Do Climate Skeptics Change Their Minds?

[Cloudster]

You should watch this documentary : http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/

It will put what you just said into perspective.

Will definitely do that, thanks for the link Wiz

 

[Arthur]

No it's the James Inhofe (a known denier) blog on the senate site.



It's NOT a controversial issue in scientific circles. The "controversy" has been generated by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Just like it happened with the "cigarettes cause cancer 'controversy'" .

And what vested interest do I have, in your opinion?

 

[BCO]

And what vested interest do I have, in your opinion?

Those creating the "controversy" are the ones with the greatest vested interest. Those who choose to believe the "controversy" probably also have a vested interest in maintaining what they preceive to be the best way of life: individual liberties, low taxation etc.

 

[STS]

Well, we know for sure that temperatures are getting higher and weather is getting more extreme. Whether it's directly caused by us or not is - yes - still up for debate, but it is happening. Greener technologies help prevent us from adding extra fuel to the fire, as it were. Yeah it costs more money that dirty technology but it's cleaner, safer, and less likely to worsen the current global warming blah blah blah situation.

Sorry dude, but your argument is basically: We shouldn't extinguish this fire until we can find the culprit and make him pay for the fire engine first.

I'm extremely skeptical of climate change. of course we influence the environment, but i just don't believe it's on the scale that many global warmists expect or suggest. of course we can poison and damage the environment, and of course corporations bully us and abuse the planet, but i disagree with a lot of the arguments of global warming, and while i may be a sissy conservative, i'm not an idiot.

 

[w1z4rd]

I'm extremely skeptical of climate change. of course we influence the environment, but i just don't believe it's on the scale that many global warmists expect or suggest. of course we can poison and damage the environment, and of couse corporations bully us and abuse the planet, but i disagree with a lot of the arguments of global warming, and while i may be a sissy conservative, i'm not an idiot.

.... you may not be an idiot, but you clearly have not looked at the evidence. No sane human can look at the evidence and have your level of skepticism. Ive seen this over and over again. People claiming evolution is false and then giving us the dumbest version of evolution I have ever heard. If you read the science, and followed the evidence you would not be confused. The evidence is there, but like with people and evolution... no one is reading what the scientists are saying, but merely what the tabloids are being paid to say. Those same people will search for articles that support their world view (normally a lame blog or something), but ignore the mountain of authoritative evidence (like NASA and every single recognized scientific body). Its a strange human psychological phenomenon.

 

[STS]

.... you may not be an idiot, but you clearly have not looked at the evidence. No sane human can look at the evidence and have your level of skepticism. Ive seen this over and over again. People claiming evolution is false and then giving us the dumbest version of evolution I have ever heard. If you read the science, and followed the evidence you would not be confused.

maybe i'm biased because the same people showing me the videos are the people showing me the documentaries that money is being used to control us and that aliens are visiting our planet. i'm naturally skeptical when something is presented. i do follow science and i'm very fond of it, i'm also a huge supporter of evolution, but for me i just don't see the real impact of global warming. it's like it's extremely exaggerated to me

 

[BCO]

maybe i'm biased because the same people showing me the videos are the people showing me the documentaries that money is being used to control us and that aliens are visiting our planet. i'm naturally skeptical when something is presented. i do follow science and i'm very fond of it, i'm also a huge supporter of evolution, but for me i just don't see the real impact of global warming. it's like it's extremely exaggerated to me

If you're interested in the actual science, by the scientists themselves go here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

And get data here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

 

[w1z4rd]

maybe i'm biased because the same people showing me the videos are the people showing me the documentaries that money is being used to control us and that aliens are visiting our planet. i'm naturally skeptical when something is presented. i do follow science and i'm very fond of it, i'm also a huge supporter of evolution, but for me i just don't see the real impact of global warming. it's like it's extremely exaggerated to me

Well thats your opinion. Scientists and all the governments around the world have a different opinion. Also, there is a correlation between how smart people are about climate change and how much its effecting you. Like for instance island countries that are losing their land to climate change... their citizens know way more than a country less effected by climate change.

 

[grayston]

maybe i'm biased because the same people showing me the videos are the people showing me the documentaries that money is being used to control us and that aliens are visiting our planet. i'm naturally skeptical when something is presented.

...except when it's presented by Shell...

 

[ozoned]

It's getting hotter in Pretoria

No wait, it's getting colder in Pretoria

Select GISS data clean and rinse:

Ah, thats better, yes it's getting hotter in Pretoria

 

[Arthur]

Well thats your opinion. Scientists and all the governments around the world have a different opinion. Also, there is a correlation between how smart people are about climate change and how much its effecting you. Like for instance island countries that are losing their land to climate change... their citizens know way more than a country less effected by climate change.

Wizard, you need to distinguish between climate change denialists and those who deny any significant anthropogenic contribution. Your arguments draw no distinction and lump them all together, which is not true, accurate or even scientific. In fact, failure to make the distinction is either just ignorance of basic reason and logic, or juvenile argument, or even downright deceitful. Quoting another link to prove that climate change is real does not advance your case one iota.

It's the proffered causes of climate change that are under discussion, ie whether it's natural or anthropogenic, or a combination, and if so, what are the proportions.

This is something so many warmists just can't get into their skulls. It's really not a difficult thing to understand if you actually think about for a femtosecond.

 

[grayston]

It's the proffered causes of climate change that are under discussion, ie whether it's natural or anthropogenic, or a combination, and if so, what are the proportions.

This is something so many warmists just can't get into their skulls. It's really not a difficult thing to understand if you actually think about for a femtosecond.

Oh, I think the "warmists" with their "warmism" understand completely that you want to talk about the causes. And that's absolutely fine. Maybe there's an eccentricity in the earth's orbit, or the atmosphere automatically changes its composition every few hundred thousand years, or maybe this is something that will just blow over without us doing anything at all.

Thing is, those are all terrible arguments for not switching to cleaner, safer and more efficient energy sources. So is "Clean, safe and efficient is just too expensive."

Cleaning up after ourselves costs money, dude.

 

[Arthur]

Oh, I think the "warmists" with their "warmism" understand completely that you want to talk about the causes. And that's absolutely fine. Maybe there's an eccentricity in the earth's orbit, or the atmosphere automatically changes its composition every few hundred thousand years, or maybe this is something that will just blow over without us doing anything at all.

Thing is, those are all terrible arguments for not switching to cleaner, safer and more efficient energy sources. So is "Clean, safe and efficient is just too expensive."

Cleaning up after ourselves costs money, dude.

With you putting the skeptics' arguments for them, what need is there to actually listen? Oh, and we can all cite loonies on both sides ... you want links to religious nuts who say climate change is punishment from the gods, or aliens?

You're also obviously quite oblivious of the clear and uncontroverted record of natural climate change. But then warmists don't care what causes the warming, as long as they can implement their solution, which is is always to blame humans, and so they love to tax, increase the State, push for more government, more control. So many warmists love to tell others how to live; they long to reengineer society - no different from religious fundamentalists who are forever trying to tell other people what to do and how to live. You love to say skeptics are immune to facts, but you fail to see your own ideologically-tinted selection of facts. And your sneers for others with different views to your own are unequalled even by religious fundamentalists.

 

[w1z4rd]

Wizard, you need to distinguish between climate change denialists and those who deny any significant anthropogenic contribution. Your arguments draw no distinction and lump them all together, which is not true, accurate or even scientific.

My comments are completely accurate, I was talking specifically about climate change. If you dont want to be called a climate change denialist, stop speaking like one. I also dont believe yet that you know how the scientific method works or whats deemed scientific.

Lets look at what wiki says:

"Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions."

In fact, failure to make the distinction is either just ignorance of basic reason and logic, or juvenile argument, or even downright deceitful.

Actually you started me on that direction by using the childish "warmists" comment. I assumed based on your own words you didnt even accept global warming let alone even getting to the causes. So I was taking this one step at a time to walk you through the reasoning slowly. I started on climate change, now I see that you are over the whole "warmist" concept I can take the next step. Sure you ready?

Quoting another link to prove that climate change is real does not advance your case one iota.

Of course it does, its evidence for climate change, which you seemed confused on. Now we can move onto the next step: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm (the explanation of the empirical evidence)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change (the scientific opinion) <==- its wiki!! but it has checkable references. Seriously click on the links... you will notice they link back to a lot of governmental agencies and authoritative sources. There are 128 to click on.

It's the proffered causes of climate change that are under discussion, ie whether it's natural or anthropogenic, or a combination, and if so, what are the proportions.

Okay, lets try this again for those who cant read wiki..... Can you show me one recognized international or national scientific body that does not accept anthropogenic climate change? Let me quote wiki twice in one article for you (and for the love of God, instead of just trying to rubbish Wikipedia.. if you dont like the data.. actually debate the data instead of inserting a random logical fallacy like you did the last time)

"Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

Now what part of that are you actually having trouble understanding? I mean sure.. there are some petroleum geologists that wont commit... but there are hundreds of other bodies (real ones, not your blog ones) to choose from.

This is something so many warmists just can't get into their skulls. It's really not a difficult thing to understand if you actually think about for a femtosecond.

Yeah... again with the silly "warmist". And you wonder why people try teach you about the concept of climate change first instead of dashing straight to its causes.

Now if you have finally accepted the world is warming... lets take the next big step and talk on its cause... which is CO2.... do you deny the world is warming and that its being caused mostly by CO2?

We know the world is warming, we know CO2 is increasing, we know CO2 is causing the warming, we know we are making the CO2, we know if this continues as is... it will probably destroy the planet (extreme weather conditions, sea level rising, etc). What we dont know accurately is how long this will take, what will be all the consequences of the warming or how to stop it.

 

[WilD_CaT]

I'm not worried about climate change anymore. Not after I learned about the coming resource depletion. THAT'S scary ****.

And its a myth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y

http://mises.org/daily/3886
Sustainability: An Assault on Economics
Mises Daily: Friday, December 04, 2009 by Tyler A. Watts
Tyler Watts is a PhD candidate in economics at George Mason University.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Don't Believe the Hype (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)

Books:
The Hockey Stick Illusion: Global Warming and the Corruption of Science (A.W. Montford, 2009)
Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know (2009) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology)

Resources:
800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (868 pgs) (NIPCC)
Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? (PDF) (The Heartland Institute)

Videos:
Give Me a Break: Global Warming (Video) (8min) (ABC News)
Global Warming is not a crisis (Video) (8min) (Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography)

Prominent Skeptics:

John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present), Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (2002-Present), IPCC Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007), IPCC Lead Author (2001)

Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, S.M. Biology, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007), Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988), Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present), IPCC Contributing Author and Reviewer

Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics (Harvard), S.M. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967), Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972), Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983), Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983), Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (1983-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, IPCC Lead Author (2001)

Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Meteorology, Research Scientist, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984), Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA (1984-2001), NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

S. Fred Singer, A.M. Physics (Princeton), Ph.D. Physics (Princeton), First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964), First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967), Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970), Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971), Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994), Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University (1994-2000)

Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics, M.S. Soil Science, Ph.D. Soil Science, Research Scientist, U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service (1967-2001), Editorial Board, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1973-1993), Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977), Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2003), Editorial Board, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present), President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)

 

[WilD_CaT]

Viception: “The best argument for countering climate change is to stop cataclysmic effects on humanity, but the chances of cataclysmic effects are small. Some people believe taking those chances is too risky. To significantly affect global warming would require fossil fuel reduction resulting in higher energy costs. Alternative energies like wind and solar would not exist without government aid. Those higher energy prices would harm people, especially poor people. Some poor people burn biomass for cooking and warmth because they cannot afford electricity. That biomass incineration causes indoor air pollution which kills more people than global warming. To raise energy prices will ensure poverty. More people die from contaminated water, indoor air pollution, malaria, and malnutrition than from global warming. There is no contaminated drinking water, indoor air pollution, malaria, or malnutrition in this city because it is wealthy, allowing it to afford better water quality, cleaner energy, better healthcare, and nutritious food. Climate change should be monitored and countered if the benefits outweigh the costs. If you believe climate change is a future catastrophe, then you probably believe dihydrogen monoxide is a current problem. Dihydrogen monoxide is a colorless, odorless chemical that kills thousands of people each year. It is in the food supply, has been found in the air, has been used as part of chemical warfare, and can kill you if you inhale it. People have been asked to sign petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Most people sign the petition. Later they learned they agreed to ban water, chemically known as dihydrogen monoxide. Dihydrogen monoxide can have bad and good effects on human welfare. Likewise, climate change can have bad and good effects on human welfare. Before considering banning water or countering climate change, the full effects of the proposal should be considered.”

 

[WilD_CaT]

Freeman Dyson, Scholar, Winchester College (1936-1941), B.A. Mathematics, Cambridge University (1945), Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University (1946–1947), Commonwealth Fellow, Cornell University, (1947–1948), Commonwealth Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1948–1949), Research Fellow, University of Birmingham (1949–1951), Professor of Physics, Cornell University (1951-1953), Fellow, Royal Society (1952), Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1953-1994), Chairman, Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1964), Danny Heineman Prize, American Physical Society (1965), Lorentz Medal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1966), Visiting Professor, Yeshiva University (1967-1968), Hughes Medal, The Royal Society (1968), Max Planck Medal, German Physical Society (1969), J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize (1970), Visiting Professor, Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (1974-1975), Corresponding Member, Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1975), Harvey Prize (1977), Wolf Prize in Physics (1981), Andrew Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics (1988), Enrico Fermi Award, United States Department of Energy (1993), Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1994-Present), Member, London Mathematical Society (2000), Member, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003), President, Space Studies Institute (2003-Present)

Notable: Unification of Quantum Electrodynamics Theory.

"My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models." - Freeman Dyson

 

[WilD_CaT]

Both links below are about scientists in agreement with AGW, saying it is very real, yet also acknowledging it is way overblown in mainstream thought.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/?postversion=2009051412

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html

 

[WilD_CaT]

All I am saying is stop, get ALL the people with financial motives out of the debate, then lets listen to who are left and come up with a proper solution. What you are proposing is entirely different.