A Question for all you Global Warming skeptics

[Rayne870]

There have been 6 major extinctions wherein the majority of the Earth's life died that we humans know of. All of them happened before we were here and all of them happened due to massive climate change. The ice age was the most recent.

Humans do not affect the climate.​

The Earth will cool and warm long, long after we go extinct and the cycle of life and death will be unaffected.

The hippies are wrong. The science is right.

I do sort of agree with this, I agree that global warming is mainly a result of us exiting an ice age, but I also think we should be moving away from fossil fuels and into renewable energy sources just for the fact that they are renewable and cleaner.

 

[Flac00]

snip

I told you I wasn't talking about a single scientist and I could provide links for my claims. You asked for it so here we go:
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/cooglobwrm.pdf
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/4029837/Global-warming-Reasons-why-it-might-not-actually-exist.html
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/epajrnl16&div=43&id=&page=
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lWQdP4_7SycC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Global+warming+skeptic&ots=1JXDbuNT4b&sig=-8jmFPL437XLLO-EicRG9BGu3Bg#v=onepage&q=Global%20warming%20skeptic&f=false
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Do you want more? Oh yes support for my claim about donations:
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835660/professor-emiritus-hal-lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/

What I trivialize is the sum of 30% of the contacted portion scientific community's answer of two vague questions. I also trivialize all polls because they are the least scientific way to learn any information.
The concept that a majority is naturally correct is a fairly standard logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum. Which is why polls are complete crap used to pressure people into potentially irrational positions.
Thing is polls aren't even appealing to the majority. They appeal to the majority of a segment which is then inferred to apply to the whole, a less convincing approach. When only 30% of the segment bother to answer the questions I loss the little respect I have for this position.

There are a myriad of other plausible reasons outside of fossil fuel where humans are a significant factor. I can provide links for these theories but I have already linked more documents than you will probably bother reading though if pressed I will link them.

I would like to point out that you are placing the burden of proof on me. While I more than expected this I wonder if you have even bothered to look at actual scientific papers from your own side. I thought about critiquing one of their papers but you would most likely accuse me once again of "Cherry Picking" so it would be more fun if you pick one yourself.

I decided to check your sources
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/cooglobwrm.pdf: Made in 1990, obvious problem since new data has shown a rapid decrease in ice levels of the poles. He mostly using data from the 1980's-70's. Not a good example.

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf: Checked the author up. Professor from Arizona university (because we all know of that university's high quality academics). I won't discredit him about his qualifications since it is not my place to criticize. Though i did notice that is awards include one named after a man who publicly denounced the theory of relativity and is used by the right wing constantly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/4029837/Global-warming-Reasons-why-it-might-not-actually-exist.html: A news story that produced information that both ignored that "global warming" is just the common name for global climate change. So saying "There is snow on the ground, thus global warming is false" is just as good of a reason as disproving evolution using a glass of water.

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/epajrnl16&div=43&id=&page=: I couldn't read this since the page is blocked to all people not having a subscription. Though i honestly doubt you had one either.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lWQdP4_7SycC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Global+warming+skeptic&ots=1JXDbuNT4b&sig=-8jmFPL437XLLO-EicRG9BGu3Bg#v=onepage&q=Global%20warming%20skeptic&f=false: A small scale book that no one really knows about (except of coarse the doubters who praise it since it is one of the few slightly legitimate books out there that share the same opinion). I can't say much else on it, but a review from a Harvard professor did discredit it saying "It has many holes in its research and takes many statements out of context" (it was not a very in depth review).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm: A story that unfortunately suffers from the same problem as most on the subject. It claims 1: That humans are not the cause 2: A small drop in temp at some point completely disproves global warming 3: That there is a "conspiracy" (not literally of coarse) to blow it out of proportions for money.

In review: all of your sources except 2 (one because I am not willing to read a full book and the other since the full source is not readable) are either flawed or inept at proving anything beyond the normal tripe that is spewed by the anti-global warming crowd.

 

[Flac00]

And while we're on the topic of actual consensus, let's not try to focus on single scientists? Especially ones cherry picked by the likes of the Heartland institute as speakers for their "climate discussions", or featured in the thoroughly debunked "The great global warming swindle" documentary [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer]. (For anyone interested in reading about the Heartland institute [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute])

A funny little quote regarding Roy's data [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/]:

The poll did not ask if burning fossil fuel is a large factor.
Polls aren't science. If we took a poll a thousand years ago about what stars are we would not get the right answer.

Besides your (laughable) attempts at trivializing the sum of human knowledge at this point in time (I mean really, a poll among medieval people regarding the stars compared to a poll among climate scientists regarding the climate), I'd like for you to expand on what else besides the burning of fossil fuel the "human factor" could be?

Also, for the edited part of your post - please substantiate your claims, or you won't get taken seriously.

I told you I wasn't talking about a single scientist and I could provide links for my claims. You asked for it so here we go:
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/cooglobwrm.pdf
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/4029837/Global-warming-Reasons-why-it-might-not-actually-exist.html
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/epajrnl16&div=43&id=&page=
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lWQdP4_7SycC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Global+warming+skeptic&ots=1JXDbuNT4b&sig=-8jmFPL437XLLO-EicRG9BGu3Bg#v=onepage&q=Global%20warming%20skeptic&f=false
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Do you want more? Oh yes support for my claim about donations:
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835660/professor-emiritus-hal-lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/

What I trivialize is the sum of 30% of the contacted portion scientific community's answer of two vague questions. I also trivialize all polls because they are the least scientific way to learn any information.
The concept that a majority is naturally correct is a fairly standard logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum. Which is why polls are complete crap used to pressure people into potentially irrational positions.
Thing is polls aren't even appealing to the majority. They appeal to the majority of a segment which is then inferred to apply to the whole, a less convincing approach. When only 30% of the segment bother to answer the questions I loss the little respect I have for this position.

There are a myriad of other plausible reasons outside of fossil fuel where humans are a significant factor. I can provide links for these theories but I have already linked more documents than you will probably bother reading though if pressed I will link them.

I would like to point out that you are placing the burden of proof on me. While I more than expected this I wonder if you have even bothered to look at actual scientific papers from your own side. I thought about critiquing one of their papers but you would most likely accuse me once again of "Cherry Picking" so it would be more fun if you pick one yourself.

I do not have time at present to compile an individual response to each of the documents linked, but will give a quick impression that most of it is either old and/or the same stuff that always circulates among skeptics - nothing new under the sun.

I will compile a fair response to each paper after having gone through them, but not today.

Now please, link everything you have and I will be very happy to look through it all at a later point in time.

And yes, I will give you a comprehensive list of peer-reviewed journals the next time I'm looking through the article databases at my university.

Don't bother man, i already checked. 2 are opinion posts in newspapers. 1 is a book that was found to be false. and 1 is actually unreadable (literally, there is no way to access it).

 

[TheRealCJ]

Okay, so first of all: I think global warming is absolutely happening. But I also respect those who have a strong opinion contrary to mine (Well, those who aren't arses about it anyway).

But my question is thus: You may not believe it's truly happening, but why are you so against preventative measures to stop it happening in the future? Surely you'd agree that to stop it from happening 100 years from now, which is entirely plausible, there should be some preventative measures taken now.

I've got people here in Australia, prominent people, people in Government, saying things along the lines of "Global Warming has not been proven as fact, so just keep right on doing exactly what you're doing now, because it's not causing immediate and noticeable damage."

That seems unnecessarily reckless to me. After all, doesn't the old idiom read "A stitch in time saves nine"?

EDIT: I feel that people are taking "global warming" point slightly too literally. I'm also talking about pollution in general. But that doesn't have as many obsessive back-and-forthers.

Don't mean to sound like a complete Douche but your wrong. Global Warming isn't happening. Canada Just saw one of it's longest winters in 20 years. Now what your talking about is Global Climate Change. That is happening.

"global warming" is just the phrase I grew up with. Of course I mean climate change.