What would it take to get you to believe the things on this list that you don't believe?

2012-05-31 13:11:35 UTC

2. The planet has not been warming unusually over the past ~ century, any warming we have seen is simply us coming out of the last ice age

Time travel. If we could go back in time, with thermometers or even satellite pictures showing glaciers shrinking over all of the last 6,000 years, rather than over the last 200 years.

4. The warming in 1. is entirely, or at least primarily, due to natural factors

A natural factor which could actually explain the warming

6. The warming in 1. is likely to, on average, be beneficial for humans and natural systems

One possibility would be to be put in suspended animation for 200 years while people continue to drive SUVs and have accidents in their pants

8. Present warming is historically unusual

As I stated in the your previous question, the historic record is the instrumental record, which has been warming as far back as the historic record goes. To convince me otherwise, show that the thermometer was invented centuries or millenia before we thought it was, and produce a record from ancient thermometers which shows a "hockey stick" shape.

10. AGW is a hoax, a conspiracy, or otherwise blatantly false

When people who make such claims present scientific evidence, rather than just making such claims.

11. AGW is going to make the planet unlivable, cause the extinction of the human race, utterly destroy civilization, or the like, at least if we don't take action at some point.

I do not believe that it will. Neither did WWII or the plague. Nevertheless, what would convince me that it would wipe out humanity would be if the relationship of CO2 and temperature were linear rather than logarithmic. At least such a scenario would make it possible for Earth's temperature to reach 100C with a pressure of less than 390barr. (5700psi)

12. The problems in 11. are likely to happen within the next 2-3 decades

The temperature response to CO2 would have to be exponential, rather than logarithmic or even linear.

13. The problems in 11. will only happen if AGW remains unchecked for the next century or so.

See my answer to 11.

14. AGW is real, but has stopped.

Heavy volcanic activity or a Maunder Minimum could cause temporary cooling, but such cooling would not convince me because the warming will resume when the aerosols peak or when solar activity reaches rock bottom. What could convince me would be if satellite data shows that the CO2 effect has reached saturation.

16. Taking action against AGW will invariably destroy the economy and/or send us back to pre-1900s tech.

Un-invent solar, wind and nuclear power. If that were to happen, our economy would be doomed when oil runs out, regardless of whether AGW is real or not

17. AGW is real, but trivial, most temperature variation is due to natural causes and there is not a significant anthropogenic long-term warming trend

See my answers to 4 and 5.

19. Ocean acidification is not real

If oceanic pH were stable or rising

20. Ocean acidification is, on average, harmless

If someone were to culture not-genetically engineered corals and shellfish in an acidic solution.

2016-07-06 21:17:09 UTC

1.The Iraq battle was justified. "Hmmm, uhh, hah -- ummm -- I, the reply is -- i haven't really proposal of it that method, heh, heh. Heh. This is how I believe of it. Ummm -- heh heh. First I've heard of that, incidentally, I, ah -- uhh -- the, uhh -- I, i suppose i'm more of a realistic fella. Uhh. I vowed after September the eleventh that i would do everything I could to protect the American people. And, uhh -- my perspective, of course, was once suffering from the assaults.Ha ha ...Ummm Let me see... I knew we were at a warfare. I knew that the enemy, without doubt, needed to be refined, and lethal, to fly hijacked airplanes, uhh, into -- services that would, we'd, killing thousands of individuals, harmless individuals, doin' nothing, simply sittin' there goin' to work."--President George W Bush, after being requested if the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are indicators of the apocalypse. "The implication that there was whatever flawed with the conflict plan is a laugh." --security Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, on criticism of his administration of the Iraq war. 2.Reagan was once a just right president... "information are stupid matters." -- Ronald Reagan, 1988, a misquote of John Adams, "info are cussed matters." "trees cause extra pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981 "Fascism was once quite the foundation for the brand new Deal." Ronald Reagan, 1976

virtualguy92107

2012-05-31 10:35:04 UTC

A comment for Jim Z

You consistently make reference to "the ocean" being a far larger CO2 sink than the atmosphere. That's true, but highly misleading.

"The ocean" has a mixed layer on top that freely interacts with the atmosphere so that CO2 partitions about evenly between this layer and the atmosphere. That layer is about 100 meters thick. The deep ocean, averaging about another 4000 meters, is almost entirely stably stratified and so can interact only slowly with the mixed layer - as in 1000's of times slower. As a CO2 sink it is a very minor player on human time scales.

FreakyDreamer123

2012-05-30 10:21:07 UTC

I haven't read the whole paragraph thing but if i don't believe in something there is nothing that will ever change my mind. Probably because i am very stubborn but i think if you don't believe in something why change that just because someone is telling you different. x

Fred

2012-05-30 04:45:04 UTC

1. The planet is warming, and has been for the past ~ century

Already believe because the earth has been warming since the last ice age.

2. The planet has not been warming unusually over the past ~ century, any warming we have seen is simply us coming out of the last ice age

I can agree with this too

3. The warming in 1. is primarily due to human influence, primarily human emissions of CO2 (and to a lesser extent methane and N2O)

To believe this then the temperature increase has to match the CO2 increase

But it doesn't

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SmoothedMonthlyCO2vsTemps.jpg

4. The warming in 1. is entirely, or at least primarily, due to natural factors

This makes more sense because it just matches history.

5. The warming in 1. is likely to, on average, be harmful for humans and natural systems

Well if history showed this to be true then I would believe. But history show the opposite to be true during the medieval warm period

6. The warming in 1. is likely to, on average, be beneficial for humans and natural systems

Again the history during the medieval warm period show that this is closer to the Truth

7. The planet has both warmed and cooled significantly in the past

The use of both written record and scientific evidence can be used to prove this

8. Present warming is historically unusual

Well to believe this you would have to rewrite history. Also that fact that there has been no warming for 15 years makes it hard to believe that the world is warming unusually fast.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49179

9. The planet is likely to continue to warm, probably at even faster rates if we do not take action to curb human greenhouse gas emissions

To believe this again you need to change history and science.

10. AGW is a hoax, a conspiracy, or otherwise blatantly false

Well there is real scientific information that shows that CO2 can make things warmer. But it is so insignificant that it doesn't matter. It's the doom and gloom predictions that are a hoax, conspiracy or blatantly false.

11. AGW is going to make the planet unlivable, cause the extinction of the human race, utterly destroy civilization, or the like, at least if we don't take action at some point.

Again you need to change history to make this believable. The planet has been warmer and the CO2 levels have been higher and the planet has done just fine. Remember that all the CO2 getting release into the air was once in the air on this planet. That fact that we are here proves that it didn't make the planet unlivable.

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/image002-3.gif

12. The problems in 11. are likely to happen within the next 2-3 decades

Nope

13. The problems in 11. will only happen if AGW remains unchecked for the next century or so.

Nope

14. AGW is real, but has stopped.

It's real but insignificant.

15. Taking action against AGW can be done in a way that does not cause economic collapse

To believe this you need to present some ideas that don't cost any money.

16. Taking action against AGW will invariably destroy the economy and/or send us back to pre-1900s tech.

Well this is what environmentalist want.

17. AGW is real, but trivial, most temperature variation is due to natural causes and there is not a significant anthropogenic long-term warming trend

If you look at all that data this is easy to see.

18. Ocean acidification is real and, on average, harmful

19. Ocean acidification is not real

20. Ocean acidification is, on average, harmless

Ottawa Mike

2012-05-29 08:39:57 UTC

I don't think this question is very easy to answer because frankly I don't know what it would take to change my mind on several of those issues. For example, I don't believe 10. but I do believe that AGW has been exaggerated. How much? I don't know. But really, there are a thousand areas in AGW and its effects so this has to be broken down. And I have changed my mind over the past on specific areas. Thus, this is hard to answer.

Although, to change my mind on 11-13 (i.e. start to believe those to be true) would probably take some very strong drugs.

JimZ

2012-05-29 09:05:45 UTC

I would say that ocean acidification is real but the consequences are likely to be greatly exaggerated. In order for me to change my mind on that, I would have to see some pretty convincing evidence that the CO2 that humans have emitted has actually increased the acidity significantly, that the increased acidity (still very basic) harmed corals and other sea life, and that increased CO2 resulted in reduced carbonate deposition.

Humans have emitted enough CO2 apparenlty to increase the concentration in the atmosphere by 150 ppmV of which possibly a 100 ppmV remained in the atmosphere. So figure approximately 50 ppmV entered the ocean. Since the ocean holds more than 50 times the carbon as does the atmosphere, simple math tells me that 400/50=8 and 50*8=400. This means that maybe humans have added 1/ 400 th of the carbon in the ocean. As a geologist, I have learned that carbon is constantly precipitating from the ocean in various ways. It seems to me that alarmists have a pretty high hurdle to prove that our emissions are a serious threat.

The Vampire Muffin Man

2012-05-29 13:58:10 UTC

1. Nothing. Maybe if this was The Matrix and this world wasn't the real world... There is just far too much evidence supporting it.

2. You'd have to prove that the LIA was caused by an addition of cold that has since been dissipating.

3. You would have to provide strong evidence that the greenhouse effect is too weak to keep the Earth warmer than without greenhouse gases or provide evidence that normally, the earth could easily sequester over 30 billion tonnes of extra CO2, but some natural phenomenon is preventing this. The latter of course would still be cause for us to do something about our GHG emissions...

4. Same as 3.

5. No matter what, warming at this rate is going to be very harmful. You'd have to 'prove' that the several past climate-related extinction events were in fact caused by something completely unrelated.

6. Same as 5.

7. Same as 1.

8. This one wouldn't take much... We don't know everything about past climate events. From what we do know, it's very unusual if not unprecedented, but obviously new research could overturn that assessment.

9. Same as 3.

10. You would have to expose me and my Illuminati cohorts...but I'm far too clever to be caught out. But seriously, you would have to expose most of modern science as a fraud as well.

11. I'm on the fence with this one, though I think that it's highly unlikely. Civilization may be very fragile at this point, but humans aren't and if there is a way to survive, I believe that some would no matter the cause of the catastrophic event.

12. Hmm... It's possible, but I don't think very likely at all. I think that it would have to happen for me to change my mind. lol

13. That's pretty much what I think, so to change my mind, I guess same as 5?

14. At the very soonest, 10 years from now would be the soonest I could be convinced and maybe as many as 20 years. If that happened, I'd be very interested and concerned about what caused the warming to stop...

15. I accept that it can be done and really I don't see any way that can be proven wrong. If it doesn't seem possible, then you just aren't trying hard enough to think of a way.

16. Severe head trauma followed years of intensive pharmaceutical-enhanced brainwashing?

17. That is a skeptic position that I can respect, as it's a real possibility, but not very likely according to current science. It wouldn't take a lot to make me accept that as it's pretty much the opinion I had when I came to Y!A. Well, I didn't think that it was trivial, but not a significant threat.

18. I'm still on the fence with ocean acidification. I'm not sure how serious it is or how much harm it can/has/will cause. Call me a skeptic..a real one though, as I *am* concerned about it but don't have enough knowledge of the subject to have a very strong opinion.

19. Same as 18.

20. Same as 18.

_

Hey Dook

2012-05-29 10:16:23 UTC

Your list is too long and ambiguous (again). Your own example is muddled because your answer there ("I, personally, would believe 14 if temperatures (and other indicators of warming) remained stable or dropped, on average, for at least 30 years") addresses what COULD get you to change your mind DECADES from now, not what would change your belief that AGW is real, but has stopped (NOW, in 2012).

Simplifying, but only slightly, all but 2 or 3 of the 20 points are readily identifiable as true or false by quick consultation of Wikipedia. Those 17 or 18 are really basic and as well established as biological evolution, continental drift, or the law of demand, and Wikipedia is reasonably reliable at that basic level. For Wikipedia to be wrong at that fundamental level would require something like mass decades-long delusion across the world's population, bizarre repeal of basic laws of physics, a titanic conspiracy monumentally huger than hardly anything ever even imagined in human history, or the existence of a second parallel universe that we have suddenly entered unknowingly and very recently. It would not suffice for Wikipedia alone to be somehow revealed as a complete hoax, because on those basic points it concurs with practically every serious, intellectually rigorous and honest study, analysis, textbook, academic finding of the past 10-20 years, in science, economics, history, or you name it.

?

2012-05-29 23:33:17 UTC

The truth.

jerry

2012-05-29 17:57:55 UTC

2.true

6. true

7.true

10.true

19.true

20. true

all rest false, but next time make the question a little shorter

16 is also true and to get me to change my mind on any of the rest is going to be next to impossible when we have fabrication, adjustments,computer models,and satellites that have at best 25mm resolution and yet they claim 3mm, complete garbage research equals complete garbage

Jeff M

2012-05-29 09:02:28 UTC

I agree with 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 15, 18

2. You would have to show me that the cause of the Little Ice Age is also the cause of the current warming. The cause of the Little Ice Age was mainly attributable to decreases in solar radiation, the Maunder Minimum, an increase in volcanic aerosols, such as the well known 'year without a summer' in 1815, and persistently negative oscillations such as the NAO and the ENSO. To show that the warming is due to continued recovery from the LIA you would have to show me that solar input is increasing which it isn't.

4. You would have to show me, with data, what natural factors are causing the current warming. You wouldn't be able to just state "It's recovery from the LIA" without providing any data that shows that the same natural thing that caused it is changing direction.

6. It matters what area of the world we are talking about, again, but I would mostly disagree with this statement. You would have to show me that the benefits associated with projected outcomes from such things as increase in specific crop types outweigh the effects of increased flooding and drought among many other things.

8. It is historically unusual when looking at records of actual temperature measurements.

10. I don't know how you could convince me of this. You could attempt to convince me that the warming effects due to CO2 are less than measurements show but again I don't really know how you would do that.

11. It may make the planet unlivable in 100s of years if temperatures continue increasing at the recent rate. But I don't see that happening. Humans are very adaptive and I don't see them not being able to adapt to increasing temperatures. Granted some of the poorer nations may face hard times but first world nations will adapt. I don't see how you could convince me that the human race is going to go extinct.

12. I have no idea how you could convince me of this. I'd probably ask you to see a shrink lol.

13. Not in the next century, no. You would have to show me that the current rate of warming would increase by 100s of times with a plausible explanation and even then I would have severe doubts.

14. We would have to wait a decade or so to see if temperatures continue to increase and, if they are not, find the reasoning behind it.

16. You would have to show me that politicians and governments are really that stupid to cause economic collapse instead of slowly moving to greener forms of energy production.

17. You would have to show me data of what natural cause it is.

19,20. You would have to show me that the chemistry behind ocean acidification is wrong

2012-05-29 14:11:01 UTC

It is 7 and 10 . The others are unproved theory .

Phoenix Quill

2012-05-29 13:54:27 UTC

Religion is about the effect of belief on the behavior of Believers, rather than Truth.

Glaciers could be rolling their way down the streets of New York & Warmons would still be touting Settled Science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc