Global warming skeptics - What's your answer to this? (repost)?
(Fixed URL from last post.)
This time around, skeptics, please look up your arguments at the above link and then tell me what your response is. This resource is very wide-ranging and has counter-points to nearly all of your arguments.
Answer:
For Mc.
The original "hockey stick" was subject to some relatively minor statistical criticisms. An extensive analysis of it by the National Academy of Science said the criticisms were valid, but that the basic shape of the hockey stick was correct. Since then it's been validated many times, by many different methods. Here's a nice graph of ten of them, with detailed references. The "Little Ice Age"and the Medieval Warm Period are clearly shown. Note that it stops in 2004. Extending it to 2006 would make it even more dramatic.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/ima...
There have been natural climate changes before. But the peer reviewed data overwhelmingly shows this one is not natural.
"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”
Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command
Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly, short and long.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/ima...
http://www.ipcc.ch/spm2feb07.pdf...
The data is why:
"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics. Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."
Jerry Mahlman, NOAA
Global cooling never batted in the same league. It was a theory of a relatively few people, with little data and no backing from any major scientific organization.
OTOH, global warming has a ton of data, the vast majority of scientists, and virtually every major scientific organization behind it.
Being a global warming skeptic now is like believing the Earth is 6000 years old. You have to ignore a whole lot of science to do it.
Thank you, Bill_nrwd, for making this topic.
:)
I have spent the last half hour reading from the link. While I do believe that humans add to the effect, it's of almost no significance. Almost every one of their counterpoints is an opinion and a narrow focus on handpicking chunks of data that support what they believe.But I will continue to have a open mind to all forms of alternative energy but no Chicken Little from me.
I have been to that site before and many others like it. I will admit it makes good points about certain objections that people have. However all my objections have not been answered. I have been to many sites like that and I always check the question on scientific consensus first. Every global warming apologist site includes a question on scientific consensus.
That site like every other site like it says that there is a scientific consensus on the issue.
"But what certainty there is about the basic issue is close enough to 100 percent that for all practical purposes it should be taken as 100 percent." That's the exact quote from the site. This however is a blatant lie, anyone who knows anything about global warming knows it is the subject of active scientific debate. Recent studies have shown that only 17% of the members of the US meteorological association think humans are causing climate change, a new report by the Senate says dozens of prominent scientists who used to support man made global warming now do not. The issue of global warming is not settled and there is no consensus on the issue, if anything there is more consensus against man made global warming.
There are many other arguments that are not unproven by the site. Take glaciers for example the site says the objection is that glaciers always expand and recede yet it never gives any evidence to suggest that the current recession is not normal.
It also defends the computer models which have not been right. Models made years ago to predict how hot the earth would be today are completly wrong, yet we trust them to be right the next time?
It also downplays global cooling making it sound like just a crazy idea held by a few scientists, this is not true.
They say that the sun has not heated up yet numerous studies have shown it has.
However my biggest problem with the site is the hockey stick graph, this graph is a proven forgery yet appears on almost every section of the site. This graph deliberately downplays the medieval warm period and the little ice age to make it appear that the current warming is unusual.
I have so many objections with that site I can not list them all, they ignore recent science picking only studies that support their ideas, show the forged hockey stick graph, and mention scientific consensus on every other link as proof. The fact is that there are sites like this for people who believe in global warming also (check my previous answers).
idk
The only people who do not believe humans are directly responsible for global warming are asinine idiots you wouldn't want to socialize or live with anyway. No matter how you explain it to them they remain in complete denial. Even if you treat them like a child and say, Okay, little Johnny, when gasoline and oil are burned they make dark smoke in the air. That dark smoke is hot and we know from first grade that heat rises. Okay class, all together: Heat Rises. Now, Johnny, that heat filled with dark smoke goes up in the sky as far as it can and it then makes a ceiling, much like the one in this classroom except the ceiling at the top of the sky is black and greasy, and the one in this room is clean and white. Now, Johnny, when a whole lot of black dirty smoke and oil rise to the ceiling in the sky, the ceiling becomes so thick that it makes like a tent. The tent keeps all the heat and oil and dirt inside of itself and it cannot rise any higher in the sky. Now the tent begins to stay hot all the time instead of warm sometimes and cool other times. It stays hot all the time because the air cannot rise as far up in the sky as it needs to anymore, since the dirty air right above the earth is stopping it. Surely you can understand that, little Johnny? The earth is like the tent. If we want a normal, clean tent we need to stop making so much dirty air.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: