Why do skeptics think a few scientists (who disagree with each other) and blogs more believeable than.....?

Question

Why do skeptics think a few scientists (who disagree with each other) and blogs more believeable than.....?

Answer 1

Backed by a mountain of data, and yet you keep posting links to the same sites.



There is much more substantial evidence to prove evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanics. Global warming has a few data charts that show no real significant warming over 147 years of data keeping (with the majority of the data keeping being very inefficient). At what point did they develop the "global mean temperature"? When did they decide that the average global temperature was 54 degrees (not sure of the EXACT temperature tehy claim is the global average)? The whole science of global warming is based on data manipulation. That is why there are so many skeptics out there (even though you make claims that there are very few, the truth is coming out).



This is a money making scheme. NAS, NAOO, etc all get funding if they agree with this scam.

Answer 2

Skeptics always promote scientific advancement. Consensus leads to stagnation.



Answer this question and you will understand why I am a skeptic. I do not need a scientist or a consensus to be able to determine that which is actually happening and that which is a theory needing constant revision in order to make the facts fit the theory.

1. Why, if Carbon dioxide is constantly going up, hasn't the temperature been going up as well? (1998 was the warmest year of the past century, ten years ago, it hasn't been any warmer since.)



Bob, you ask:

"What makes the "skeptics" believable, other than your political beliefs? Do you also question evolution, relativity and quantum mechanics? You have no direct evidence of those either, only what the scientific community tells you. Why do you believe scientists about those, but not about global warming?"



I'll tell you the answer, it is actually rather simple. You see those scientific feilds of endeavor search for facts or truths. They take these truths and they try to formulate theories that help explain there place in nature and how they effect everything around them. The theories are created in response to the discoveries. The scientists in those feilds of study will be the first to tell you that there is more that they do not know then what they know. It is a feild of constant evolution in which theories are proven wrong all the time. The theories are re-formulated to fit the facts as they are presented. Then the theories are put to the test again as counter theories are presented. The opposing theories are not quashed or the scientists who support the opposing theories, ostracized. They are embraced as the part of the process of scientific advancement.



Now take Global Warming or as it has evolved into "climate change". (which is funny because everyone agrees that the climate constantly changes as a part of nature, all except the AGW proponents). AGW does not follow the path of healthy scientific progress. The AGW lobby takes facts and makes them fit their theory, or better yet they take facts and make them disappear as if they never existed. They have literally rewritten climate history to make their theories appear correct.

Example: The MWP was the universally-accepted climate history for hundreds of years before climate became a political issue, and then, long after climate had become a political issue, the MWP, which didn't fit the AGW story about "unprecedented" and therefore "dangerous" 20th century warming, was written out of the climate history in a matter of about six months. Doesn't that seem "fishy" to you?

The facts didn't dictate otherwise, the MWP just didn't fit into their agenda.

I do use terms like agenda and lobby, because the characteristics of the entire AGW movement are completely political.

When political agendas dominate science, when science is not open-ended, when it is not just an open-minded search for the truth or at least a number of competing teams trying to prove or disprove competing theories to a variety of questions, how can the scientific process not be skewed?



How many scientists are ostracized for submiting opposing theories? It's easy to see the AGW movement for what it is, just look at the actions of the people involved.



Last question: Do climate scientists know how the earth's climate system as a whole works? Could they tell us accurately what the weather is going to be like 10 years from now? They couldn't do it ten years ago. What makes you think they can now?



It's a good thing Columbus and the other explorers didn't listen to the "consensus" that the world was flat. Every major scientific organization was convinced the world was flat. How could it be that they were wrong? Could it be that they didn't have all the information, or that they didn't know enough about the world?

I rest upon the same observation. The scientist of today do not have enough information or knowledge about how the climate works for there not to be skeptics. The ranks of the skeptics are growing everyday, some of the original IPCC members are amoung them.

Answer 3

Conventional people are roused to fury by departure from convention, largely because they regard such departure as a criticism of themselves. It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents them from believing. What the majority of the deniers mean is "I don't believe it. Prove it to me and I still won't believe it."

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.

Answer 4

I'm curious why alarmists feel the need to recruit 'believers'. If it was so clear and obvious us "deniers'' wouldn't be able to refute it.

Answer 5

I believe it is a kind of grasp at any straw reaction in the face of something which causes inconvenience and may cost some money. People go into a defensive frame of mind and fail to look at things in a balanced way assessing properly the information and the trustworthiness and pedigree of the sources of information. To an extent It is rather like behaviour if one had a family member accused of a crime, one believes in evidence which supports preconceptions or just hope that it can't be true.

Answer 6

Bob - It's psychological and can be explained with the following link...

Answer 7

With me its always been the plausibility factor.I know that there are many processes that defy human understanding.I don't like the approach some proponents use,ie(scare tactics,unrelated facts etc..).I can read and I've visited most of the links you have listed and many more.Some simply state facts without the process,others will explain in great detail that there's a error margin...sometimes to a great extent.But I can live with that.I don't think drawing the cream and throwing away the milk is the best solution.Especially when your trying to convince someone that the facts are real.



In the defense of science...They have develop a new computer that will help modeling...New satellites that use radar to monitor the upper atmosphere,and clouds...real time seismic monitoring stations...and a few new theories about earthquakes...I was especially glad about the satellites and knew from the beginning the old ones couldn't have been accurate.



Edit: I'm going to agree with (Ken's) philosophy...basically on yahoo answers it's the same.You face no repercussions for having bad judgment or posting erroneous facts...I wish I could count the times I've had to correct a engineers numbers

because the real world wouldn't allow for it.

Answer 8

What makes alarmists constantly misrepresent consensus? Frankly, I am skeptical of claims from so called skeptics and those that pretend to know more than they do about climate. At least skeptics generally admit they don't know. I think most skeptics also realize that those that pretend to know, don't.

Answer 9

The problem is that climatologists don't agree with each other, have no significant proof humans are causing climate change, and, most importantly, don't use consistent data.



Little of the data for human based climate change is reliable because it is based on supposition. All the hard data is less than 500 years old. It is also a know fact that for the last 100,000 years or so, the climate has been unusually stale. To put that in perspective, imagine if someone took a look at what you did for the last 10 seconds and judged your whole life by that 10 seconds. What would they assume your life was like?



Scientists know that the world has been both hotter and colder than it is now. Much hotter and much colder. The climate changes and has been changing since the Earth first developed an atmosphere.



If one looks at the past billion years, one would see that we have been living in a VERY short period of stability. To say that the climate would not move out of this period is folly. Even the charts of the believers show this, which is why they only focus on the last couple of hundred years.



You mention evolution, yet forget that evolution has been driven, in part, by climate change. Without climate change, humans would not exist. Also, humans are the most adaptable species. We stand the best chance of surviving climate changes because we can adapt to the changing climate through the use of technology. That is why there are so many humans in so many climates now.



There is direct evidence for evolution, relativity, and quatum mechanics. There is no direct evidence for man made climate change and also no evidence that climate change is bad, let alone bad for everyone. Climate change might be bad for some people in some regions, but it may well turn out to be a boon for people in other regions, especially regions where the climate is at an extreme.



You are projecting your arrogance and fear of death onto the greater world then decrying that others do not do the same.

Answer 10

That's easy:



1) The truth of evolution and quantum mechanics doesn't require anyone to feel guilty or make any lifestyle changes. We see every day how many people around here mistakenly link together the science of global warming with their own fear of government repression or a socialist "plot".



2) We live in a society where the political extremes dominate the conversations. This causes a lot of mistrust. Thus, anyone from the right political camp will automatically doubt global warming because they probably first heard it mentioned by Al Gore (or some environmental extremist). Overcoming that kind of inherent bias and looking at the evidence with an open mind is contrary to human nature where we trust our own and fear outsiders.



3) Most people have no training whatsoever in advanced mathematics or science, and thus they can't understand what the charts and graphs clearly demonstrate. Because they can't understand it (especially the finer points) they'll often dismiss it all with a wave of the hand and assert scientists don't know anything.



What's disappointing is that most of the people who put down your links, have probably never taken even a few hours to try and understand what's there (climate is a complex field that we've been greatly refining our knowledge about for over 30 years). They'd apparently rather think they know something, than go through the hard work of actually learning it.

Answer 11

One must first understand the capability of the UN to be corrupt and/or corrupting.



Also that the IPCC is part of the UN - and that "the consensus" is primarily manufactured by the IPCC. (Note only a few carefully selected scientists actually write the Reports and Summaries that are not subject to any form of peer review beyond the final discretion of the original authors.)



That the FCCC (which underlies Kyoto) is part of the UN.



That the IPCC and FCCC use radically different definitions of "climate change" - with the later *only* recognising anthropogenic causes - but in general discourse no distinction is acknowledged.



That all governments appear to be honour bound to accept the findings of the IPCC.



That scientists are not immune to corruption.



Progress in science relies heavily on research grants.



A very significant proportion of funding for research in climate science and related fields is provided by governments.



And that:

"Dissent is the native activity of the scientist..."

Jacob Bronowski



Also, there's a tendency among people to believe that humans have caused all the problems in the world - which has been latched on to by Green advocacy groups, who have been given an extremely "easy ride" (at least recently) by mainstream media around the world, who also, for the most part, choose not to delve too deeply into what goes on within the IPCC.



Many scientists (and many of the scientifically-educated among us) remain sceptical of a theory that has no multi-decadal predictive capability and is at best only part of a much more complex picture.



If anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a small component of changes in global climate, and also if other human impacts are more critical, we'd be better to focus our resources on further research in elucidating a fuller picture of our impacts and developing less emissive technologies, whilst addressing the current and ongoing need for improved defences and practices to protect human habitats, etc. from freak weather events, etc..



Our ability to predictably control climates is very limited.

Answer 12

Charts dont mean much Bob, especially when there are charts that show this same warming now and then. Also, there are a lot of charts out there that show that it has been warmer than this before, and for much longer periods of time.



And second, havent you seen any published books on the topic? There are quite a few and they often site the same sources as the IPCC used, except they interpret the info different instead of just jumping to conclusions that carbon dioxide and temp move together, therefore, carbon is making it warm. How do you know the warm isnt producing the co2? There is evidence that that is actually what happens.



Also, the books that I have read used peer reviewed articles/journals, and they showed that this has happened before. therefore I am not worried about a warming.



People stay true to their global warming beliefs like they stay true to their religious beliefs. Meaning everything that you post on here will not change our minds. Stop using electricity in a wasteful manner.



We've only been keeping records for 150 years. That is NOT a long enough time period to conclude that it is warming, and caused by us. The only info we have for years before that are historical writings, and paintings. Before that, we only have ice core's and a couple other proxies. But those proxies only tell us what it was like in that particular spot. I dont believe they can determine past atmospheric conditions with the accuracy they claim. You cant be 100% sure unless you are really there.



And I keep seeing the co2 measurements are taken at the Muana Loa volcano in hawaii. Hey, thats a volcano, it is constantly seeping co2. How can they take co2 measurements there?

Answer 13

I believe it is simply because most of the skeptics are arrogant fools. Yes I CAN say that. Most of them have no problem calling us "Alarmists, Greens, Gullible", etc.



Sorry, just getting sick of people trying to make us look foolish for believing credible scientists, who actually know what they are talking about (unlike the arrogant fools). Here come the thumbs down.



People will read stuff written by 'talk show hosts' or old school weather guys that lean to the contrary and believe them when they say it's a hoax. If only it were that simple. One way or another, if you don't KNOW that it is real or not real you shouldn't rule out the possibility of either.



What if we ARE contributing to it? What if it isn't to late?

But I suppose this is the same old rant you hear from all the "Activists". Wake up!!

Answer 14

I know that I did not believe in gravity, was the only one it seemed like-then out comes the 9 functions that make up attraction and repulsion. Understanding magnetics was what made me disbelieve. GW is not the same. this system is cooling and heating and moving and.... The models are having to be made up of the evidence we have and that is very little. Heating causes CO2 to increase. What happens if CO2 increases? We do not know. our only examples are volcano that went off one after another and caused an ice age-a nuk winter, followed by greenhouse heating. But that took some 300,000 years. Never-the-less, Today here is what we know: many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more destruction. Blacktop (roads and parking lots), buildings, air pollution (causes lung and other diseases), deforestation, duststorms (which increase hurricanes and cyclones and cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's), solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels) are human problems we need to fix to keep life on earth sustainable! The federal government needs to adopt a pollution surcharge to balance the field and advance new technologies. We must pay the real price of oil (petrochemicals) including global warming, cleanup and for health effects. But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with little evidence! The result is: change is on the way, we just do not know what changes. But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and they form clouds cooling earth but causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). But humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain forest, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms. The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and has not even started).

President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected.

That is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface.

Answer 15

If it wasn't for global warming Chicago would still be under a mile of ice. Unfortunately Cro Magnon people learned how to make fire and the smoke from their campsites melted the glaciers.