bucket22 asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 decade ago

Do deniers believe that scientists simply assume humans are causing global warming?

"What we argue is that because many of such natural warm periods remain unexplained or less than fully explained, we cannot simply assume that the present warmth was caused by CO2 or by man."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlL_Z...

Is this their extent of their knowledge of climate science?

Update:

Spammer WhyTaxCarbon illustrates the motivation for global warming denial - politics.

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Well the issue is really that if you ask 10 different deniers, they'll come up with 20 different reasons why they believe humans aren't causing global warming, and few will overlap.

    You get some who argue that humans can't cause climate change because it happened naturally in the past (e.g. jim). You get others who argue that AGW is just based on random assumptions, and global warming has stopped because it's cold in my backyard today (e.g. Randall). You get others who argue that climate sensitivity isn't as high as most scientists believe (e.g. Spencer's followers, e.g. eric c). You get others who argue that planet isn't warming to begin with. You get others who argue that warmer is better (e.g. jim again). And so on.

    If you look at my last question, I've got 15 denier answers with 15 different reasons why AGW is wrong, none of them remotely scientifically valid.

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApgP6...

    That's the problem with trying to discern what deniers believe. They only thing their beliefs have in common is that they *need* AGW to be wrong. If you try to pin them down to a specific justification for why it's wrong, you'll probably get 20% who agree vs. 80% who disagree with any particular argument. Some deniers think AGW is based purely on assumptions, others have found different reasons to deny it.

    The one thing they have in common is a fundamental lack of understanding of the basics of climate science, as exemplified here:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Artvu...

    *edit* Randall argues "The models based on those assumptions do not accurately predict the following year's climate shift."

    That could be because they don't even attempt to predict the following year's climate.

    *edit 2* I also love statements like "it is obvious that the medieval warm period was actually considerably warmer than today, by about 2 degrees". It's obvious...why exactly?

    It's a great phrasing, isn't it? When somebody begins a statement with "it's obvious that..." or "everyone knows that...", it's often a strategy to intimidate the opposition so that their claims aren't questioned. The opposition is expected to think "oh well if it's obvious, I'll look stupid if I question it and admit I don't know".

    In reality the claim is patently absurd. Not only is it not obvious, but there is no peer-reviewed global temperature reconstruction which makes such a claim. Even Loehle's flawed reconstruction which failed to pass peer-review doesn't conclude the MWP was 2°C warmer than today - not even close. It wasn't even 2°C warmer than the Little Ice Age!

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-backgro...

    But we're supposed to accept it as truth because according to some random person, "it's obvious". Yeah, it's obvious. Obviously wrong.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    It shows that political skills and marketing are more important than scientific validity. Different points of view were popular in different countries. While some European scientists were interested in global warming in the 1970's, it would be a bad career move for a US scientist to investigate global warming while his/her colleagues were selling the benefits to humanity of predicting the coming ice age. It's hard to get people excited about global warming and coming ice ages at the same time - they seem kind of contradictory.

  • 1 decade ago

    While all the researchers agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal", four of the five disagreed with the claim that the primary cause of the increase was due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. The only researcher to agree with the IPCC's assertion was Emori, who is himself a member of the IPCC.

    Akasofu countered with the statement, "CO2 emissions have been increasing, but the rise in air temperature stopped around 2001. Climate change is due in large part to naturally occurring oscillations". Akasofu says the earth's warming trend began prior to the industrial age, and believes much of the warming seen may simply be a natural recovery from the so-called Little Ice Age, that ended in the 17th century.

    Professor Itoh attacked the temperature record itself, saying "Data taken by the U.S. is inadequate. We only have satellite data of global temperatures from 1979 onwards". Itoh, who has previously called global warming "the worst scientific scandal in history", is also an expert reviewer for the IPCC.

    Dr. Kasano believes that cosmic rays, which are modulated by cycles in the strength of the sun's magnetic fields, may potentially have large-scale impacts on the earth's climate.

    The report includes the data in which the researchers base their arguments, and can be publicly viewed (in Japanese) on the Internet.

  • 1 decade ago

    Because co2 has never changed climate

    ice records from antartica over millions and millions of years show co2 levels follow temperature levels by 800+ years.

    which means co2 never started a warming period nor has it ever started a cooling period.

    this means what ever the co2 levels are, the natural cycles of the sun and earth will determine our climate.

    for every time frame you show to prove AGW you can widen that time frame and see that their is no serious warming.

    When AGW promoters tell you disaster is coming you have to act now!

    you have to give up control of your energy use and reduce your use by 40% or more.

    That we need carbon taxes that will increase energy costs by 60 to 100% to reduce co2 levels that will not be reduced.

    want you to sign agreements with the U.N. to reduce our energy use by 40% and send them trillions of dollars from the money our carbon taxes will raise. Under the pretense that the money will go to the poor developing countries.

    All the while the U.N. has no representation voted on by the U.S., has very little accountability for were the money will go or who gets it and has diplomatic immunity from prosecutions of anyone stealing or misusing those trillions.

    all that and only the promise that in 100 years thing will get better.

    follow the money and see who is really behind AGW and you will find out billionaires and politicians. Both of them stand to gain power and riches by controlling energy!

    yes i am a denier

    so alarmists you think you can disprove the billionare connection. Who'a paying Big Al

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Ben O
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    The IPCC isn't claiming to have proof - only the less educated believers maintain that proof exists.

    In the absence of proof, some people assert the existance of a scientific consensus.

    This global warming movement is slowly but surely dying. The UN secretary general hasn't mentioned it in over a year. It's run it's course as far as he's concerned. He'd rather petition the Saudi's to pump more oil.

  • 1 decade ago

    People Dana are the true "deniers".

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...

    The above is just one example of a whole bunch of people a lot smarter than me or Dana expressing their views pretty clearly. If only we could all be "Master of Science" and wave off these scientists with a few posts on Yahoo.

    The great thing is that the truth will eventually come out on what drivers of climate are most forcing and we can look back on the Internet blogs, science journal archives and media articles, etc. and someone can write a nice psychology paper.

    This isn't a matter of believing or denying, it's a matter of science. When it's discussed in those terms, it becomes a religion.

  • 1 decade ago

    It is a logical argument against the assumption where the alarmists backed up their baseless speculation by using bogus and manufactured data. Alarmist try to pretend that the climate was steady until humans started burning fossil fuels. Since it is obvious that the medieval warm period was actually considerably warmer than today, by about 2 degrees, and the laws of physics haven't changed, then the minor warming of the last century isn't anything out of the ordinary. It doesn't really take much knowledge of climate science to see how alarmists need to revise history to make a case for their bogus propaganda.

  • 1 decade ago

    Not all scientists - just the ones who say that "the debate is over."

    There is no direct proof of human causation. There are assumptions about how the climate works. The models based on those assumptions do not accurately predict the following year's climate shift.

    As for how it was "obvious" - the direct evidence. Before the climate became a political issue, scientific opinion was universal in favor of a warmer MWP.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yup, that's pretty much their extent of their knowledge of climate science.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No- the "extent" of my climate knowledge is that there is no evidence of AGW and significant evidence that warming increases CO2 as it has on every interglacial transition on record.

    Despite the largest PR campaign in human history in the media supporting this fraud, 32,000 scientists are now on record disputing the farce!

    First of all- there is no warming since 1998 as determined by all 4 global tracking org's:

    http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Repo...

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...

    More than 31,000 scientists have signed this petition demonstrating direct correlation between solar irradiance and earth's temp. They- and many others also show that CO2 levels have been more than 400% higher BEFORE fossil fuels.

    PR Research: http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview...

    Qualifications include: Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,803), Computers & Math (935), Physics & Aerospace (5,810), Chemistry (4,818):

    http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_s...

    700 distinguished scientists have petitioned the Senate calling MMGW a fraud:

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...

    !00 more leading scientists petitioned the UN- many of them claimed by Gore to be part of his nonsensical UN consensus: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9...

    Gore's "consensus" was actually 5 UN tools:

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968

    The entire change in CO2 after 120 years in industrialized humanity is 1/100th of 1 percent- .028-.038 of 1 percent:

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_cl...

    http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/04/co2-levels...

    Slight CO2 escalation has FOLLOWED warming during every interglacial transition on record- the exact opposite of the Gore lie: http://www.mises.org/story/2571

    And exactly what has happened since the little ice 500 years ago.

    The real story is why none of this info has EVER been mentioned on CNN, CBS, NBC, NPR, etc. as the socialists in congress try to ram thru a $1,500/person tax on energy... It is important to inform your kids that these are not news organizations- they are propagandists.

    MMGW is already the most expensive fraud in history and it’s about to get exponentially worse...

    That's right buffoon- 32,000 scientists are idiots...

    Dana- I've posted peer-reviewed science from 32,000 scientists and promoted by the former president of the Academy of Science.

    Meanwhile, you regurgitate fake studies of anonymous scientists and models from left wing blogs.

    It is frightening to consider the magnitude of your disinformation....

    Spammer? I present facts and scientific opinions with links. Unlike you MMGW marionettes, I do not confuse the two.

    Do not speculate on my motives. I am an American and am concerned what will happen to US families and our economy when the $1,500 per capita tax on carbon based entirely on farce is implemented- that's according to MIT and Obama Economic advisor Martin Feldstein per their May 20th meeting.

    If you had ANY facts to reinforce your farce, I would not bother you!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.