" In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
- Galileo Galilei
It has become standard practice for both camps in the discussion on Climate Change to claim the extreme opinions of the other represent the opposition, for example we have the Deniers and the Alarmists. Neither label is a fair representation of the facts. Nevertheless, we would probably be labeled as a denier, because what we deny is the claim that global warming is on a trend to do irreparable damage to the planet and the facts at this time support our position.
What we as deniers have evidence that supports the following belief:
It's been a little over a decade since Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (AGW) has received much attention. Climate scientists have made numerous projections. Whose theories are most accurate?
What's the Question: That is almost as complex as the theories.
Tests: The "warmists" appear to predict more accurately than "deniers."
What we as deniers have evidence that supports the following belief:
- The science of global climate change is NOT settled. Much is not known and the debate is constructive and fundamental to the scientific method.
- Competent scientists are on both sides of the debate. Rejecting many of the claims of global warning is not rejecting science. Those who attempt to end the debate are rejecting science.
- The planet has warmed in the last century from a little ice age in the middle of the 19'th century.
- The temperature has not increased significantly in the last 18 years. All the global warming models have failed and the warmist have no scientifically verified explanation for this pause. However, the deniers have no proof that the temperature increase will not resume in the future. This is clear evidence the the science is not settled.
- Human activity contributes to that warming in the form of deforestation, urbanization, and burning of fossil fuels, However, proxy evidence shows dramatic temperature anomalies when humans could not have contributed.
- Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is necessary for most life forms on earth. It is NOT a pollutant.
- The impact of carbon dioxide in global warming is exponentially declining, Most of its impact has already occurred. Doubling the concentration (from 380 ppm) is likely to have less 25% increase in the temperature anomaly and less than a 0.5 degree centigrade change by 2100, not the 2 degrees that the more conservative warmists typically claim. (We would mention the changes being projected by the extreme alarmists)
- The models being used to predict disastrous temperature increase rely on the unproven mechanism of positive feedback. Increasing carbon dioxide alone cannot account for the temperature anomalies the warmists are projecting.
- Arctic ice is decreasing while Antarctic ice is increasing. The later change has a greater impact on ocean level changes.
- Fossil fuels critical to the economic well-being of humankind will be exhausted before the end of the 21st century. Pressure to conserve and to develop alternate energy source is wise.
It's been a little over a decade since Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (AGW) has received much attention. Climate scientists have made numerous projections. Whose theories are most accurate?
The fact that Climate Science is too complex for almost anyone to understand has fueled a continuing debate that is hardly over! Nevertheless, the majority of policymakers and the public want to know what the best minds have concluded.
Few credible scientists disagree with the observation that the earth
is warming. The planet has always experienced major swings in its
climate. The disagreement is: how much is the planet warming, what is
the primary cause of the warming, and is warming a necessarily bad
thing.
Some have claimed scientists have reached a consensus climate change. That it is due to AGW caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But more than 750 notable scientists have publicly voiced disagreement. That theory is pure conjecture and is not supported by any scientific proof.
Some have claimed scientists have reached a consensus climate change. That it is due to AGW caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But more than 750 notable scientists have publicly voiced disagreement. That theory is pure conjecture and is not supported by any scientific proof.
The implications of Climate Change are pronounced. If those arguing
the case of AGW, whom we shall refer to as the "warmists," are right,
the planet could be heating to levels threatening to the current way of
life. If the opponents of AGW, whom we shall refer to as the "deniers,"
are right, the warmists in their remedies could be driving the world to
economic collapse. Both scenarios would most likely lead to
devastating wars as populations fight for diminishing resources. The
debate is hardly over, as Al Gore, naively proclaimed subsequent to his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." It has just begun.
We had hoped the more prominent skeptic organizations, such as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and the Skeptical Society, would provide a platform for this debate. Disappointingly, they have lined up with position statements on the side of the "warmists" and consequently, shut-off avenues for the type discussion expected for skeptics. (see our post What is Skepticism by Don Loxton.) They have only added fodder to charges that they are subject to the same type of biases and closed-mindedness that they accuse others.
The blog the Resilient Earth nicely summarizes our opinion of the position taken by CSI (CLICK HERE). Although we have subscribed to CSICOP since 1995, we have, consequently, chosen no longer to support CSI as an Associate Member. Unfortunately, CSI continues to publish highly one-sided articles bordering on religious fervor about Climate Change that violate all principles of legitimate skepticism.
Our goal is to compensate for the failures of these organizations and provide fair and objective consideration of the more credible claims both pro and con, consistent with the dictates of the scientific method.
Before getting into the details of the science, consider the claim of a consensus in scientific opinion. Is that fact? This is reviewed on this link.
We had hoped the more prominent skeptic organizations, such as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and the Skeptical Society, would provide a platform for this debate. Disappointingly, they have lined up with position statements on the side of the "warmists" and consequently, shut-off avenues for the type discussion expected for skeptics. (see our post What is Skepticism by Don Loxton.) They have only added fodder to charges that they are subject to the same type of biases and closed-mindedness that they accuse others.
The blog the Resilient Earth nicely summarizes our opinion of the position taken by CSI (CLICK HERE). Although we have subscribed to CSICOP since 1995, we have, consequently, chosen no longer to support CSI as an Associate Member. Unfortunately, CSI continues to publish highly one-sided articles bordering on religious fervor about Climate Change that violate all principles of legitimate skepticism.
Our goal is to compensate for the failures of these organizations and provide fair and objective consideration of the more credible claims both pro and con, consistent with the dictates of the scientific method.
Before getting into the details of the science, consider the claim of a consensus in scientific opinion. Is that fact? This is reviewed on this link.
What's the Question: That is almost as complex as the theories.
Tests: The "warmists" appear to predict more accurately than "deniers."
Disclaimer: OLD comments may be found in the never forgetting internet pages that suggest a leaning of this website toward the contrarian positions. We initiated this work in 2007 after we attempted to validate the position statement of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Claims of the Paranormal (now known as CSI) on Global Warming and found technical support for it lacking.
For those who follow the publications of previously noted skeptic organizations, it becomes evident that fair presentation of all credible theories is not likely. On this our updated website we have chosen not to contribute to that bias even if we are urged to counter absurdities with our own biases. In this light we apologize for those earlier notes. Our goal is not to simply throw up opinion pieces as most blogs have the habit of doing, but to research sources and limit stuff to that which is credible.
We wanted to compare the various claims regarding Climate Change, but this topic is remarkably complex and beyond our expertise. We recommend readers check out the website WATTS UP WITH THAT. It has a huge amount of resource material and appears to be presenting a fair balance of opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment