Ask a Global Warming Skeptic

[kiwitt]

Too true ... I only comment on policy decisions that I am expected to support ... e.g. Carbon-taxes and making sure it is being spent on the right things to mitigate it.

 

[MrCynical]

First question should be answered is "Are you a scientist or what are you scientific qualifications ?"

If nothing is forthcoming on this one then a moderator should close this thread.

Why? What are your scientific qualifications, and should we boot you out the thread if you don't have any?

The thing about science is that it's based on evidence. It doesn't matter who's saying it or what qualifications they have, as the evidence and argument that's supposed to be addressed. Now granted the OP hasn't put any evidence up yet, but this idea that you shouldn't even be allowed to discuss it unless you hold scientific credentials is highly contrary to normal debate. Appeal to authority has enough problems, never mind in anonymous situations like this where you have no way of checking a person's qualifications.

 

[Winner]

What scientific qualifications do you have?

This.

 

[squadbroken]

Why should he be required to have scientific credentials?

Well from what I understand, these "Ask a whatever" threads generally mean that the person starting it will be able to answer with at least some authority on the subject.

On the other hand, if it's just some schmuck with an opinion, the thread is pointless. It'd be like me opening a "Ask a Medieval historian" thread because I watched The Deadliest Warrior once.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Even more important is that a question actually gets answered at some stage

 

[MrCynical]

Well from what I understand, these "Ask a whatever" threads generally mean that the person starting it will be able to answer with at least some authority on the subject.

On the other hand, if it's just some schmuck with an opinion, the thread is pointless. It'd be like me opening a "Ask a Medieval historian" thread because I watched The Deadliest Warrior once.

And if this was a thread entitled "Ask a Climate Scientist" that would be a valid complaint. However it is clearly stated to be "Ask a Global Warming Sceptic". By your argument they should lock the "Ask a young earth creationist" thread on the grounds if the poster has no scientific qualifications. Unless of of course you're claiming the OP isn't a global warming sceptic...

There's plenty of scope for discussion in this thread. Personally I'mm interested in seeing both in seeing the reasons why someone holds the sceptical viewpoint, and also just how differently normally rational people behave when there's any form of criticism of climate science.

 

[squadbroken]

And if this was a thread entitled "Ask a Climate Scientist" that would be a valid complaint. However it is clearly stated to be "Ask a Global Warming Sceptic". By your argument they should lock the "Ask a young earth creationist" thread on the grounds if the poster has no scientific qualifications. Unless of of course you're claiming the OP isn't a global warming sceptic...

In the case of the YEC, it's obviously a religious position, and one that outright rejects science, so whether or not they have any scientific training is only of secondary interest. They should have a good understanding of the Bible, though.

On the other hand, global warming is very much within the realm of science (whether you think it's happening or not) and thus any meaningful skepticism pretty much requires that the person understands climate science.

There's plenty of scope for discussion in this thread. Personally I'mm interested in seeing both in seeing the reasons why someone holds the sceptical viewpoint, and also just how differently normally rational people behave when there's any form of criticism of climate science.

Yes, I too am looking forward to seeing these reasons.

 

[Leoreth]

Why? What are your scientific qualifications, and should we boot you out the thread if you don't have any?

The thing about science is that it's based on evidence. It doesn't matter who's saying it or what qualifications they have, as the evidence and argument that's supposed to be addressed. Now granted the OP hasn't put any evidence up yet, but this idea that you shouldn't even be allowed to discuss it unless you hold scientific credentials is highly contrary to normal debate. Appeal to authority has enough problems, never mind in anonymous situations like this where you have no way of checking a person's qualifications.

You're right that you don't need to be a scientist to be skeptical about global warming.

But I do think that you need to have a qualification to start an "ask a ..." thread. It bothers me a lot in all these "ask a [denomination]" threads already, because in my opinion there must be some kind of authority and expertise behind an "ask a ..." thread. Plotinus' theology and Integral's economy threads are good examples for this.

If you simply want to discuss or question global warming, open a thread titled "I question global warming".

 

[Winner]

You're right that you don't need to be a scientist to be skeptical about global warming.

But I do think that you need to have a qualification to start an "ask a ..." thread. It bothers me a lot in all these "ask a [denomination]" threads already, because in my opinion there must be some kind of authority and expertise behind an "ask a ..." thread. Plotinus' theology and Integral's economy threads are good examples for this.

If you simply want to discuss or question global warming, open a thread titled "I question global warming".

Exactly. Or should I open a thread named "Ask a 26-year-old"? Or "Ask a Paradox Games fan"? Or another of the billions of useless "ask a..." threads one could possibly think of?

IMO the person should be able to offer some useful information and perspective on the topic, and if the topic is climate change, then I expect the person to have some sort of scientific qualification.

 

[KaiserElectric]

I'm gonna answer questions in two parts, seeing how I got many, many responses.

Do you believe that it would be impossible for humans to alter our climate by releasing green house gases or that it could be possible but will not happen based on current and projected emissions?

I don't think it can happen based on current emissions.

What scientific qualifications do you have?

That would be relevant if I were trying to prove that global warming did not exist, but I'm not. I personally doubt that human activity has an effect, with or without the appropriate credentials. If you don't feel I'm qualified to give my opinion, you may feel free to ignore me.

What "evidence" are you sick of being used against you? I mean, which fact or figure really annoys you when it gets brought up?

The fact that most scientists support global warming theory. If most of your neighbors say the sky is magenta, does the fact that most of them say so make it right?

Do you think its generally a good idea to switch to renewable energy?

Yes. Oil is expensive, as you may or may not have heard, and a clean, renewable energy source capable of making us energy-independent would be a welcome boon to society. I consider lessened environmental impact an added bonus.

whats the major reason you doubt the theory of global warming?

Research that refutes the theory tends to be ignored or worse. Scientists and meteorologists have been blackballed for challenging global warming. Any scientific theory that silences it's detractors should be taken with a grain of salt.

I too am a Skeptic, and am willing to offer my services.

How did you achieve your Skepticism?

I came to the realization that we're passing judgment on something we really don't know anything about. Yes, temperatures have risen, but we've only been measuring global temperatures accurately for about the past fifty years, so we can't say without a doubt that over the millions of years the planet has been here, we are causing the temperature. It's difficult to see the entire picture when you only look at an inch of the canvas.

Do you think that, as a skeptic, you should be saying "I question the extent to which human interference has affected global temperatures." instead of "I don't think that human interference has affected global temperatures." ?

Fair point, perhaps I have worded my statement wrong.

Do you think we should lower our emissions at all, or should we continue business as usual?

Lowering emissions is never a bad thing. Just because human activity may not have an effect on global warming doesn't mean it has no effect on local environments. (I'm looking at you, Los Angeles )

How do you reconcile your skepticism with the fact that 97% of scientists that have worked on the issue are convinced that it is real. And that no science refutes the theory, but only remains unconvinced about the details?

Two reasons. First, I never said that it didn't exist, only that I had doubt that it did exist. Again, I apologize if I worded my beliefs wrong.

Second, try publishing a paper refuting global warming, and I'm pretty sure you will either be ignored, violently disagreed with, or be associated with Hitler at least once. The scientific community is not friendly to global warming detractors, so you aren't going to find much research on the subject in any obvious spot.

What makes you think you are someone to ask about the issue? That is, why are you different than any other skeptic?

I was brave enough to post a thread about it?

Honestly, there really isn't anything about me that makes me unique, especially seeing as how there aren't a lot of us around. Again, if you feel I'm unqualified to be discussing this subject, feel free to ignore me. You won't hurt my feelings.

Even if you don't believe in the greenhouse effect being caused by CO2 emissions, would you still approve of legislation directed towards cutting down industrial/energy emissions & pollution (like the contaminants in coal power)?

Maybe, but not in this current economic environment. It's expensive for industries to go green, and while I applaud those who have, it isn't too good for the workers who have to get laid off to pay for it. However, when the economy starts booming again, I see no reason that legislation curtailing industrial pollution is a bad thing in moderation.

How do you explain the shrinking of the Artic ice cap? Did it just happen all by itself without any warming? It is fairly impossible to melt ice if the temperature stays below freezing, warming has to be happening.

Global warming is to blame for the melting of the ice caps, but the fact is irrelevant. We aren't discussing the effects of global warming, only the causes.

What's your thoughts on Ocean Acidification? Or was Acid Rain a lie as well?

This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. For the matter, neither of them are a lie, and human activity can be attributed to both activities, for better or for worse.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Even more important is that a question actually gets answered at some stage

Sorry , I stand undisputedly corrected

 

[KaiserElectric]

If the globe is warming, does it even matter?

Not counting the increased agricultural and economic productivity in nations affected by severe cold temperatures every year, I mean.

I don't think so. Our little blue planet has an amazing ability to adapt, and has gone through some major environmental changes in its time. Humans survived the Ice Age, so I think we can weather any storm the Earth throws at us.

Could you see a situation in which, were anthropogenic global warming to be occurring at a reasonable rate, that humanity at large could actually BENEFIT from this situation?

Could the potential benefits from global warming justify accelerating our production of greenhouse gases?

I don't see any benefits from greenhouse gasses, nor do I see any benefit from increasing our current production of said gasses.

Which part of the CO₂ greenhouse gas mechanism do you think scientists have got wrong?

1) Are we not actually causing a rise in atmospheric CO₂?
2) Is CO₂ not actually a greenhouse gas?
or
3) Do greenhouse gases not actually exist?

None of the above. I believe that the greenhouse gas mechanism is correct, I just think that human activity creating CO2 has an insignificant effect on it.

Do you think that the unknown cloud's role in the climate models are responsible for the blame on human activities?

I think the scientists placing the blame on human activities are responsible for the blame on human activities.

Do you think it's all an conspiracy to sell expensive goods with a green label?

No.

Do you think that the sun is the real responsible for the heating?

The sun has always been the cause of the heating.

Do you think that it might get too late to do something about if your skepticism were somehow proved wrong in the future?

If I turn out to be proven wildly wrong, I think humans have the chance to repair the damage once that time comes. If we get China and India on board as well, we shouldn't have a problem.

Sorry , I stand undisputedly corrected

No trouble at all.

 

[bathsheba666]

And if this was a thread entitled "Ask a Climate Scientist" that would be a valid complaint. However it is clearly stated to be "Ask a Global Warming Sceptic". By your argument they should lock the "Ask a young earth creationist" thread on the grounds if the poster has no scientific qualifications. Unless of of course you're claiming the OP isn't a global warming sceptic...

Science has no relevance to YEC, so the posters can be as educated or uneducated as they like.
The key issue there is faith, not science.

Edit - and of course someone already made that point.

I don't think so. Our little blue planet has an amazing ability to adapt, and has gone through some major environmental changes in its time. Humans survived the Ice Age, so I think we can weather any storm the Earth throws at us.

This sounds like capitalism murmuring that periods of adjustment are expected and occasionally necessary, which is fine if you're not one of those who have lost their livelihoods for years, and have their lives devastated.

I guess your equivalent here is that as long as you're not one of the billions drowned or starved, everything with the new sea levels is just peachy.

None of the above. I believe that the greenhouse gas mechanism is correct, I just think that human activity creating CO2 has an insignificant effect on it.

On what figures do you base this assertion ?

 

[MrCynical]

Science has no relevance to YEC, so the posters can be as educated or uneducated as they like.
The key issue there is faith, not science.

Actually science has quite a lot of relevance to whether YEC is true or not, and hence plays a large role in that thread. However interest in that thread is why someone holds that opinion/why the majority hold a different point of view. Same in this one. Any "ask a [insert religious/political viewpoint]" thread works on the same principle. Expertise isn't really required so long as the OP sincerely believes the point of view they state they hold. Not really an excuse for locking this thread without locking every other opinion or faith-based "Ask a..."

None of the above. I believe that the greenhouse gas mechanism is correct, I just think that human activity creating CO2 has an insignificant effect on it.

On what figures do you base this assertion ?

Do either of you have any figures to say one way or another? You could make an argument that normally in science the burden of proof is on the one claiming something has a significant effect. Alternatively you could argue that safety dictates that any activity over a certain scale has a burden of proof to show it has no harmful side effects. Unless one of you can link to a piece of original scientific research this really doesn't amount to much more that yelling "yes it does/ no it doesn't" at each other.

 

[Truronian]

Do either of you have any figures to say one way or another? You could make an argument that normally in science the burden of proof is on the one claiming something has a significant effect. Alternatively you could argue that safety dictates that any activity over a certain scale has a burden of proof to show it has no harmful side effects. Unless one of you can link to a piece of original scientific research this really doesn't amount to much more that yelling "yes it does/ no it doesn't" at each other.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

CO₂ emissions alone account for 0.5°C of the temperature rise, and that's the lower bound.

 

[bathsheba666]

Do either of you have any figures to say one way or another? You could make an argument that normally in science the burden of proof is on the one claiming something has a significant effect. Alternatively you could argue that safety dictates that any activity over a certain scale has a burden of proof to show it has no harmful side effects. Unless one of you can link to a piece of original scientific research this really doesn't amount to much more that yelling "yes it does/ no it doesn't" at each other.

Actually, he is posting the thread, so I am enquiring as to the basis of his belief.

You may, or may not, impute a 'yes it does' to my question,
and that imputation may, or may not, be correct.

However, it is his thread, and the question remains valid - regardless of your assumed subtext.

 

[Cutlass]

Research that refutes the theory tends to be ignored or worse. Scientists and meteorologists have been blackballed for challenging global warming. Any scientific theory that silences it's detractors should be taken with a grain of salt.



Second, try publishing a paper refuting global warming, and I'm pretty sure you will either be ignored, violently disagreed with, or be associated with Hitler at least once. The scientific community is not friendly to global warming detractors, so you aren't going to find much research on the subject in any obvious spot.

So your skepticism rests on unfounded accusations that there is a global effort to suppress dissenting viewpoints, even though there's far more money to be had for anyone who could make a real scientific claim against AGW as for it? And there's always the internet and the press owned by big corporate interests. So that even though it would be a piece of cake to get a global audience, no one has even bothered to try to publish science that refutes it, that's a reasonable objection?

 

[LucyDuke]

I'm not sure whether you missed or ignored my question, so here it is again.

What specifically would convince you that ACC is happening or going to happen?

As for the question of credentials, I don't think he needs a scientific background to answer questions.

That would be relevant if I were trying to prove that global warming did not exist, but I'm not. I personally doubt that human activity has an effect, with or without the appropriate credentials. If you don't feel I'm qualified to give my opinion, you may feel free to ignore me.

Although that's no reason to dodge the question. Whether your opinion has formed in your gut or in your brain is relevant. If it's not based on evidence, then it doesn't matter a whole lot. But we don't know whether your opinion is interesting or not - if there's a reason we should listen to you, you ought to share that reason.

 

[Thlayli]

There's another angle to skepticism that isn't being explored here, namely the "so what?" factor of anthropogenic climate change.

If the Earth is warming at a moderate pace, then it is warming at a moderate pace. Ecosystems will change, as they always have, in some cases for the better, and some cases for the worse.

I'm not inherently opposed to the idea that we're affecting our climate, but I am inherently opposed to the idea that the Earth isn't a massive feedback mechanism with the ability to counteract or moderate climatic catastrophe. For an example of this, see the massive specific heat reservoir of the Earth's oceans.

And even if we were never to have emitted a single iota of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, and indeed, even if humanity had never evolved, the Earth's climate would continue to change in unpredictable ways. We will never achieve climate stasis, because that's not how the world works.

 

[History_Buff]

There's another angle to skepticism that isn't being explored here, namely the "so what?" factor of anthropogenic climate change.

If the Earth is warming at a moderate pace, then it is warming at a moderate pace. Ecosystems will change, as they always have, in some cases for the better, and some cases for the worse.

I'm not inherently opposed to the idea that we're affecting our climate, but I am inherently opposed to the idea that the Earth isn't a massive feedback mechanism with the ability to counteract or moderate climatic catastrophe. For an example of this, see the massive specific heat reservoir of the Earth's oceans.

And even if we were never to have emitted a single iota of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, and indeed, even if humanity had never evolved, the Earth's climate would continue to change in unpredictable ways. We will never achieve climate stasis, because that's not how the world works.

Your mistake is thinking that the current warming is moderate in pace. It's not. It's faster than just about every major climate shift that's ever happened. The ecosystem would likely be able to respond if we were warming 4 degrees over 250-500 years. It can't do it in 100.