# Do global warming "skeptics" honestly see us as a benign species? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2014, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984 "2014-01-05T23:18:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![eg8576736](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@eg8576736](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eg8576736)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2014, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/1 "2014-01-05T23:18:34Z")
In the context of modern industrial life, does anyone claim that these problems are primarily caused by an agent other than Man? _air pollution aka smog water pollution, plus damming and diversion of rivers deforestation (beavers don’t knock down millions of acres) overfishing (many ocean species are in serious decline) ocean dead zones due to agricultural runoff loss of biodiversity species extinctions (see “The Sixth Extinction”) topsoil loss and erosion (often tied to deforestation) soil salination from over-watering desertification and dust bowls (e.g. U.S. 1930s) unnatural chemicals in food and the environment radiation far beyond natural levels_\* etc. To put it another way, is the species that “can’t be causing global warming” also “not causing” the environmental problems listed above? I see apathy about fixing those problems, but little debate about the species that’s at fault. So it seems well accepted that Man is capable of altering and damaging nature. But the notion that little old Man can’t harm big old Earth is common among global warming deniers (sorry, I meant skeptics). Why the disparity on that one topic? Are fossil fuels that sacred? Is it solely about money? \*Smog is a very close analogy to AGW, and you don’t even see Rush Limbaugh claiming that Man isn’t responsible for it. The main difference between smog and CO2 is that the latter is invisible and its impacts occur over decades, not days. Plus, CO2 at _natural_ levels is a good thing, so it doesn’t have an existing bad reputation like visible smog. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2014, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/2 "2014-01-05T23:57:10Z")
Many Americans did in fact deny those things are serious problems. The environmentalism movement has unfortunately been framed as “tree hugging”. If you tell someone of conservative leanings you’re an environmental scientist, they will often label you a tree hugger. I’ve heard it my whole life, even though I care more about public health than I do “trees” (and I actually REALLY love me trees). But lots of people don’t think of public health when it comes to the environment. They think of the buzz words that work their nerves, like “save the whales”. They don’t think of lung cancer caused by air pollution, neurological conditions caused by mercury and PCBs in seafood, or low fertility rates caused by endocrine disruptors in drinking water and consumer goods. My guess is that for the average American, they don’t really think pollution causes health problems, except only in the most remote abstract sense. And why wouldn’t they? We don’t turn on the six o’clock news and hear about our friends and neighbors dying from mercury contamination. When we do hear reports of stuff, there’s always a talking head willing to go on CNN to challenge it. The US isn’t like China, where environmental fall-out is an everyday sight. We are blessed with regulation. But we are also cursed by it because it lulls us into a false sense of security. If we don’t see it happening, then the threat doesn’t exist. Anyone who talks of “threats” is seen as a Chicken Little. Those things on your list, like biodiversity and species extinctions? Lots of people simply do not care about these things. The dinosaurs went extinct, and yet the world is still turning. If the Spotted Owl goes extinct, oh well. At least people can get jobs now. Blah blah blah. Then there are some people who ARE bothered by these kind of matters. But they are also deeply religious and believe that God will make it right somehow, if that’s his will. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/3 "2014-01-06T01:08:14Z")
> [@eg8576736](#): > > In the context of modern industrial life, does anyone claim that these problems are primarily caused by an agent other than Man? Yes. There are factions that do not deny the existence of global climate change, but believe it’s another natural shift in the balance of the the planet, and that human activities are at most a small part of the cause. I won’t say that’s entirely congruent with my beliefs on the topic, but I do note that the rabid AGW types seem utterly dismissive of the many climate shifts in the last 100k years, and are dogmatic that the shift we’re seeing MUST have a specific, non-natural cause. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/4 "2014-01-06T01:15:36Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Yes. There are factions that do not deny the existence of global climate change, but believe it’s another natural shift in the balance of the the planet, and that human activities are at most a small part of the cause. > > I won’t say that’s entirely congruent with my beliefs on the topic, but I do note that the rabid AGW types seem utterly dismissive of the many climate shifts in the last 100k years, and are dogmatic that the shift we’re seeing MUST have a specific, non-natural cause. But the climatologists are neither so dismissive nor so dogmatic. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/5 "2014-01-06T01:28:45Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Yes. There are factions that do not deny the existence of global climate change, but believe it’s another natural shift in the balance of the the planet, and that human activities are at most a small part of the cause. > > I won’t say that’s entirely congruent with my beliefs on the topic, but I do note that the rabid AGW types seem utterly dismissive of the many climate shifts in the last 100k years, and are dogmatic that the shift we’re seeing MUST have a specific, non-natural cause. It took more than 100 years to arrive to that conclusion, the problem has been that powerful groups are still pushing the alternative explanations when most scientists circa 1950-1970 found that other explanations stopped being as important as the current cause of the warming. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) > [@](#): > > In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a “greenhouse effect” which affects the planet’s temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. > **[Evidence - NASA Science](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/)** > > Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of > [@](#): > > The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives. > > ``` > "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal." > > - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change > > ``` > > The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1 > > Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate. > > Certain facts about Earth’s climate are not in dispute: > > ``` > The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. > Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3 > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/6 "2014-01-06T01:29:48Z")
More than any of the other examples given, global warming is a problem that (a.) is directly the result of energy production, an absolutely indispensable part of industrial civilization, and (b.) a literally “global” problem in that purely local action to deal with it is likely to be largely futile. And the free market will have no solution to offer until cost-effective substitutes for carbon-emitting technologies become viable, The upshot is that the majority of proposals to deal with global warming call for massive government interference in the marketplace and peoples’ economic choices. This regulation would have to be universal in scope and almost by definition imposed top-down. In the most extreme proposals, something like modern day sumptuary laws banning comforts and luxuries we now take for granted would be mandated. Such a global regimen would nearly mean the end of the free market as we’ve known it since Adam Smith’s day. Some hard-core proponents of such measures go so far as to claim that AGW is a real-life example of the Tragedy Of The Commons- that since individuals freely pursuing their self-interest led to such a disaster, society must be reformed to be administered by deliberate planning. Critics of such proposals use the phrase “eco-socialism” to express their disdain of the social, economic and political mindset it would entail. The loony right claims that the whole thing is a conspiracy to gain support for a New World Order in which apparatchiks would dictate to the proles how to live their lives. The less paranoid might acknowledge that global warming is real but maintain that the proposed cures are worse than the disease. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/7 "2014-01-06T01:41:16Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > More than any of the other examples given, global warming is a problem that (a.) is directly the result of energy production, an absolutely indispensable part of industrial civilization, and (b.) a literally “global” problem in that purely local action to deal with it is likely to be largely futile. And the free market will have no solution to offer until cost-effective substitutes for carbon-emitting technologies become viable, > > The upshot is that the majority of proposals to deal with global warming call for massive government interference in the marketplace and peoples’ economic choices. This regulation would have to be universal in scope and almost by definition imposed top-down. In the most extreme proposals, something like modern day sumptuary laws banning comforts and luxuries we now take for granted would be mandated. Such a global regimen would nearly mean the end of the free market as we’ve known it since Adam Smith’s day. Critics of such proposals use the phrase “eco-socialism” to express their disdain of the social, economic and political mindset it would entail. Not really as Richard Alley, that formerly worked for the petroleum industry and is a Republican, explains: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/V7bmg65SS20/maxresdefault.jpg "How to Talk to an Ostrich: "We can't Afford Clean Energy"") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7bmg65SS20) > [@](#): > > Some people say transitioning to clean energy will simply cost too much - “leave it to future generations.” In Edinburgh, Scotland, Richard Alley explains that if we start soon the cost of the transformation could be similar to that which was paid for something none of us would want to do without - clean water and the modern sanitation system. What I always like to say to those critics that think that the free market will end is to look at the past examples of what civilized places endured economically to get clean water and get hundreds of lives saved because they do not get cholera or other diseases like that. What many of them miss is that other trades and jobs also appear that did not exist before. > [@Lumpy](#): > > The loony right claims that the whole thing is a conspiracy to gain support for a New World Order in which apparatchiks would dictate to the proles how to live their lives. The less paranoid might acknowledge that global warming is real but maintain that the proposed cures are worse than the disease. To those that maintain that I would say: ‘Why do you hate Joe the Plumber?’ 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/8 "2014-01-06T02:31:54Z")
> [@eg8576736](#): > > …But the notion that little old Man can’t harm big old Earth is common among global warming deniers (sorry, I meant skeptics). Why the disparity on that one topic? Are fossil fuels that sacred? Is it solely about money? (shortened for clarity) The global tempurature isn’t increasing. The IPCC guesstimations failed to reach their predicted results. Many people worked together to address the issues you mentioned in the OP. A division was created by the IPCC supporters who demanded, and still demand, that everyone accept the IPCC’s failed “science” as fact. The science isn’t settled just because the IPCC supporters say it is. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/9 "2014-01-06T02:33:03Z")
The other problems you mentioned are hard to deny, because someone can see their effects directly, and see that they’re bad. The problem with global warming is that nothing bad has happened yet. Yes, you can look at data and see about a few degrees Celsius warming over the past 100 years. But we’re still here, and everything still seems pretty normal. Some regions of the country are experiencing weather that’s different from the norm over the past 30-40 years, but that’s hardly surprising and impossible to prove that it’s the direct result of global warming. Yes, we are told by scientists that global warming _will be a problem_. But, as a general rule, a climate skeptic does not have a lot of respect for scientists, particularly climate scientists, for one of three reasons: 1. They distrust science in general. Enough said on this one. 2. They realize that scientists are imperfect, and that climate science is a much less rigorous field than other sciences because you can’t really follow the scientific method re: your key conclusions. In most fields, particle physics say, you can form a hypothesis, make a prediction, perform an experiment to test your prediction, and then analyze the results and determine the validity of your hypothesis/theory. This is the fundamental method through which all success in science is achieved. It is known, expected and perfectly okay in science that your hypotheses/theories will occasionally (perhaps most of the time) be incorrect - you discover that following your experiment, and then revise them until you are arrive at the correct result. For the key result in climate science - that X% increase in CO2 will result in Y% increase in surface temperature - there is no way to test that hypothesis, no way to perform an experiment, other than to just wait and see. Yes, you can perform experiments on a small scale, and test parts of your hypothesis, or aspects of your theory, but you can’t test your theories on the entire, enormously complicated climate system. You just have to wait and see if you were right or wrong. The particle physicists at CERN did not announce the discovery of the Higgs Boson until they were 99.999% sure it was not a statistical anomaly. Climate scientists are nowhere near that level of certainty in their predictions. Their claim is not “We are absolutely, 99.999% scientifically certain we’re correct!”, it’s “Well, we’re pretty sure it might get really bad”, and when you’re asking people to give up or drastically cut back on the fundamental energy source of the modern industrial society, that’s not as convincing as it needs to be. 1. The results from climate scientists’ models suggest that they lack predictive power. Here is a plot comparing the observed surface and atmospheric temperature increase over the past 30 years, to the predictions made by about 90 climate models. You can see that most models over-predict the amount of warming. [![](https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs.jpg) ](https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs.jpg) Now, that does not mean warming will not occur. It simply means that the models are lacking accuracy in modeling some major unknown component of the climate system. The climate is very complicated, and it is impossible to predict what the models will predict when this inaccuracy is rectified. (Additionally, many climate models involve “free parameters” that are not derived from first physical principles, but rather calibrated empirically from data gathered over the past 30 - 100 years in order to make models match the historical record) Coupled with 2), climate skeptics would like to wait just a little longer to see if the scientists revise their theory before upending modern civilization. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/10 "2014-01-06T03:05:53Z")
> [@eg8576736](#): > > I see apathy about fixing those problems, but little debate about the species that’s at fault. So it seems well accepted that Man is capable of altering and damaging nature. > > But the notion that little old Man can’t harm big old Earth is common among global warming deniers (sorry, I meant skeptics). Why the disparity on that one topic? Are fossil fuels that sacred? Is it solely about money? > > \*Smog is a very close analogy to AGW, and you don’t even see Rush Limbaugh claiming that Man isn’t responsible for it. The main difference between smog and CO2 is that the latter is invisible and its impacts occur over decades, not days. Plus, CO2 at _natural_ levels is a good thing, so it doesn’t have an existing bad reputation like visible smog. No, nobody denies that smog is human-caused. But we’ve had smog for a couple hundred years, as well as most all the other things on your list, and – rightly or wrongly – the perception is that things are still “okay.” Push comes to shove, the average man cares less about the environment than he does about maintaining/improving his current consumption patterns. None of those things have (yet) had the kind of global, catastrophic effect on human life that is being predicted for AGW. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/11 "2014-01-06T05:06:50Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (shortened for clarity) > > The global tempurature isn’t increasing. The IPCC guesstimations failed to reach their predicted results. > **[IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think |...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate)** > > Dana Nuccitelli: Global warming since 1990 has fallen within the range of IPCC climate model projections > [@](#): > > A single model run simulates just one possible future climate outcome. In reality, there are an infinite number of possible outcomes, depending on how various factors like greenhouse gas emissions and natural climate variability change. This is why climate modelers don’t make predictions; they make projections, which say in scenario ‘x’, the climate will change in ‘y’ fashion. The shaded regions in the IPCC figure represent the range of outcomes from all of these individual climate model simulations. > > The IPCC also illustrates the “multi-model mean,” which averages together all of the individual model simulation runs. This average makes for an easy comparison with the observational data; however, there’s no reason to believe the climate will follow that average path, especially in the short-term. If natural factors act to amplify human-caused global surface warming, as they did in the 1990s, the climate is likely to warm faster than the model average in the short-term. If natural factors act to dampen global surface warming, as they have in the 2000s, the climate is likely to warm more slowly than the model average. > > When many model simulations are averaged together, the random natural variability in the individual model runs cancel out, and the steady human-caused global warming trend remains left over. But in reality the climate behaves like a single model simulation run, not like the average of all model runs. > > This is why it’s important to retain the shaded range of individual model runs, unlike Bjorn Lomborg in The Australian, Judith Curry in The Australian, Benny Peiser at GWPF, Roger Pielke Jr., David Rose in the Mail on Sunday (copied by Hayley Dixon in The Telegraph), and Der Spiegel, all of whom only considered the model average. > > This group all made an additional related third error as well. > 3) Cherry Picking > > Most claims that the IPCC models have failed are based on surface temperature changes over the past 15 years (1998–2012). During that period, temperatures have risen about 50 percent more slowly than the multi-model average, but have remained within the range of individual model simulation runs. > > However, 1998 represented an abnormally hot year at the Earth’s surface due to one of the strongest El Niño events of the 20th century. Thus it represents a poor choice of a starting date to analyze the surface warming trend (selectively choosing convenient start and/or end points is also known as ‘cherry picking’). For example, we can select a different 15-year period, 1992–2006, and find a surface warming trend nearly 50 percent faster than the multi-model average, as statistician Tamino helpfully illustrates in the figure below. > Fast warming trend 1992–2006, slow warming trend 1997–2012 Global surface temperature data 1975–2012 from NASA with a linear trend (black), with trends for 1992–2006 (red) and 1998–2012 (blue). > > In short, if David Rose wasn’t declaring that global surface warming was accelerating out of control in 2006, then he has no business declaring that global surface warming has ‘paused’ in 2013. Both statements are equally wrong, based on cherry picking noisy short-term data. > IPCC models have been accurate > > For 1992–2006, the natural variability of the climate amplified human-caused global surface warming, while it dampened the surface warming for 1997–2012. Over the full period, the overall warming rate has remained within the range of IPCC model projections, as the 2013 IPCC report notes. > > ``` > "The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012)." > > ``` > > The IPCC also notes that climate models have accurately simulated trends in extreme cold and heat, large-scale precipitation pattern changes, and ocean heat content (where most global warming goes). Models also now better simulate the Arctic sea ice decline, which they had previously dramatically underestimated. > > All in all, the IPCC models do an impressive job accurately representing and projecting changes in the global climate, contrary to contrarian claims. In fact, the IPCC global surface warming projections have performed much better than predictions made by climate contrarians. > [@doorhinge](#): > > Many people worked together to address the issues you mentioned in the OP. A division was created by the IPCC supporters who demanded, and still demand, that everyone accept the IPCC’s failed “science” as fact. The science isn’t settled just because the IPCC supporters say it is. Repeating strawmen will not make them turn into good arguments. > **[RealClimate: Unsettled Science](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/)** > > RealClimate: Unusually, I'm in complete agreement with a recent headline on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page: "The Climate Science Isn't Settled" The article below is the same mix of innuendo and misrepresentation that its author normally writes,... > [@](#): > > The phrase “the science is settled” is associated almost 100% with contrarian comments on climate and is usually a paraphrase of what ‘some scientists’ are supposed to have said. The reality is that it depends very much on what you are talking about and I have never heard any scientist say this in any general context – at a recent meeting I was at, someone claimed that this had been said by the participants and he was roundly shouted down by the assembled experts. > > The reason why no scientist has said this is because they know full well that knowledge about science is not binary – science isn’t either settled or not settled. This is a false and misleading dichotomy. Instead, we know things with varying degrees of confidence – for instance, conservation of energy is pretty well accepted, as is the theory of gravity (despite continuing interest in what happens at very small scales or very high energies) , while the exact nature of dark matter is still unclear. The forced binary distinction implicit in the phrase is designed to misleadingly relegate anything about which there is still uncertainty to the category of completely unknown. i.e. that since we don’t know everything, we know nothing. > > In the climate field, there are a number of issues which are no longer subject to fundamental debate in the community. The existence of the greenhouse effect, the increase in CO2 (and other GHGs) over the last hundred years and its human cause, and the fact the planet warmed significantly over the 20th Century are not much in doubt. IPCC described these factors as ‘virtually certain’ or ‘unequivocal’. The attribution of the warming over the last 50 years to human activity is also pretty well established – that is ‘highly likely’ and the anticipation that further warming will continue as CO2 levels continue to rise is a well supported conclusion. To the extent that anyone has said that the scientific debate is over, this is what they are referring to. In answer to colloquial questions like “Is anthropogenic warming real?”, the answer is yes with high confidence. > > But no scientists would be scientists if they thought there was nothing left to find out. Think of the science as a large building, with foundations reaching back to the 19th Century and a whole edifice of knowledge built upon them. The community spends most of its time trying to add a brick here or a brick there and slowly adding to the construction. The idea that the ‘science is settled’ is equivalent to stating that the building is complete and that nothing further can be added. Obviously that is false – new bricks (and windows and decoration and interior designs) are being added and argued about all the time. However, while the science may not be settled, we can still tell what kind of building we have and what the overall picture looks like. Arguments over whether a single brick should be blue or yellow don’t change the building from a skyscraper to a mud hut. > > The IPCC reports should be required reading for anyone who thinks that scientists think that the ‘science is settled’ – the vast array of uncertainties that are discussed and dissected puts that notion to bed immediately. Besides ignoring the facts, contrarians that go for this kind of arguments, [even after the serious skeptics told them that the earth is warming and man has something to do with it](http://climatecrocks.com/2012/05/07/heartland-denial-palooza-coming-this-wont-be-the-first-one-with-punch-bowl-floaters/), are not doing science. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/12 "2014-01-06T05:24:38Z")
> [@eg8576736](#): > > In the context of modern industrial life, does anyone claim that these problems are primarily caused by an agent other than Man? > > _air pollution aka smog > water pollution, plus damming and diversion of rivers > deforestation (beavers don’t knock down millions of acres) > overfishing (many ocean species are in serious decline) > ocean dead zones due to agricultural runoff > loss of biodiversity > species extinctions (see “The Sixth Extinction”) > topsoil loss and erosion (often tied to deforestation) > soil salination from over-watering > desertification and dust bowls (e.g. U.S. 1930s) > unnatural chemicals in food and the environment > radiation far beyond natural levels_\* > etc. > > To put it another way, is the species that “can’t be causing global warming” also “not causing” the environmental problems listed above? I see apathy about fixing those problems, but little debate about the species that’s at fault. So it seems well accepted that Man is capable of altering and damaging nature. > > But the notion that little old Man can’t harm big old Earth is common among global warming deniers (sorry, I meant skeptics). Why the disparity on that one topic? Are fossil fuels that sacred? Is it solely about money? > > \*Smog is a very close analogy to AGW, and you don’t even see Rush Limbaugh claiming that Man isn’t responsible for it. The main difference between smog and CO2 is that the latter is invisible and its impacts occur over decades, not days. Plus, CO2 at _natural_ levels is a good thing, so it doesn’t have an existing bad reputation like visible smog. I would not deny much of what you say above. In that regard I am not skeptic. But you are missing the point…as many so-called “skeptics” might say. So perhaps in that regard, I am a skeptic. The point is…what is your objective function, as a human being? Is it to cause absolutely zero impact on every molecule that was already in existance on Earth? Or is it to maximize the utility function of yourself and other human beings? This is where debates about the forest and the trees start to get jumbled. Bjorn Lomborg does a solid job of (1) not being a ‘skeptic’ whilst also (2) asking some tough questions about what, exactly, we are trying to optimize as our objective functions. As one of the posters above said…there is smog in L.A. It contributes to poor air quality. We aren’t denying that. But so what? How bad is it, really? If it allows people to drive automobiles to connect desirable places to live with flexibile employment opportunities that increase earnings power for themselves and their family, so what? If they are highly-educated middle class professionals, their life expectancy is probably in the low-80s and still slightly increasing. So why is a little smog so bad? I’m not saying it is or it isn’t. But the tone of your post implies that a tradeoff must be made to reduce it to zero. To return the Earth to its primal state. Why? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/13 "2014-01-06T06:16:06Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Yes, you can perform experiments on a small scale, and test parts of your hypothesis, or aspects of your theory, but you can’t test your theories on the entire, enormously complicated climate system. You just have to wait and see if you were right or wrong. It is clear that many do need to read the history of the discovery of global warming. I would think that more than 100 years of investigating this would be enough time to wait. > [@Absolute](#): > > The particle physicists at CERN did not announce the discovery of the Higgs Boson until they were 99.999% sure it was not a statistical anomaly. Climate scientists are nowhere near that level of certainty in their predictions. Their claim is not “We are absolutely, 99.999% scientifically certain we’re correct!”, it’s “Well, we’re pretty sure it might get really bad”, and when you’re asking people to give up or drastically cut back on the fundamental energy source of the modern industrial society, that’s not as convincing as it needs to be. The probabilities of getting cancer from smoking are less than the likelihood of climate changing, ocean rise and ocean acidification if emissions are not controlled, and yet society has found that we should do something about smoking. > [@Absolute](#): > > 1. The results from climate scientists’ models suggest that they lack predictive power. > > Here is a plot comparing the observed surface and atmospheric temperature increase over the past 30 years, to the predictions made by about 90 climate models. You can see that most models over-predict the amount of warming. > > [http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs.jpg](http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs.jpg) Full stop here, that is Spencer, the last guy one should be relying for information on this subject. > **[Roy Spencer’s Junk Science](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/roy-spencers-junk-science/)** > > Roy Spencer recently posted an article on his blog called “Ten Years After the Warming,” in which he argues that there’s no excuse for a decade without much warming, because the r… ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/14 "2014-01-06T14:59:08Z")
Absolute, not only does Spencer use the mean of a projection as though it was the definitive projection (it isn’t, and that’s a horrid misrepresentation on his part), but his own model is a pathetic failure when compared to the IPCC’s projections. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/15 "2014-01-06T15:11:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is clear that many do need to read the history of the discovery of global warming. I would think that more than 100 years of investigating this would be enough time to wait. This is a poor argument. I have read the history and I don’t think that drastic action needs to be taken. Even if we completely eliminate GHGs tomorrow and live life on berries and already-cooked meats (from the already-cooked meats tree, of course), most models show the climate continuing upward for around 50 years. (To be fair, some models show the trend continuing for less than 20 years, and some for more than 100.) The solutions proposed for this are and have always been “Add taxes to discourage consumption.” The tax method has varied, but it ends up being a tax anyway. Instead of taxing, it would be better to continue the investment into the alternatives that we already are funding, such as as battery materials, more effective and efficient solar, better wind turbines, plans for better nuclear, methods for scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere, and so forth. We can add more funding to this arena, but I doubt that we’ll get much additional bang for our buck in terms of research. Having these technologies will allow us to wean ourselves from the carbon-emitting forms of energy production and use methods that aren’t as harmful. As well, we could be making growth-allowable mandates to certain industry. Perhaps all new car engines should be electric by 2020, instead of mandating tighter and tighter MPG requirements? Perhaps we can move off the terrible efficiency indicator of MPG so that consumers can make better judgements about what vehicles to buy (liters/100 kms–or gallons/100 miles)? Perhaps we can subsidize the replacement of existing car engines with electric motors for owners over the next ten years? The problem is that activists (who aren’t scientists - although a few scientists are activist-y) took science and made it their “cause” and this has started perverting the findings of the science. Interested parties on all sides have started doling out the cash to encourage/prevent the regulatory outcomes instead of trying to find a solid solution. On top of that, everyone is suspicious of everyone else in the climate arena. Everyone goes out of their way to smear others. The activists - both pro and con - need to GTFO of the way so that people can see the science clearly, both for what it says and, more importantly, the places that it is lacking. That’s the only way we can even get to a place where an informed populace can agree on changes to our way of life. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Full stop here, that is Spencer, the last guy one should be relying for information on this subject. > > [Roy Spencer’s Junk Science | Climate Asylum](http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/roy-spencers-junk-science/) This link doesn’t dispute the posted trend series. I would like more context for that particular graph from both sides. For example, is that a comparison of actual to medians, averages, lows, or highs of the models? Why is this chart bad, beyond “That guy blows.”? ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/16 "2014-01-06T15:16:32Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Absolute, not only does Spencer use the mean of a projection as though it was the definitive projection (it isn’t, and that’s a horrid misrepresentation on his part), but his own model is a pathetic failure when compared to the IPCC’s projections. Where any of this graph’s models used in the IPCC projections? How did the IPCC use those ones that were included? What series did they use on the same models? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/17 "2014-01-06T15:42:01Z")
> [@eg8576736](#): > > But the notion that little old Man can’t harm big old Earth is common among global warming deniers (sorry, I meant skeptics). Why the disparity on that one topic? I think you need to be clear who you’re talking about when you refer to skeptics. I like the presentation in [this article by Warren Meyer](http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/). One can be skeptical that the planet has generally heated up over the past century or so; one can be skeptical that humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to it; one can be skeptical that humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions have caused all of it; one can be skeptical that the results from global warming will be as catastrophic as some environmentalists are predicting. I personally don’t doubt that humans have caused the planet to heat up by emitting greenhouse gasses. I am skeptical about the more disastrous predictions of what will result in coming years. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/18 "2014-01-06T15:44:49Z")
My rule of thumb is that any warning about greenhouse gases that mentions the planet Venus is scare-mongering. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/19 "2014-01-06T15:54:57Z")
But it’s very cold in Chicago today. Where’s your “global warming” NOW? QED: global warming is a hoax. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/20 "2014-01-06T16:06:22Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > This is a poor argument. I have read the history and I don’t think that drastic action needs to be taken. Even if we completely eliminate GHGs tomorrow and live life on berries and already-cooked meats (from the already-cooked meats tree, of course), most models show the climate continuing upward for around 50 years. (To be fair, some models show the trend continuing for less than 20 years, and some for more than 100.) No, this is the argument that is the poor one, to begin with you miss the point, the answer to the previous poster was to deal with the gross idea that there has been no experiments done for a long time. Then the rest is a strawman, the IPCC and other groups already acknowledge the reality that we will not be able to cut emissions “cold turkey” and once again as Richard Alley and many others reported, there is no demand that civilization as we know it should end. What you should see here is that change is part of our civilization. The point should be made that many ignore that this change is common, a major shift was needed on how to deal with clean water and sewage in our cities, civilization did not end. There may be indeed activists that do not shit from shinola, but as Barry Bickmore would tell you (Scientist, Conservative, Republican from BYU), their errors are less off the mark than from the the ones that grossly misrepresent the reality, those ones deserve harsher criticism. > **[“Why Don’t You Bash Al Gore?”](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/why-dont-you-bash-al-gore/)** > > Since I took the plunge and started publicly criticizing certain climate change contrarians, notably certain Utah politicians and Christopher Monckton, people on the other side of the fence have of… > [@](#): > > 1. Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, is not that bad, frankly. > > Yes, there are a couple errors. Yes, in a few cases he focuses on “worst-case scenarios,” rather than communicating the full range of risk. But the fact is that he got the most important points right, and the problems aren’t that serious from the perspective of most scientists who have examined the movie. Tim Lambert collected reactions from a number of scientists about a list of nine alleged errors in the movie, for example. While they didn’t always agree about the status of individual “errors,” there was general agreement that the list was too long. In most cases, it was questionable whether they were really errors at all. > > In the cases where Gore presented “worst-case scenarios” instead of depicting the full range of risk, try to look at it from the perspective of the scientists involved. The vast majority of scientists are saying, “Human-induced climate change is very likely to be a very big problem, and somewhat likely to be a very, very big problem.” Are they supposed to get all worked up when a popularizer like Gore goes around saying it will be a very, very big problem? The reaction of most scientists has been exactly what it should be. ”Well, maybe he overstated his case somewhat, but he got the gist right.” > > Now, contrast this with someone like Christopher Monckton, who goes about proclaiming that climate change is a “non-problem,” and to support his case he completely misrepresents the scientific literature he cites. Whom do you think scientists are going to want to spend their time criticizing? > > And no, I didn’t vote for Gore. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984.md?page=2)