Why do scientists think we know enough to warrant immediate action to reduce global warming?

Question

Certain parties would have us believe that we don't know enough to warrant action to reduce global warming. However, scientists seem to disagree. For example, the American Geophysical Union and American Institute of Physics:

"The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern...Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events."

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/042.html

The National Academy of Sciences:

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to begin taking steps to prepare for climate change and to slow it. Human actions over the next few decades will have a major influence on the magnitude and rate of future warming. Large, disruptive changes are much more likely if greenhouse gases are allowed to continue building up in the atmosphere at their present rate."

http://postcarboncities.net/node/3328

And of course the IPCC.

So I'm a little confused - if we don't know enough to take action to address global warming, why do the scientific experts think otherwise?

Answer 1

Got 3 words for ya,  MONEY MONEY MONEY.  

Answer 2

Repeating the same conclusion ad nauseum is not the same thing as supporting it, the latter of which nobody has done.

The case for man-made global warming has not changed in 20 years.

It's still based on the inference that because industrialization began roughly 80-90 years before the 20th century warming - which is similar to many other multi-century temperature shifts - began, the one caused the other.

You and Bob need to understand this - it's not a question of who says it, who believes in it, how many people believe in it - it's a question of tangible evidence, which is extremely scant.

The closest thing you have is the cooling stratosphere - but we have data on that only going back to '79, and there's no clean line where the CO2 ends and the cooling begins.     I.e., it's pretty tangential.

Beyond that there is no direct evidence.

Answer 3

Probably because scientists are smarter than random deniers on YA and don't really care what they think.

It doesn't matter if deniers think scientists don't know anything.  Deniers will say anything to prevent action on global warming, but they don't dictate reality.  Hopefully our government leaders will be smart enough to listen to scientists rather than Rush Limbaugh dittoheads.

Answer 4

Warning bell has been struck about impending catastrophic effects of global warming and scientists have done their duty. They are also trying to find solutions.  Each one of us is an Innovator and taking the cue from these experts, we can go ahead and try to help save the world even if it is at micro level. Otherwise, the future generation will curse us for having over exploited and exhausted the natural resources like fossil fuels (50 years stock left), coal (100 years stock) and water (there is already scarcity for drinking water in most of the developing world).  Resources are not infinitely available. There is a limit and it takes hundreds of years for developing a ton of fossil fuel but look at the American gurgling gas as if it available from the tap.

One fine day mother earth will rise her both hands and say "sorry children no more milk with me because you sucked them dry much faster than I can generate milk"

I have done whatever best I can and tried to save electricity through my simple solution U-SEE (Unlimited Savings of Electrical Energy) for a global problem. U-SEE is a World Bank honored Innovative idea without involving nano-technology or a billion dollar investment. All of us can do it and it is free. Browse...

Answer 5

Certain parties would have us believe that we don't know enough to warrant action to reduce global warming. However, scientists seem to disagree. For example, the American Geophysical Union and American Institute of Physics:

When you KNOW enough to tell us if it will rain next week with at least 80% accuracy, then come and tell us what you THINK will happen in the next 25 years.

Its called letting the facts of your answers back you up.  At this point they all seem to be stacked against you.

Answer 6

Given the price of inaction, I don't know.  There is no logical, financial explanation for the typical "research the research and research some more" mindset we often see in the political world.

The level of action put forth currently is all across the board.  Essentially, the momentum has shifted, and the pressure is on politically to get up to speed in addressing climate change in some fashion.  Yet almost inexplicably there are laggards.  In doing some recent research, I was supposed to demonstrate local agency efforts to address the phenomenon.  My state, California, is helping to lead the charge.  My county has not lifted a finger, as near as I can tell.  My local state rep in Congress is a hard and fast denier.  My governor has mandated that every agency in the state work as a team to figure out the best ways to protect the states interests, be they financial, environmental, etc.

The scientists have done their job, and are continuing to do it to give us the information we need to set policy, to develop mitigation plans, to create adaptation policy. Those who refuse to accept the science seem to be dwindling in numbers.  

I think we're going to see a whole lot of flip flopping in the months to come.  

Answer 7

because al gore told them to push his agenda, so all the sheep that believe anything they're told will dump their cars and bike it.

Answer 8

Scientists also say that global warming is not real and  is in fact a scam.  Depends on whether scientists or their organizations would act fraudulantly for increased funding or not.

Answer 9

Because a) energy efficiency has been a left wing cause way before global warming became an issue.  It is politically incorrect to doubt climate change.  Anyone who does is suffers consequences.

From a national post article:

"Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

(Since when is a search for the truth immoral.  Immoral means politically incorrect)

b) If climate change is not an issue, there goes their funding.

The article continues:

"The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."

Answer 10

RE:  "Why do scientists think we know enough to warrant immediate action to reduce global warming?"

>>>  I've been asking myself the same question.  Kinda reminds me of scientists assuring us that ethanol would result in less pollution when in fact it ended up polluting more than regular gasoline.

I guess you might call it 'knee-jerk' science.

Answer 11

Let's see:  You claim to be a scientist.  You claim we need to take action now.

I'd answer:  They're all on par with you....

;-)

Edit:  Apparently, at least 4 people believe they're not even THAT good (I bet you're one of those 4, huh?).

Answer 12

Its called the precautionary principle. With regard to environmental concerns, the lack of absolute scientific certainty does not warrant a reason to disregard a potential threat. However recent data and climatology models have suggested a strong probability of a major shift in the earth's climate - with what most researchers deem as an imminent revert to an ice age similar to those in the past as proven by paleoclimatology.

There will always be disparity in science, however from a biological stand point, the current rate of loss of biodiversity mimics that of previous climate shifts. With the clear threat of desertification and clear correlation between CO2 and SST, along with the negative feedback albedo effect of a disappearing Greenland ice sheet, it is quite evident that global warming does exist and differs from previous shift in that today's obvious crisis has an anthropogenic source.