The arguments made by climate change sceptics

[w1z4rd]

At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, 192 governments are aiming for a new global agreement to constrain greenhouse gas emissions and curb human-induced climate change.
But some commentators are unconvinced that rising greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of modern-day warming. Or they say the world is not actually getting warmer - or that a new treaty would hurt economic growth and well-being.
So what are their arguments, and how are they countered by scientists who assert that greenhouse gases, produced by human activity, are the cause of modern-day climate change?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm

You will see a lot of these fallacious arguments are used by our local troggs here or you yourself might be mistakenly using one of these arguments as you fell for one of their barks. This is a good Q & A of common arguments that are wrong that are used against climate change.

 

[Bismuth]

Trogg?

Well, that's rather mature, especially coming from a long-time member of MyBB.

B

 

[w1z4rd]

Trogg?

Well, that's rather mature, especially coming from a long-time member of MyBB.

B

Fixed for you. I have no respect for climate change skeptics but if you feel so offended by the usage of the word I wont use it.

 

[Pitbull]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm

You will see a lot of these fallacious arguments are used by our local "climate change skeptics" here or you yourself might be mistakenly using one of these arguments as you fell for a bad argument. This is a good Q & A of common arguments that are wrong that are used against climate change.

Ditto,

We have no respect for the gullible I thought you had a very well balanced mind when it comes to matters but we are all wrong sometimes

 

[MacNutter]

Well since wizard is supporting a position of 95% of the worlds scientists I guess the most intelligent people in the world must all be as gullible as him. I guess I must be gullible as I believe him and the scientists. Sifting through the mountains of evidence presented I can not see how a reasonable human could not be convinced. You must be one amazing South African Pitbull to know more than the combined intelligence of the worlds top scientific bodies.

 

[Pitbull]

Well since wizard is supporting a position of 95% of the worlds scientists I guess the most intelligent people in the world must all be as gullible as him. I guess I must be gullible as I believe him and the scientists. Sifting through the mountains of evidence presented I can not see how a reasonable human could not be convinced. You must be one amazing South African Pitbull to know more than the combined intelligence of the worlds top scientific bodies.

Even after they have been given proof that it's a cycle the earth moves through? Are you aslo blinded to the fact that earth has been ALLOT warmer and ALLOT colder even without humans pushing CO2 in the the air?

But hey, what ever rocks your boat.

 

[MacNutter]

I know at one stage the earths surface was thousands of degrees hot. That is not really a point. Do you not think the tens of thousands of scientists, the smartest minds in the industry have not considered every argument? I am blinded by proof. Mountains and mountains and mountains of proof. Its smiley to think that you are smarter than those tens of thousands of scientists

 

[Pitbull]

I know at one stage the earths surface was thousands of degrees hot. That is not really a point. Do you not think the tens of thousands of scientists, the smartest minds in the industry have not considered every argument? I am blinded by proof. Mountains and mountains and mountains of proof. Its smiley to think that you are smarter than those tens of thousands of scientists

On that point.

Can you maybe source your claim for 95% of scientists in the field buying into this?

 

[Pitbull]

Btw, I can prove 32 000 scientists who don't.

So if you can prove the opposite to me, then we'll start talking from there

 

[MacNutter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[83]
STATS, 2007
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[84][85]

Scientific consensus

A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[25]
US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[77]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[78]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[79]
American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[80]
Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.” [21]
International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[81]
Australian Coral Reef Society, 2006: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases.... There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming...."[82]

The statistics are pretty clear, the amount of international organizations each working interdependently are clear. These are the smartest people in the industry from over 100 different countries. We are talking about hundreds of countries, ministries and presidents of those countries who normally have conflicting interests all agree with the proof. You do not think that if this data was false China and Russia would tell America that its false? Could you provide a list of reputable scientific organizations that do not agree as there are a plethora of reputable organizations from basically every country with a reputable climate science organization that does agree. One thing I have noticed while reading about the 'scientists' and lobby groups that deny climate is they are the same groups that used to deny that smoking led to cancer.

 

[Pitbull]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change



The statistics are pretty clear, the amount of international organizations each working interdependently are clear. These are the smartest people in the industry from over 100 different countries. We are talking about hundreds of countries, ministries and presidents of those countries who normally have conflicting interests all agree with the proof. You do not think that if this data was false China and Russia would tell America that its false? Could you provide a list of reputable scientific organizations that do not agree as there are a plethora of reputable organizations from basically every country with a reputable climate science organization that does agree. One thing I have noticed while reading about the 'scientists' and lobby groups that deny climate is they are the same groups that used to deny that smoking led to cancer.

76/77 scientists?

Here is a petition done by scientists who dispute that the majority supports Global warming:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

And they are all taking Al Gore to court. That for making the same claim you just did

http://current.com/items/91532499_a...0-000-scientists-for-global-warming-fraud.htm

 

[MacNutter]

More information for Pitbull.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/only-0-45-of-physicists-sign-denier-petition/

Despite seven months of intense effort to recruit physicists to sign a politically motivated petition disputing anthropogenic climate change, a mere, 0.45% of the American Physical Society’s 47,000 members signed on.

It’s a humiliating defeat for the climate change Deniers who make such false claims as ”many scientists dispute’ and ‘there is no consensus. The Petition drive was announced in the prestigous journal Nature, APS publications, numerous popular and electronic media, as well as heavily promoted by the petition organizers. Despite all of that effort and publicity, a mere 0.45% was all that they could manage.

It seems your list of 32000 scientists was mostly fakers.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060823...articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21

SKEPTICISM ABOUT SKEPTICS

Many conservatives regard the "scientific consensus" about global warming as a media concoction. After all, didn't 17,100 skeptical scientists sign a petition circulated in 1998 by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? (See www.oism.org/pproject and www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html on the World Wide Web.)

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers‐a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

Seems your numbers and organizations are severely lacking there Pitbull. People try to take McDonalds to court for making them fat, thats not a point and they will lose. The overwhelming majority still agree with the science of climate change and all you are able to offer is a small list of mostly false names. This is very similar to when creationist took biologists to court for evolution, it is the same thing happening all over again.

 

[Naks]

Well since wizard is supporting a position of 95% of the worlds scientists I guess the most intelligent people in the world must all be as gullible as him. I guess I must be gullible as I believe him and the scientists. ....

Ah, but how many of that 95% believe in God? The sample does not say, does it?

One should be careful to believe anything a scientist has to say when they also say they are theists

 

[Nerfherder]

Those 32 000 sound like the same guys that dispute evolution.

 

[BCO]

On that point.

Can you maybe source your claim for 95% of scientists in the field buying into this?

Jesus man, I have shown you this before. REPEATEDLY. You just ignore what people post and carry on repeating yourself.

For the 982343435th time, start with Oreskes 2004

 

[BCO]

Btw, I can prove 32 000 scientists who don't.

So if you can prove the opposite to me, then we'll start talking from there

Again, your 32000 "scientists" list is spurious, as we have discussed before. It's 32000 Americans with "degrees in science" more than 2/3 of which don't even have PhDs in any field, and almost none of which have EVER published a single paper on climate science. Their OPINIONS do not weigh up against the work of thousands of climate scientists who endorse AGW.

 

[Pitbull]

Again, your 32000 "scientists" list is spurious, as we have discussed before. It's 32000 Americans with "degrees in science" more than 2/3 of which don't even have PhDs in any field, and almost none of which have NEVER published a single paper on climate science. Their OPINIONS do not weigh up against the work of thousands of climate scientists who endorse AGW.

You can call it what you like.

I doubt they would sue if their intergrity was in question

 

[Pitbull]

Jesus man, I have shown you this before. REPEATEDLY. You just ignore what people post and carry on repeating yourself.

For the 982343435th time, start with Oreskes 2004

BCO, back it up. You are saying 95% of all scientist support Global warming. After repeatedly asking for you guys to back it up no one can prove it

 

[MacNutter]

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/the-oregon-petition/

This fraud is the source of the climate change Denier myth that (variously) 17,000, 30,000, 60,000 etc “scientists have signed a petition saying climate change is not real etc.

The Oregon Petition is a project by Arthur B. Robinson head of the tiny, industry funded so-called Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. It is an updated version of his notoriously fraudulent earlier attempts , the most recent being the 1998 Oregon Petition.

It’s even been debunked at the Skeptics Society (the irony) “Misleading by Petition Just What is the Consensus on Global Warming? For a thorough debunking of the alleged science accompanying the Petition

Most of the names (of those that are legitimate, which aren’t many) are from over a decade ago, in some cases almost twice that age – like there’s been no updates in the science recently?

Quote from National Academy of Sciences

“The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that:

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.” Source

Some of the alleged signatories are actually dead.

Of tobacco apologist Frederick Seitz see (enough said)

Oh yeah, here’s another example of Denier math (19=500) when counting “skeptics”

And on and on; it’s a joke. A sad pathetic joke that is a waste of everyone’s time.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[BCO]

Enjoy living in your dreamland dude. w1z4rd is correct, you have made up your mind on what you want to believe and no amount of facts are going to sway you. It's pointless even trying to talk to you about this.