# 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:** 16
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/301 "2014-01-14T17:10:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is nice, but the issue is to also take into account the efforts that those groups are doing to drive the narrative. Also you need to adjust your skeptical levels, even I do not see PETA as normal. The point was: It damages any points you may make by being related to “environmentalists.” > [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is clear too, but then I also have a lot of experience from media bias discussions, the examples of the mainstream media getting science wrong are legion, and that is another problem, also related to the corporate weight of the fossil fuel industry. No matter their funding, they are driving their message _better_. That’s what my problem with advancing the science is. You, me, and anyone else willing can sit and howl into the wind with all of the science our lungs can force through our vocal cords, but it’s falling on deaf ears because we are “nerdy environmentalists who don’t have a grip on the ‘real world’.” > [@GIGObuster](#): > > As pointed out it is not only the correct information that is the issue, you are ignoring that the marketing is being artificially tipped to get a simulated controversy. And that is due to marketing. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, that is missing a lot of context, while what you say is true, that also assumes that we need to convince most of the population, this was already done. > > [http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2012/08/climate-change-deniers-are-almost-extinct/](http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2012/08/climate-change-deniers-are-almost-extinct/) With respect, a web survey and a phone survey do not evidence make and it shows when recounting the history. Calling several thousand people isn’t representative of the population at large. How many people you make contact with is random. You can conduct the same phone survey 12 times a year and get wildly varying results, unfortunately. Researchers studying poll reliability have also found that asking slightly different questions has been shown to change the result of a responses. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Make no mistake about it, most of the condescension is directed towards the ones that are still misleading and propping out politicians (and the politicians) that are doing efforts that are clearly going against the opinion of most of the people they represent. It doesn’t matter where the condescension is coming from or aimed. We shouldn’t hit innocent bystanders with our swarthy projectiles. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Remember, I said that there is a lot of “mainstream” points that in reality are percolated denier points, this one is also, climate science depends of a lot of lines of evidence, not all published science will talk about the main issue just as biology papers that support evolution. But if a paper does not mention evolution specifically it does not lead one to look at the paper with distress. (Well, only the creationists get distressed, sounds familiar?) No, I mean, I read the abstract and it said nothing about climate science and then I read the study itself. I can’t fathom how about 4 of these (so far) included got hit with “climate science” in the dragnet they put out. And a few others mention climate science in their abstract, but it doesn’t reference it at all in the study. As I said: Weak points that should be discussed and understood so it can’t be considered fodder. ---
**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 14, 2014, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/302 "2014-01-14T17:47:01Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > No matter their funding, they are driving their message better. Not really for common folk, it is now in the political arena and we should not ignore the elephant in the room that has an (R) in the name. > [@Farin](#): > > With respect, a web survey and a phone survey do not evidence make and it shows when recounting the history. Calling several thousand people isn’t representative of the population at large. How many people you make contact with is random. You can conduct the same phone survey 12 times a year and get wildly varying results, unfortunately. Researchers studying poll reliability have also found that asking slightly different questions has been shown to change the result of a responses. Whoa, that is really getting into woo territory, the reality is that other surveys show that it is a minority what still thinks that humans are not involved or that we will never see the changes. > [@Farin](#): > > It doesn’t matter where the condescension is coming from or aimed. We shouldn’t hit innocent bystanders with our swarthy projectiles. The problem is when the innocent bystanders even resort to deny the surveys. > [@Farin](#): > > No, I mean, I read the abstract and it said nothing about climate science and then I read the study itself. I can’t fathom how about 4 of these (so far) included got hit with “climate science” in the dragnet they put out. And a few others mention climate science in their abstract, but it doesn’t reference it at all in the study. The point stands, only a few get distressed by that. The only thing I can say in your case is that you are ok, but you need to take more into account the false equivalencies that are also pushed around by the contrarians. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/303 "2014-01-14T17:48:24Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > You gave two points and it wasn’t clear what was actually your “Argument”. I was opening up the possibility that more than one “you” was weighing in. 😉 No, I’m arguing a subject I know nothing about. I think I did pretty good, my third point deserves at least a draw, it applies to both our positions. Your turn, pick a subject you’re not married to, chances are I’ve dated her a few times. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/304 "2014-01-14T18:39:59Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > No, I’m arguing a subject I know nothing about. I think I did pretty good, my third point deserves at least a draw, it applies to both our positions. > > Your turn, pick a subject you’re not married to, chances are I’ve dated her a few times. Before we do that, go back to the first point #3. Unmetered electricity? Please elaborate. I wish to subscribe to free electricity. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/305 "2014-01-14T20:13:40Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > No, that **is** the point that is being illustrated, as per the explicit statements made by the researchers actually running the models > > Let’s assume that it is. It doesn’t change the fact that the models of pre-1950 temperatures both with and without anthropogenic affects essentially co-incide. We are now going around in circles, so I’ll be brief. This back-and-forth started when you made the following statement: > [@](#): > > according to the IPCC, global warming in the first half of the 20th century was primarily NOT caused by mankind’s activities That statement is not scientifically supportable with the available evidence. Period. You seem to believe it’s true based on an incorrect interpretation of a very rough graph which contains compounded uncertainties both from the presumed forcings and from the modeling process itself. You continue to believe it’s true **even when the statements I quoted from the researchers doing the analysis EXPLICITLY CONTRADICT IT.** (pardon the shouting, but that point keeps getting ignored!) Above all, you seem more interested in elevating this uncertainty about one period of time into some kind of red herring about climate change in general rather than either (a) understanding it, or (b) accepting that the evidence for the dominant influence of human impact on climate change in the post-industrial era overall and in the 20th century in particular is essentially irrefutable. Here are the actual facts. The warming in the first half of the 20th century was very likely NOT due to natural internal variability. That leaves natural external forcings and anthropogenic forcings as causes, and it’s impossible to tell within the margins of error and modeling uncertainty which was dominant. And it’s even worse than that. The graph also fails to show that the anthropogenic components at the time were both positive (CO2) and negative (sulphate and other aerosols), so the implication that anthropogenic forcings were non-existent is very misleading. Even more important, there is evidence for slightly increased solar forcing at the time, and it’s known that solar forcing is subject to coupled regional feedbacks that causes anthropogenic CO2 to amplify its effects. Thus in addition to observational and modeling uncertainties, there is an interplay between solar and GHG forcings that blurs the distinction as to what is “natural” and what is anthropogenic. Yes, science is complicated, and that’s why eyeballing a simplistic graph doesn’t even begin to tell the story unless you understand some of the underlying facts. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/306 "2014-01-14T21:13:38Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > We are now going around in circles, so I’ll be brief. i.e. you are going around in circles evading the central point. > [@](#): > > That statement is not scientifically supportable with the available evidence. Period. Stop trying to confuse the issues: It’s not a matter of whether it’s scientifically supportable – it’s a matter of whether it’s a reasonable conclusion if one accepts the IPCC report. It is. > [@](#): > > You seem to believe it’s true based on an incorrect interpretation of a very rough graph The interpretation is correct; I also linked to more higher resolution graphs which show essentially the same thing. > [@](#): > > You continue to believe it’s true **even when the statements I quoted from the researchers doing the analysis EXPLICITLY CONTRADICT IT.** No they don’t – they only contradict the strawman you erected here: > [@](#): > > The AR4 concluded that ‘the early 20th century warming is very likely in part due to external forcing (Hegerl et al., 2007a), and that it is ‘likely’ that anthropogenic forcing contributed to this warming. > [@wolfpup](#): > > which seems to rather run counter to your wishful and incorrect interpretation that it didn’t. [i.e. that anthropogenic forcing didn’t contribute to this warming] See, there’s a difference between stating that (1) according to IPCC, mankind was not primarily responsible for pre-1950 warming and stating that (2) according to the IPCC mankind did not contribute at all to pre-1950 warming. You pretended that I said the second when in fact I said the first. I gave you the usual chance to back up your claim or retract it and apologize. Which you of course ignored. In any event, I have no interest in a discussion where the other person insists on misrepresenting my position. Which you have done repeatedly. While I am sure it’s very satisfying for you to relentlessly attack strawman, it holds no interest for me. This exchange is concluded. Goodbye. ---
**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 14, 2014, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/307 "2014-01-14T21:46:38Z")
Well, welcome to the club \*\*wolfpup \*\*that means that he will not pay attention to any thing one will say, it is really an enforcement of willful ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/308 "2014-01-14T22:47:47Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > That statement is not scientifically supportable with the available evidence. Period. > > Stop trying to confuse the issues: It’s not a matter of whether it’s scientifically supportable – it’s a matter of whether it’s a reasonable conclusion if one accepts the IPCC report. It is. Apparently in your frame of reference, a statement that is not scientifically supportable – and contradicts the clear statements of the researchers – can still be “a reasonable conclusion”! I think that’s about all that needs to be said about that. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/309 "2014-01-14T23:15:08Z")
This is why we can’t have nice things. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/310 "2014-01-15T00:42:37Z")
This is why we can’t have nice debate. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/311 "2014-01-15T18:19:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Strawman, the whole post makes the point of not falling for the fallacy of killing the messenger, the omissions and making the report based on an already acknowledged error (you are wrong in your continuous inference that that error was not acknowleged and the correction not used by GISS and others) from the past that was really inconsequential and telling their readers that it can magically apply to the new data and research was misleading, specially when no evidence is presented of an error happening now. Only after that is established is that then it is pertinent to report why the maker of the article is likely doing that. > Wrong again, it is not bad to ask questions, but it has to be taken into account that more capable skeptics than you already did it, and got convinced that there is a problem. Hahahaha. Since it was SKEPTICS who have discovered several errors in the man-made-CO2-must-be-at-fault camps “scientific” findings, I can see why it’s important for the MMCO2MBAF camp to, at least attempt to, undermine any skeptical input. The MMCO2MBAF camp had to acknowledge their errors once they were exposed, didn’t they. I have to wonder why were the errors weren’t exposed by the IPCC’s usual friends-and-family-only style vetting? Is there any possibility that the “acceptable” vetters aren’t actually vetting and are only rubber stamping the studies they are given? That still leaves the IPCC and it’s supporters with a BIG credibility problem. A credibility problem that you are not helping. Thanks for that. ---
**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 15, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/312 "2014-01-15T18:47:17Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Hahahaha. Since it was SKEPTICS who have discovered several errors in the man-made-CO2-must-be-at-fault camps “scientific” findings, I can see why it’s important for the MMCO2MBAF camp to, at least attempt to, undermine any skeptical input. Ignorance shows, the skeptics scored once and it did not change the readings much, the conclusions made before stand, also if you are referring to the Himalayas error, it was not skeptics who found it but scientists did and corrected. > [@doorhinge](#): > > The MMCO2MBAF camp had to acknowledge their errors once they were exposed, didn’t they. Yes, but you have to notice that you came even denying that. And the point still stands, you have offered NOTHING to show that there are new errors or that the past error is still being followed by the new research. > [@doorhinge](#): > > I have to wonder why were the errors weren’t exposed by the IPCC’s usual friends-and-family-only style vetting? Is there any possibility that the “acceptable” vetters aren’t actually vetting and are only rubber stamping the studies they are given? Keep piling the ignorant points. It is not me the one that has a problem. > [@doorhinge](#): > > That still leaves the IPCC and it’s supporters with a BIG credibility problem. A credibility problem that you are not helping. Thanks for that. As even real scientists of the SDMB tellme that I’m correct more often, the problem is really on your ignorance of looking why your points are old, nor relevant and silly. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/313 "2014-01-15T18:58:32Z")
If the IPCC and it’s feeder organizations were truly honest about proving the results of their reports, they would welcome the input and vetting of skeptical people. It’s obvious that the IPCC and its supporters have missed errors that should have been discovered by any organization that was actually verifying the data and man-made inputs. ---
**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 15, 2014, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/314 "2014-01-15T21:49:45Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > If the IPCC and it’s feeder organizations were truly honest about proving the results of their reports, they would welcome the input and vetting of skeptical people. Current and previous reports used the paleoclimate data from Mann and othes, as the leaked emails from “climategate” 2.0 showed Mann actually approached one of his harshest critics and together released an update of Mann’s early work, you bet skeptics looked at it, and one can bet that your sources did not tell you that. > [@doorhinge](#): > > It’s obvious that the IPCC and its supporters have missed errors that should have been discovered by any organization that was actually verifying the data and man-made inputs. Nothing much left to say when it is clear that you are willfully ignoring the skeptical research by Muller and Berkeley Earth that found no significant errors at all. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/315 "2014-01-15T22:12:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Current and previous reports used the paleoclimate data from Mann and othes, as the leaked emails from “climategate” 2.0 showed Mann actually approached one of his harshest critics and together released an update of Mann’s early work, you bet skeptics looked at it, and one can bet that your sources did not tell you that. Incidentally, Mann’s later temperature reconstructions – and those of about a dozen other paleoclimate teams – fully corroborated his early work. The criticisms of Mann are a good case study in the kinds of criticisms being advanced here – the ones that try to say “look – an error was found!! An error!! Therefore the whole field is suspect!!” Case in point: Mann was primarily criticized by some for applying a type of statistical analysis called de-centered principal component analysis on his data, which was said to be capable of skewing the data and creating an artificial “hockey stick” uptick in 20th century temperatures. He was also criticized for using temperature proxies of allegedly questionable accuracy. This was widely trumpeted by “skeptics” as definitively invalidating all his work (as if the “hockey stick” shape of post-industrial warming was all just a statistical artifact). Never mind that there is a mathematical basis for de-centered PCA and that Mann’s proxy validations were exceptionally rigorous. But the real clincher came with papers by Wahl and Amman in 2006 and 2007. They repeated the reconstruction **without** the use of PCA, and with the controversial proxies removed, and **obtained essentially the same result**. They also found major blunders in the criticisms that had been directed against Mann. Since then, many other teams using independent techniques have confirmed his results and Mann has become widely respected as a major pioneer in paleoclimatology. This is tactic #1 in denialism: find any error, or anything that can even be questioned, and inflate it into an attempt to discredit an entire body of work. It’s amazing how much denialism $900 million a year in PR spin can buy. ---
**Author:** ![nachtmusick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ac91a4/32.png) [@nachtmusick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nachtmusick)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/316 "2014-01-18T08:09:47Z")
When one finds the need to grasp at straw, a good way to find material for the effort is to declare every telling point a strawman. ---
**Author:** ![cmangle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d26b3c/32.png) [@cmangle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmangle)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/317 "2014-01-29T21:07:02Z")
Pardon my Cynicism, but can anyone tell when the global warming will return? I’m getting a little frigid freezing my A$$ off here on the north east coast! Seriously is global warming only an issue during summer? As in my previous post it was “SUMMER” in Antarctica when those two freighters got stuck in the ice! Also correct me if I’m mistaken but wasn’t Al Gore’s movie dealing with global warming shot full of holes by someone? I’m not one way or the other on this matter, but it seems as though it hard to be on one side of the fence or the other when the fence itself don’t seem too sturdy! Is this a political issue? a financial/greed issue? or an environmental issue? Just curious . . . . ---
**Author:** ![cmangle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d26b3c/32.png) [@cmangle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmangle)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/318 "2014-01-29T21:16:12Z")
Addendum, I meant ICEBREAKERS above not freighters. You would think they’d have an easy job breaking ice during summer in Antarctica especially with the onslaught of global warming! Apparently not! ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/319 "2014-01-29T21:34:31Z")
Oh now you done and gone and done it. GIGO will be along shortly to school you. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/320 "2014-01-29T21:36:44Z")
> [@cmangle](#): > > Pardon my Cynicism, but can anyone tell when the global warming will return? I’m getting a little frigid freezing my A$$ off here on the north east coast! What if it _is_ here already? Would you know it? Climate scientists talk in terms of a global temperature increase of 2°C or so: what if it was that much warmer where you are? Could you tell? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984.md?page=17)