What Makes Global Warming Skeptics Tick?
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 07.17.07
Debunking the arguments of global warming skeptics has become somewhat of a hobby for us here at TreeHugger. Even though the consensus around the issue of climate change has long passed the stage of critical mass, with an overwhelming majority of scientists now embracing the view that anthropogenic influences are contributing to trends in rising global temperatures and sea levels (amongst other things), there still remain a stubborn few who refuse to recognize the facts and accede to reality.
And while we could just as easily continue to expose the fallacy of their conjectures and evidence (and probably will to some extent), we thought it might be interesting to try to understand the methodology behind the madness. Luckily for us, Ian Enting, a professor at Australia's University of Melbourne, has gone ahead and done the work for us.
As he admitted as much during his interview with ABC's Robyn Williams, his main motivation for writing the book was his "frustration at the arguments" and his perception that "what was being presented as science, wasn't, it just lacked the basic characteristic of consistency." Ironically, he noted that the skeptics actually tended to disagree more with each other than with the scientists that actually believe in global warming:
"There is one group who say the warming of the Earth over the later part of the 20th century is due to the Sun, and other people who say it isn't happening, and you can't have it both ways. For me, the other revealing thing was the case in the US Supreme Court when you find out what these people will say in a forum where they could have been actually tested. Then they said the most likely warming over the 21st century is 1.8 degrees Celsius. That's the low end of the IPCC and it may happen if we're lucky. If we're unlucky it will be more like twice that. But when they were actually in a forum where they could be questioned, half a dozen of America's most prominent so-called sceptics said 1.8 degrees warming is the most likely amount of warming over the 21st century.Of course they said over the 21st century, which means you have to add it to the 0.5 - 0.7 we had over the 20th century. So we're already in the 2.5 degree range with those sort of numbers, so we're into what normally people would say is dangerous, but dangerous is a spectrum of things."
Responding to a question about the validity of the views expressed by author Michael Crichton in his book State of Fear (a work of fiction, mind you), he noted:
"There are three different stories there, actually quite difficult to disentangle because it is starting off about a legal case there for the counterarguments, it's just that he has one side's arguments being presented apparently convincingly and the other side seemingly massively incompetent. He then has this appendix that is also I think somewhat misleading. So just pulling apart the different voices and analysing what they say....
In a sense, the misrepresentations are there as part of the plot, it's just they're never quite exposed that way.
There are two specific things about [the graphs]. One is he plots them on different scales, so what I have in my manuscript is a replot with the same scale. And then he dropped the last three years off the end of the US record and those were increasing, and the two years beyond the time when the book was published have been increasing a bit more..."
His main criticism of the skeptics' work is that they always tend to focus on minutiae instead of the complete picture. As he explained, the climate system is "very complex" so "if you tend to look at isolated facts just one at time, then you can have a lot of explanations with it." He concluded by stating that any scientist considering the gathered evidence as a whole, instead of particular events or data points, would not find "anything in these arguments at all."
Image courtesy of New Scientist
Via ::ABC Radio National: Study of climate sceptics (radio program)
See also: ::Ronald Bailey: "No one paid me to be wrong about global warming"
I'm a skeptic of "man made global warming".
Too often the promoters of this theory come across as aggressive, lacking data, and are usually packing some sort of anti-American, anti-business, pro-tax, pro-UN, and pseudo-EU/Socialist agenda.
These promoters, who come off worse than right-wing bible thumpers, get behind Al Gore, probably one of the biggest dumbfreak hypocrites out there. I hated this douche back in the mid 1980s when he and his repressed wife were on the warpath about Madonna's lyrics. Now, 20 years later, they have Madonna with her 8 or 9 mansions headlining that global warming concert. You've really got to be a complete freaking moron to believe anything Al Gore says.
THE SUN provides heat in our universe. Without the Sun, we would be a frozen nothing. If temps are going up or down, my bet is on the power of The Sun.
With all that said, I am all for living below our means, not being wasteful, recycling, not causing pollution, being energy independent, bicycling, growing and eating local, and promoting clean sources of energy.
But sites like Treehugger lose me when they get all evangelical about global warming. It's still a theory, folks, and a bad one at that.
I love how "anti-american" has come to mean "doesn't agree with me".
And since when are are global warming acceptors the ones lacking data?
Algibson - you're right that the sun provides the heat/energy in our solar system (not universe) but it is the atmosphere that alows that heat to remain. Change that composition and the amount of heat "retained" is going to also change. Look at Venus for example. The atmosphere is ~96.5 CO2 and is ~twice the distance from the sun as Mercury, but it has ~twice the average temperature. Wouldn't you expect the temp of Venus to be ~1/2 the temp. of Mercury since it is ~twice the distance from the sun? The sun giving off heat/energy doen't provide the answer to that.
I think both sides generally lack data when trying to back up their beliefs. At least conclusive data. It is better to error on the side of caution though.
@algibson:
You may be correct, maybe the sun is the cause of global warming and the fact we have pumped billions of tons of ghg's into the atmosphere is irrelevant to the earths climate.
The main problem with your position as I see it is that *if* global warming is indeed caused or magnified by man's activities, the consequences of inaction will be severe.
The other issue I don't understand, is why oppose initiatives that would reduce ghg's? Sure, some industries might suffer, but other industries will benefit. So if say, the coal industry loses a billion dollars worth of market share but the photo voltaic industry picks up that billion dollars worth of market share, it's a zero sum game.
If anything, I'd rather see high tech renewable industries create high skill high paying jobs in the countries using said technologies than the collected wealth of the nations of the earth being concentrated into the hands of the mullahs of Iran etc.
It's be one thing if the environmentalists were advocating putting 50 trillion dollars into a huge pile and burning it as a solution to global warming. What is really being advocated is basically moving the trillions of dollars worth of industry now going to things like petroleum and coal and creating substitute industries. On the whole there will be winners and losers with everything equaling out.
algibson,
There are literally thousands of extremely brilliant (and probably some fairly average) scientists, technicians, and other trained professionals working on understanding the observed phenomenon of global warming. If you'd like to understand the conclusions that that enormous group of individuals are coming to, visit www.realclimate.com sometime. It's a blog written by scientists that addresses the issues rather than the junk debate that occurs in the media.
The best estimate of recently published scientific work is that the sun is having some impact on warming, but that it is very small compared to the greenhouse gas portion. That estimate is not one person's gut feeling, or even the consensus of a bunch of opinionated folks, it's accumulated from thousands of solid conclusions drawn direct investigation of the data.
If you don't want to believe in human-induced global warming, that's your imperative. But, know that the work of professionals who devote their entire careers to studying the issue does not support your conclusion. Those people would become very famous if they could somehow disprove the notion that people are causing global warming, but with each passing month, the mass of evidence that we are causing themajor part of observed warming just grows.
Your rejection of human-induced global warming is not, then, related to the science. The sun is not causing the bulk of the warming, no matter how strong your hunch is. Rejecting the conclusion of the life's work of a huge number of scientists just because you don't like Al Gore is not valid either.
Good for the rest of us that the number of people sticking their heads in their--I mean in the sand--is shrinking. So, count yourself among a special minority that just grows more special all of the time!
jiltedcitizen,
There is no longer any credible scientific skepticism about human-induced global warming. The few arguments that you still here against it: tropospheric cooling, the urban heat island effect, etc. have all been shown to be invalid. Popular anti-science material will catch up soon enough. The few skeptical scientists, like Bjorn Lomberg are heavily financed by energy companies and various umbrella groups with material interest in maintaining business as usual.
The bottom line: the facts are in. We ARE causing global warming.
What remains is well-voiced by President Bush: the earth is warming, but what can we possibly do to fix it without crippling our economy? At least that's something we can debate.
Can you say interglacial?
"His main criticism of the skeptics' work is that they always tend to focus on minutiae instead of the complete picture."
I find this all the time when arguing against GW skeptics on various forums. My favorite was when arguing with someone about the CO2 the oceans absorb. He pointed me to one article that said one specific ocean was emitting CO2, and concluded that the oceans as a whole were CO2 emitters and not sinks. That was his whole proof and then he stuck his fingers in his hears (figuratively). While true that the oceans on the equator emit CO2, that same article talked about how the oceans away from the equator absorb CO2, and absorb more of it than the rest of the oceans emit. Overall, they are a sink. Even after pointing out his own "evidence" proved him wrong (and listings many other articles that said the same thing), he continued to keep his fingers in his ears.
algibson - its been shown through direct irradiance readings of the sun that since 1985 irradiance (energy output) has declined. How do you explain your personal theory when energy input is declining?
I am a global warming skeptic, and I take the theory of AGW very seriously, just as I take Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
We have to get at least one thing clear: a scientific theory is not the same as an opinion. Anyone who contrasts scientific fact with scientific theory has not appreciated the definition of scientific theory.
I don't think it's proven beyond a doubt that humans are the cause of global warming. It doesn't make sense nor has it been long enough to tell. An effect? Sure. But history tells us GW happens with out us. We definitely could be altering the cycle but not causing it. Careful of your words. My point is both sides make similar claims for thier side.
Yeah, I think the anti-american thing is hilarious too. It is attached to any progressive suggestion. I never saw anything about hindering progressive thought and scientific analysis in the constitution...there was this little thing about habeas corpus though :-) It is also amusing that supporters of the global warming argument are called fear mongers by conservatives and nonbelievers, when our own administration tells us everyday that terrorists are going to kill us.
As far as the sun argument...we have been studying the sun for a long time and know what events on the sun trigger both warming and cooling of the earth. None of the warming events are occuring right know...in fact the current level of sunspot activity on the sun lends itself more to a cooling of the Earth. See article below.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html
As far as I am concerned, even if the majority of scientists were wrong and there was in fact no human caused global warming...the side effects of the discussion and actions taken will be overwhelmingly positive. So basically the worst thing that can happen if that is the case is...we change our economy to a sustainable model (an inevitable change) gradually in the next few decades instead of abruptly some time down the line (see peak oil, peak coal etc...) the latter option being absolutely economically disastrous.
I am no climatologist and don't claim to know the absolute truth, but it is almost ALWAYS best to error on the side of caution.
Out come the "skeptics". No different than trolls, really.
Note to "skeptics" -- nothing in life is certain. You act based upon what you can know and the risks involved with different choices.
Catastrophic risk + high probability = cause for action
Fascinating to watch so-called conservatives start to fight with science. Totally irrational behavior based on ideology alone.
@ Brian "Can you say interglacial?"
Here is some data of CO2 levels from the past 4 and our current interglacial periods:
" [URL=http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm]http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm[/URL]
There is the past 420,000 years....notice "present" is 1950. The top level of CO2 never reached 300ppm.
[URL=http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf]http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf[/URL]
Page 3 includes up until 2005. Notice current levels are @ 380 ppm...~30% higher than the levels ever reached in the past 420,000 years in just the past 50!!"
One major concern of rapid climate change is if flora/fauna will be able to adapt to climate changes as fast as they appear to be changing. Obviously from the glacial/interglacial cycle things adapt to fairly drastic temperature changes - they migrate north/south, up slope/down slope, find different food sources etc., but they have had thousands of years to do it, not hundreds.
Another comon tatic skeptics us is to cite that in the 70's scientists told us that we were heading into an ice age and now they say that the earth is warming so obviously the scientists don't know what they're talking about. We SHOULD be due for a gacial period. The natural cycle (for the past million+ years) is 100,000 years glacial with ~10,000 year breaks of interglacial. The interglacial period is what we are in now; about 18,000 years into, ~8000 years longer than the natural cycle. This is why we used to think it was coming. The glacial periods are the NORM on earth, not this "warm" interglacial period that we're in now.
Here is a copy of another post I've made @ a different site:
I acquired a copy of this the other day in one of my classes [I am an Environmental Science Major]; thought it pertains to this discussion. This is a copy of the report from 1976 that said the earth was in the middle of the NATURAL cycle towards a cooling period. You know, the report that climate change disbelievers and nay sayers use to show that scientists have no idea what they're talking about because first they say the earth is cooling and now they say its warming. Of course a very dishonest omission is what was used to lead the uninformed masses astray. The author very clearly states in the summary on the second to last page that:
"A model of future climate based on
the observed orbital-climate relationships,
but ignoring anthropogenic effects,
predicts that the long-term trend
over the next seven thousand years is
toward extensive Northern Hemisphere
glaciation."
In other words: this study ignored man made effects.
[URL=http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/3/8/866011/VariationsInEarthsOrbit.pdf]VariationsInEarthsOrbit.pdf[/URL]
In nutshell...
Those still skeptical are really all about fear.
They are afraid of 'Enviro Nazis', 'Eco-Commies', and Gaia Worshipers creating a massive global government bent on taking away the rights of otherwise free people.
The more proponents sound/read/act like enviroweenies, the more entrenched the skeptics become. No matter what science you put in front of them.
Most of the highly vocal climate skeptics that I have met face to face fall into one or more of these "makes 'em tick" categories.
#1: has highly religious belief system that does not allow for the possibility of human culture altering the world on a scale that "only god can".
#2:has an advanced degree in one of the natural sciences or a branch of technology that is somehow (their assessment not mine) related to climate studies like fluid dynamics, chemistry, physics, etc. and approach the subject like a crossword puzzle, which can be solved without peer review or models.
#3 gets paid to do it or wants to get paid by some industry group or ideologically motivated Think Tank.
Rather than focusing on the science being right or wrong... we should all be looking at sustainability rather than needing incentive of climate change.
One thing that I hate about this debate is when someone comments on the number of supporters one or the other theory has I just want to puke. A consensus of scientists no matter how many or how brilliant does not prove a theory.
A theory can only be proven or disproven by evidence.
At one time or another all brilliant scientifc minds across the world believed that, the earth was the center of the universe, matter was made up of four elements earth, air, fire, and water, the world was flat, and life was created by spontaneous generation.
Please do not say things like, "The majority of scientists agree", "The brightest minds say", or "Most credible scientists believe". These are not scientific arguments and should not convince any logical person. If you don't understand the data well enough to make an informed argument based on the data then maybe you are not the appropriate person to argue your side.
If you don't understand the data well enough to make an informed argument based on the data then maybe you are not the appropriate person to argue your side.
... says someone who offered no actual argument based on the data.
And someone who thinks that flat-earth to round-earth is equivalent to how climate science has changed needs to take a refresher course in logic. The consensus for climate change theory developed from a time when it was ridiculed and not widely held at all. Based on the data, the scientific consensus has developed.
Now run along.
Numbers do mater IF all the scientists aquire the same data/come to the same conclusions from running the same experiments thus validating the theory.
Anthropogenic global warming is, as the first commentator wrote, only a theory. But sometimes it is rational to believe that theories are correct before we have 'prooved' them. Proof of our theory will take hundreds or even thousands of years of data collection. But the theory provides us with reason to act now.
When talking to sceptics, I generally find that explaining what a greenhouse gas IS is the most effective tool. A greenhouse gas is one which is 'invisible' to light - it lets it pass - while tending to refract and reflect lower frequency radiation - heat. This is what our knowledge of physics and chemistry tells us, and it does not rely on any data on warming 'trends' (which will be inconclusive for many years to come). We can test it in the lab, it's very simple.
Now, if there are more GHGs in the atmosphere, then while the same amount of light will be allowed to hit the Earth, more heat will be blocked from leaving the atmosphere. So even if we had NO data on climate trends, it would be rational to believe that, given an increase in GHGs, there would be an increase in global atmospheric temperature.
And we know there's been an increase in GHGs, because we've been digging up semi-permanently stored carbon and turning it into atmospheric Co2.
QED as far as I'm concerned, no need to rely on hockey-sticks!
Will.
"Now, 20 years later, they have Madonna with her 8 or 9 mansions headlining that global warming concert. You've really got to be a complete freaking moron to believe anything Al Gore says."
I think our problems in people beliving one thing or another come down to wether or not you like the people who're saying/relaying it.. judging statements emotionally and politically like this isn't exactly scientific now is it?
the eco bandwagon will no doubt be a thorn in the side of anything eco related!
in true internet comment fashion I shall end with a school yard retort...
...lol go n stik ur mooncap in n watch sum qvc til u git over your pmt lol
sorry couldn't resist ;)
@Anonymous:
"Please do not say things like, "The majority of scientists agree", "The brightest minds say", or "Most credible scientists believe". These are not scientific arguments and should not convince any logical person."
If you are addressing my earlier post, you'll note that I said none of these. Instead, I referred to the mass of very bright scientists whos life's work consists of gathering and analyzing hard evidence. Before publication, that work is subjected to a rigorous peer-review process where it is judged in terms of its methodological soundess--not its conclusions.
Your further analogy of the flat earth, four elements, and whatnot is completely wrong. No serious scientists existing before the time of Galileo or Renee Descartes, long after Magellan proved the Earth quite round (even Copernicus was more a philosopher than scientist). The scientific method in its modern form has NEVER produced the kind of serious misdirection of inquiry as you are trying to say is occurring with human-induced global warming.
It may be hard for some to hear, but the debate is simply over. To the degree that human scientific knowledge is capable of being certain, humans ARE the biggest factor in the currently observed and projected warming of our climate. Our emissions are the culprit.
No amount of clever debating or fallacious reasoning can get us out of the mess we've made for ourselves. Let's instead debate about the effects of climate change, and how we as a society and species will deal with, and attempt to mitigate, those.
"It's still a theory, folks, and a bad one at that." - algibson
The hubris in that statement really astounds me. I say hubris beacuse algibson has not provided any credentials here that he (assuming a he) can make such a statement. As stated by someone else there are many, many qualified people doing the research and saying otherwise.
algibson - assuming you are actually reading these comments who are you to state that its a bad theory?
First, a theory cannot be proven (except in mathematics), only falsified. We haven't "proven" that atoms have nuclei, but that model predicts future behavior correctly.
In terms of climate change, we've found one model that fits the data we have - and that's that we are raising temperatures by preventing the earth from dissipating the sun's heat. Most, if not all, of the theories that suggest other models that don't involve our impacts have been falsified - it's been shown that they are incorrect.
If you're a skeptic of human-induced climate change right now, it's because you choose to be skeptical - not because of the science involved. While you're continuing your everyday life, I'll be planning for the future. I hope you'll join me there.
Just a few follow-up points about my interview.
There are real scientific debates about likely future
climate change, mainly to do with feedbacks and
instabilities. At the high end is Jim Hansen (maybe 4 degrees
this century) and the low end is about 2 degrees which
is what many prominent US "sceptics" testified to US supreme
court. (actually 1.8 degrees). Outside what is credible
science, there are alarmists (e.g Pentagon scenarios about shutting down the gulf stream) on one side and those in denial
(warming is being caused only by the sun, or alternatively
warming isn't happening). Of course, the media play up the
denial vs alarmist conflict and often ignore where the science
is really at.
My book gets stuck into both of these extremes.
People who believe in Global Warming have heard it so many times, repeated over and over again with scaring certainty, that they're sure they can't be wrong but don't really know what they're talking about.
Being a skeptic is following science. Scientists are sceptics. They can not finalize everything, because they are always looking for uncertainty, or problem. Man-made Global Warming is certainly still in debate in the scientific community.
The bottom line is, there is no consensus on Global Warming. I highly doubt it's happening because of us and will be happy to debate that claim.
People who believe in Global Warming have heard it so many times, repeated over and over again with scaring certainty, that they're sure they can't be wrong but don't really know what they're talking about.
Being a skeptic is following science. Scientists are sceptics. They can not finalize everything, because they are always looking for uncertainty, or problem. Man-made Global Warming is certainly still in debate in the scientific community.
The bottom line is, there is no consensus on Global Warming. I highly doubt it's happening because of us and will be happy to debate that claim.
Typical hypocrite septic 'sceptic' complains that "the promoters of this theory come across as aggressive, lacking data, and are usually packing some sort of anti-American, (left of center) agenda," then follows with aggressive, personal attacks on said 'promoters,' offers no data to support his arguments, and makes manifest a worldview clearly derived from an overwrought ideological commitment to all things 'not that.'
What a windbag. We should harness him to something that produces more light than heat. Then maybe we'd be getting something useful out of the exchange.