Why do the various "skeptics" all disagree with each other, too?

Question

The "skeptics" of global warming completely contradict each other.

Some say the temperature record is bad. Others accept it, but say we're not really warming. Others say that the temperature record and warming is real, but it's caused by the Sun. Or cosmic rays. Or something else Still others say we can't possibly figure out WHAT it's caused by.

Richard Lindzen, perhaps the most reputable skeptic, disagrees with all of the above. He says the temperature record is good, that we are warming, that models work, but that we're going to be saved by a magic feedback from clouds, not yet observed.

For me, believing in any one of the skeptics is just too improbable. Not only do you have to disbelieve the majority of the scientific community, you have to disbelieve the majority of the skeptics too.

Answer 1

What I liked about the skeptic answers is that in the case of the one discussing Venus, aside from the fact the link doesn't say the observed temperature of Venus is too large for the forcing, the RealClimate link provided cuts the legs out of the skeptic-du-jour paper from the Hungarian.  One of the cases people made that the Hungarian was right was that Earth had never had a runaway greenhouse effect and his new theory explained why, so it must be right (notwithstanding that Venus does have a runaway greenhouse and his theory couldn't account for that).  However, the RealClimate link explains why, in the current theory where CO2 forcing has a large effect on climate, you still wouldn't have a runaway greenhouse on Earth.  (Returning to the skeptic argument, the article does say that in the absence of the CO2 forcing, because of the cloud cover the surface temperature of Venus would be -40 C or so, but that is not the same thing as saying the observed surface temperature is larger than predicted by the forcing.  (It is technical details like this, so often missed by the skeptics, which lead me to question their true understanding of the science.)

The guy citing Lindzen misses the fact that the 2003 GRL paper is using the uncorrected MSU2 troposphere data, where the contamination from stratospheric cooling has not been removed.  So Lindzen's model results are based on spurious data and mean essentially nothing.  Furthermore, Lindzen changed tactics because the Iris Hypothesis has been shown to be unimportant (if it were, deep convection in the tropics would be increasing by nearly 50% in order to remove the heat from the CO2 forcing and it isn't (look at the ISCCP cloud-cover data, they are still arguing if it is going up or down, not whether the increase is 60% or 40%)).  

The various skeptics disagree with each other because most of them do not understand the physics.  Because they don't, they think any argument is as good as another, and don't understand that accepting one argument as the reason makes a different skeptic's argument invalid.  Lindzen is smart enough to understand the physics, so his theories are harder to disprove, and he shifts them as required, but even so he is left playing games with bad data.  As I've said before, the "skeptics" are really obstructionists, not really focused on understanding the science.  They're more interested in seeing how fast a sand castle can be kicked apart than they are about designing new ways to build one to withstand the tide.

Answer 2

Well for starters you are misrepresenting Lindsen.  He questions the climate sensitivity of co2.  He believes that increased of co2 will cause temperature increases, but they are so low that they are nothing that we should be alarmed about:

"The suddenness of the tropospheric temperature change seems distinctly unlike what one expects from greenhouse

warming, while the relative rapidity with which the surface

temperature caught up with the troposphere, less than about

10 years, suggests low climate sensitivity for a wide range

of choices for thermocline diffusion."

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/203_...

As for accepting the temperature trend: "There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.  Why bother with the arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998?  

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...

Skeptic fall into different camps just like warmers fall into different camps.  Not all warmers believe in tipping points, or hurricane activity or the degree of temperature rises or that warming is necessarily bad.  Does the fact that you cannot get a unanimous decision among warmers discredit them also?

Answer 3

For 2 basic reasons.

1) None of their arguments or theories are very good.  The "natural causes" argument is vague (which natural causes?), the solar warming theory has been completely disproven, and the galactic cosmic ray theory has serious fundamental problems.

The surface temperature record has been proven to be good (by several different tests including a comparison to satellite lower troposphere measurements), models have been proven to be accurate, and conspiracy theories are absurd.

If any of their theories or arguments had any validity, the 'skeptics' would all rally behind it, but they can't agree on which one is the least bad.  On YA the most frequent argument we see is probably 'solar global warming', and it completely disregards all data over the period that the planet has been warming the most.  Virtually no scientists (with the exception of perhaps one Russian crackpot) support this theory.

2) The deniers don't need to agree with eachother.  Their sole purpose is to convince people that there is confusion on the issue.  That's why they're always trying to disprove the scientific consensus and throwing out every possible argument that might undermine the AGW theory, even if their arguments contradict other 'skeptics' arguments.

They don't need to prove an alternative theory or disprove the AGW theory.  All they need to do is confuse enough people who don't know any better, and they may be able to succeed in delaying action to address the problem, which in the end is their goal.

Answer 4

Disagreement is due to lack of concrete knowledge.  Lack of concrete knowledge is universal in the climate studies.  Unfortunately, one side of the debate pretends to have knowledge about things it doesn't and it uses that pretend knowledge to push thier political agenda.

Answer 5

They use the same playbook as the young-earth-creationists used throughout the 80's.  Scour the literature (very cursory is all that's needed, understanding isn't required) and find anything that looks remotely unclear or confusing.  Then act like that point (no matter how minor) is the entire foundation of AGW theory and attack it.  The choir will believe you, since you are one of them, and if you're lucky you'll confuse a few other people and get them to join.

Lindzen's iris theory is proof that there isn't any conspiracy against alternative theories.  It was published in a reputable scientific journal and other scientists tried to replicate his work (that's the way science works).  The fact that errors were found in his work and other experts were not convinced when they scrutinized it, only shows that his theory wasn't valid.  So his theory, like many other ideas put forth over the previous 100 years of climate science debate, went to the grave where it belongs.  Too bad there are so many "skeptics" keep trying to resurrect things long ago disposed of.

Answer 6

Bob, how about this for an answer...

To begin, one reason simply put is because, as you know, Global Warming is not a simple thing.  It is extremely complicated involving numerous fields of Science.  Despite this however... Scientists, rather than skeptics as you pointed out, are largely in *agreement* of the main points [1].  Which is pretty remarkable considering, literally, every other controversial scientific study known has fewer actual Scientists in agreement, numbers or percentage-wise.    

To extend on that a moment… I feel that fact alone should help to put an end of this alleged debate.  Over 90 percent of Scientists do in fact *agree* that Global Warming climate change is real, it’s happened before (i.e. 55 million years ago – now believed is actually responsible for killing the dinosaurs and eventually giving way to much smaller land mammals as the dominant animal) and this time, what is setting it off again is anthropogenic.  

What most skeptics don’t talk about is that... yes, all the natural variability is first needed.  But it doesn’t help us that we were already in the peak of an interglacial warm period for example.  And by adding conditions, natural or otherwise, which warm the planet when the planet is at its warmest stage in it cycle to begin with… is simply a recipe for disaster.

BTW - excuse me for getting off track for a moment but related and I just want to point out... something else they don't often mention, for example, when they talk about the Vostok data [2] from the Antarctic, they point out, that in the last 400,000 years, CO2 has shown not to be a driver of temperature.   And they say that, like it's the evidence that man-made climate change from CO2 is not possible.  Which is ridiculous because, although it’s true, CO2 hasn’t driven temps for quite some time, it has done this in the past many times... dramatically in fact?  And the POINT is... correct... it hasn't done this for hundreds of thousands of years... SO WHY IS IT DOING IT NOW???  Before, as according to the ice core samples, there has always been a correlation between the Global temp and Carbon Dioxide levels, but now CO2 is much greater than it has been for hundreds of thousands of years (hasn't been over 300ppm [2], but is well beyond that now [3] and climbing exponentially)... so what that data really tells us is the cycle has been broken for some reason (we know the reason)... and worse, we're noticing that all the extra CO2 (which by the way is from human activities and that fact is widely undisputed even among skeptics) is doing what scientists are fearing most... IT IS NOW DRIVING TEMPERATURE!  This is so obvious but they try to manipulate the data as if they are making a point why the past correlation is somehow... evidence supporting *their* case (*ancient* ice core data doesn’t show it, so it must not be a factor – duh, human industrialization or out of control volcanism evidently wasn’t a component during this period of earth time either), pretty remarkable wouldn't you say Bob??  It's funny how things can be so distorted depending on how you present it and when you leave out important facts...

Back to the subject... So another reason then; is its popularity.  Anything this major has every critic known in the world coming out of the wood work, which in turn just adds to the pandemonium.  But in any case, more skeptics equal more opinions.  And since there are so many *holes* in their theories, it’s constantly being changed, added to, favored or avoided, whatever best suits them (i.e. consider how many times their land mark propaganda film ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ has been re-edited and reproduced [4]).  

(sorry, off the main subject once more but this is worth mentioning because it is such a significant target for GW skeptics)… Again, such a big complicated subject… Not everyone can know enough about everything to stand up to certain tricks used by skeptics, on the spot, meaning… everyone can be stumped on something, doesn't make them right.  And on that note… Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’… wasn’t doctrine… it was just meant to be an eye opener based on data which was available at the time.   But I love how they pick on Al Gore as if he is the father and mastermind behind a ‘Global Warming Hoax’.  Skeptics… Al Gore is not a scientist, but it is clear he consults with them and it’s probably safe to say, for a political figure, he has likely researched this subject more than any other.  I would like to see d**k Cheney, who succeeded him as Vice President, put together a presentation of anything near the caliber of Al’s.  I think he actually did a pretty good job, not the greatest, but it certainly gets the point across which is the goal of the film.  Because of him, more people are even aware of Global Warming.  Leave it to further and more comprehensive research to get down to the raw details.

Another reason, types of critics... on the subject of Global Warming, you really now have the greatest variety of critics.  Beginning with those (for a variety of reasons, i.e. as simple and naive as... the Bible doesn't support the possibility of it - one of Senator Inhofe's opinions) who don't know what they are talking about and just spread 'junk science' and rumors which are dredged up so often; the illusion often that there is basis to some of the most ridiculous and easily disputed claims comes from how incredibly often the claims are reposted and remains in circulation... often adding to the typical GW skeptic's war book.

But across the field, there are also legitimate skeptics who are actual scientists.  Some do what scientists do best, continually questioning the data in order to achieve a better result.  Because their fields are different, their results can often different to one another.

The danger comes from when these scientists/GW critics start buying into well funded think tank propaganda political rhetoric, but there are often so many holes in that data, that even skeptics will realize it too, yet like I said, despite this it recycles, and with the advent of the Internet, it just never seems to end or die, no matter how ridiculous the claims are.  Which is why people like you and I are here trying to keep up with them (stay with it Bob... though sooner is much better than later, and if it's not already too late for the most part, I predict that within 5 years they, meaning - GW deniars, will be forced to give in to the reality of the situation).

Ultimately, the number of outspoken and often well funded skeptics of Global Warming are numerous, in fact, far numerous than to any other issue before now.  So there is bound to be disagreement among them, it is their nature to disagree so it goes with the territory, but to counter… there is a far greater number of real Scientists who are actually ‘working’ (instead of just reposting other critics often unsubstantiated opinions) on the subject relative to GW and they have concluded that there clearly is something to the recent warming and can link it to man… and worse, can only conclude it will get worse before it gets any better if we practice business as usual.

Skepticism is generally healthy as a rule, it helps us learn the truth or improve the results of things we don’t fully understand, which is the case with Global Warming; we know it is real, but we don’t fully understand it.  It is much too complicated.  But the problem today, with most of these typical (and quite largely, non-scientist) GW skeptics is that they are simply h**l-bent on a mission to disprove Global Warming with every opportunity they can find.  And they are very outspoken.  One scientist will publish their findings or theories in a few places, whereas, a typical GW skeptic will republish or rehash an opinion a hundred times or more wherever they can.

It’s good to remember this anytime we come across, for example, a video critical of Global Warming… there are actually organizations in place (i.e. CEI Competitive Enterprise Institute, funded and largely supported by Exxon-Mobil and others of the like, they recently admitted spending a million dollars just on youtube), that do nothing but build on the illusion there is a huge public and scientific debate going on by reposting all videos (and creating many of them) which help to support this position that Global Warming is either just a theory or worse, an outright lie, hoax, conspiracy!  Don’t buy into that.  Science does truly agree, it is real... hopefully soon, these impossible skeptics will get out of the way and let concerned scientists figure out what all causes it and what things can be done to slow down its effects.

Answer 7

Skeptics know that what they believe is their personal opinion based on their observations and studies.  They know that they don't know if it will be warmer or colder 5 year from now.  And they aren't afraid to state their opinions either.

It's the believers who can't separate opinion from objective facts.  The also have no idea if the future will bring warmer or colder temperatures, but they just can't find the strength to admit it, as they seek safety in the crowd.

For the believers, it's like the fable of the emperors clothes.  They "see" because they don't want to look foolish.

Dr. Stephen Hawkings stated that the Earth's temperatures would reach 450DegF and rain sulfuric acid.  Do all believers agree?

Answer 8

For each aspect of the anthropogenic global warming theory, there is a corresponding skeptical argument. Each skeptic focuses on their “pet” argument more than on other arguments, in the same way that AGW believers focus on their “pet” hypothesis as to the cause(s) or future effects of warming. Neither side has a “silver bullet” to trump the other’s theories; but both sides think they do; and this is why the difference in arguments. This does not mean the skeptics are in disagreement any more than it means the believers are in disagreement.

The bottom line is that neither side has all of the evidence in their corner, and the causes of climate change are still more a matter of conjecture than facts. So in the absence of conclusive evidence, and presence of valid counter-arguments – even if they are not the same argument – objectivity should rule the day. That doesn’t mean it will not be proven one way or the other, it’s just that until it’s truly settled science, prudence dictates skepticism.

Answer 9

Easy, because there is not one single alternative theory that stands up to any real scrutiny!

Skeptics can see the flaws in other skeptic's arguments. There is not one clear contender; a valid alternative explanation to explain the affects of Global Warming, sorry I correct myself, there is not one clear argument against AGW!  

Just ask a Skeptic to site a source. They often quote references that actually SUPPORT AGW, but do not understand enough about the subject to know the evidence they are providing actually disproves what they are claiming!

Answer 10

They want to have an answer to everything.  It doesn't matter if the answers are mutually exclusive.  Taken individually many of them might seem reasonable.  Taken collectively they add up to zero.

They're so emotionally invested in their urban legends that whenever society finally brushes them aside they will look around and find some other topic to be ignorant on.

Answer 11

Why are solar, wind and alternative energy stocks dropping faster than any other stock?  

Remember Martha?  Scientists are telling each other the truth while you are being left out in the cold. LOL

Please mark my words so that I can tell you in a few months that I, ME, LARRY TOLD YOU SO.....   PLEASE?????

How about do a web search of Gore's visit to Denmark....  His reception was....  NOT SO GOOD  ROTFLMAO

I am still laughing uproariously over the Global Warming in the Jar experiment!  That is so, so, so funny!!!!!

YO DAWG....   AIN'T VENUS CLOSER TO THE SUN??????   Just axin....  Guess if we rule out the SUN, we can make any claim whatsoever....   LOL

Answer 12

Bob, I'm actually a fan.But yet so much of  this has yet to be proven.There's doubts as to whether GW can actually be proven much less then AGW. I'm more incline to believe in AGW then GW. If one were to correlate all the misnomer's in AGW,it would be a paramount factor.It's all the other discrepancy's that befuddles the argument. The list is long ranging from MWP,LIA,current PDO's,Tropical models,studies concerning photosynthesis,CO2 Doubling,Synchronization of the two hemisphere's...etc.

Answer 13

Calculations for atmospheric forcing are at best incomplete.  Using similar accounting, Venus is actually warmer than it should be based on it's co2 content.  Lindzen's "magical" feedback may be at work there too.

The point being,  what is represented to me as "settled science" is nothing of the sort.  Unknowns remained to be described.  Let's not let the illusion on knowledge get in the way.