AGW a second thought.

It is insane to take them for their word.