Global Warming Skepticism

Economics Political Theory
, , , ,
1

For all of you who are skeptic when it comes to global warming, can you send me some evidence or anything else that disproves a lot of the supposed science that’s floating around? I understand that global warming is real, just like global cooling is real (or else we wouldn’t be alive), but I’m talking about the debatable seriousness of man-made global warming.

I remember in the beginning high school I was the biggest supporter of doing anything at all to stop global warming, but of course that’s when I wasn’t really in tune with the real world. I see kids going around these days preaching about global warming, even students at my college, who have never even seen any scientific evidence regarding either side.

I’ve done a few papers and stuff on global warming for school, but if everyone could just send the best possible evidence you can find, I’d greatly appreciate. I want to make sure to have all of my arguments formatted and ready in case I ever get into a heated debate where I can take people to school with some statistics.

2

The Geologic Record and Climate Change by Tim Patterson - A skeptical paleoclimatologist’s view on CO2 and climate change in Earth’s history.

Climate Change Science by Ken Gregory - A comprehensive compilation of climate-related graphs, facts and figures from a skeptic’s perspective.

3

The Petition Project: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html (short)

Christopher Booker’s book The Real Global Warming Disaster is very good: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-Global-Warming-Disaster-Scientific/dp/1441110526

Or if you want documentaries:

The Great Global Warming Scandal: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647

Global Warming or Global Governance: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4860344067427439443

The Cloud Mystery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA

4

Thank you both very much so far! I appreciate the help!

5

I disagree with about 99% of libertarians on this issue and would advise you to take the global warming deniers with a healthy grain of salt. They spew a lot of nonsense, as covered here and here.

Not that there aren’t opposing views (though they lack credibility IMO) but be careful of letting political ideology guide your views on mattters of science.

6

Yeah, I try to not let politics influence science, but it’s hard to decide what science is real and what isn’t. A lot of the information regarding trophic levels in relation to CO2 levels and everything just baffles me when it starts to get complex. That’s the thing - a lot of people who support all measures against global warming simply are not smart enough to comprehend the science. They understand correlation but not causation. Seeing Al Gore’s documentary clearly isn’t enough to formulate an opinion, and many of them haven’t even seen the documentary, let alone anything else. So it’s really hard for me to decide.

That’s why I like Newt Gingrich’s policy with global warming. He doesn’t really believe too much in it because the reports are contradictory, but he still wants to do something just in case, but not anything that would hurt the free market. I personally think ExxonMobil is doing a great job already researching gasoline production from algae. It’s brilliant.

7

I strongly agree with Cork on this issue. Why is it that libertarians think all is lost if global warming turns out to be real? We seem to suddenly lose our faith in markets and human ingenuity on this issue. I suggest people read these three great articles:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/fixing-global-warming-for-fun-if-not-for-profit/

http://freepressonline.net/content/global-warming-shifting-debate

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/featured/how-a-free-society-could-solve-global-warming/

8

Don’t Believe the Hype (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)

Books:
The Hockey Stick Illusion: Global Warming and the Corruption of Science (A.W. Montford, 2009)
Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know (2009) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology)

Resources:
800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (868 pgs) (NIPCC)
Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? (PDF) (The Heartland Institute)

Videos:
Give Me a Break: Global Warming (Video) (8min) (ABC News)
Global Warming is not a crisis (Video) (8min) (Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography)

Prominent Skeptics:

John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present), Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (2002-Present), IPCC Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007), IPCC Lead Author (2001)

Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, S.M. Biology, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007), Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988), Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present), IPCC Contributing Author and Reviewer

Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics (Harvard), S.M. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967), Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972), Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983), Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983), Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (1983-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, IPCC Lead Author (2001)

Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Meteorology, Research Scientist, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984), Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA (1984-2001), NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

S. Fred Singer, A.M. Physics (Princeton), Ph.D. Physics (Princeton), First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964), First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967), Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970), Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971), Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994), Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University (1994-2000)

Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics, M.S. Soil Science, Ph.D. Soil Science, Research Scientist, U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service (1967-2001), Editorial Board, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1973-1993), Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977), Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2003), Editorial Board, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present), President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)

9

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism and this article I wrote.

10

Viception: “The best argument for countering climate change is to stop cataclysmic effects on humanity, but the chances of cataclysmic effects are small. Some people believe taking those chances is too risky. To significantly affect global warming would require fossil fuel reduction resulting in higher energy costs. Alternative energies like wind and solar would not exist without government aid. Those higher energy prices would harm people, especially poor people. Some poor people burn biomass for cooking and warmth because they cannot afford electricity. That biomass incineration causes indoor air pollution which kills more people than global warming. To raise energy prices will ensure poverty. More people die from contaminated water, indoor air pollution, malaria, and malnutrition than from global warming. There is no contaminated drinking water, indoor air pollution, malaria, or malnutrition in this city because it is wealthy, allowing it to afford better water quality, cleaner energy, better healthcare, and nutritious food. Climate change should be monitored and countered if the benefits outweigh the costs. If you believe climate change is a future catastrophe, then you probably believe dihydrogen monoxide is a current problem. Dihydrogen monoxide is a colorless, odorless chemical that kills thousands of people each year. It is in the food supply, has been found in the air, has been used as part of chemical warfare, and can kill you if you inhale it. People have been asked to sign petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Most people sign the petition. Later they learned they agreed to ban water, chemically known as dihydrogen monoxide. Dihydrogen monoxide can have bad and good effects on human welfare. Likewise, climate change can have bad and good effects on human welfare. Before considering banning water or countering climate change, the full effects of the proposal should be considered.”

[Gero: What is climate change does harm people? What is the libertarian response? This was covered in response to air pollution.]

Viception: “Who owns the air? Everyone? No one? Imagine [Person 1’s] P1’s home emits air pollution that damages [Person 2’s] P2’s garden. P1 owes restitution to P2 for property damage. If P1’s home emits air pollution that causes P2 to become sick, P1 owes P2 restitution because P2 did not give informed consent to breathe polluted air. P2 does not have a right to clean air. P2’s injury due to inhalation of air pollution without informed consent entitles P2 to restitution. If one becomes sick due to naturally polluted air, one is not entitled to restitution. In a free market anarcho-capitalist society, different communities would likely manage air pollution in different ways. Some may limit the amount of air pollution permitted. Some may allow anyone sickened by polluted air to sue the polluter.”

[Gero: The Climatic Research Unit email controversy, also called Climategate, has been whitewashed, according to Patrick J. Michaels, a former professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia from 1980-2007, and current senior fellow at the Cato Institute.]

11

There are a number of discussions involved into the climate debate (a hot topic).

  1. Wether or not there is global warming or not. Even this is dismissed by some “sceptcis”.

  2. Wether or not global warming is (significantly) caused by human actions (both CO2 emissions and chopping tropical woods, etc.).

  3. Wether there is anything we can do about it, that is, wether the effects of actions to prevent further global warming, don’t cause other effects that may be same bad or worse.

12

<<<

Prominent Skeptics:

John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present), Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (2002-Present), IPCC Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007), IPCC Lead Author (2001)

Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, S.M. Biology, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007), Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988), Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present), IPCC Contributing Author and Reviewer

Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics (Harvard), S.M. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967), Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972), Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983), Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983), Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (1983-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, IPCC Lead Author (2001)

Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Meteorology, Research Scientist, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984), Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA (1984-2001), NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

S. Fred Singer, A.M. Physics (Princeton), Ph.D. Physics (Princeton), First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964), First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967), Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970), Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971), Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994), Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University (1994-2000)

Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics, M.S. Soil Science, Ph.D. Soil Science, Research Scientist, U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service (1967-2001), Editorial Board, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1973-1993), Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977), Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2003), Editorial Board, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present), President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)

Please provide the info on which oil company pays which scientist and how much.

13

P2 does not have a right to clean air. P2’s injury due to inhalation of air pollution without informed consent entitles P2 to restitution

So.. P2 does have a right to clean air. That looks like it is saying the same thing.

If P1 needs P2s consent to pollute P2s air, then P2 has a right to clean air, and P1 does not have the right to pollute P2s air.

The depths people will go to justify their personal biases amazes me.

14

Please provide what environmentalist organization you work for and how much you are paid.

MIT’s inconvenient scientist (The Boston Globe)

15

although it is alluded to in your step 3, I think that between 1 and 2, you should ask what the the consequences both good and bad of a warmer globe?

some of these consequences seem/are incalculable.

16
  1. If everything above is true then whether let free market decide best course of action or not

This is never debated and everyone by default assumes that governments must step up and “bailout” nature by stealing from taxpayers and paying special interests. Just like 2008 bubble; people never learn.

17

Especially when politicians are supposed to politicize science in the first place.

PopTech listed a lot of resources I like, “The Hockey Stick Illusion” is a pretty god-like take down on the IPCC’s main icon.

I should add that before we can even begin to debate the cause of the “warming” in question, we must first establish whether we even have accurate enough data to contend with.

Think about it. The data we have comes from a wide variety of equipment and conditions spread across twelve decades. I’m referring to things like…

  1. The switch from mercury to digital thermometers - and who knows how inconsistent the earliest models of both types were calibrated.

  2. Building of cities around weather stations plus the laying of new pavement which absorbs heat. The effect of this is strongly suggested by the fact that most of the warming has occurred in the Northern hemisphere where greater industrialization has occurred.

  3. When and how temperatures where recorded at respective weather stations. For example, did some idiot take it upon themselves to go from recording data in the morning to mid-day? Or could it be that some weather stations decided to take most of their measurements during warmer seasons out of convenience thus producing warmer trends in cumulative data?

  4. Not to mention the closure of weather stations in the coldest parts of Earth (e.g. Siberia - where the best attempts to reach absolute zero have been conducted) in accordance with the collapse of the Soviet regime. “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)” has a great discussion about this.

I could go on with more examples and in greater detail, but this is just off the top of my head.

In short - I don’t think public policy (given that it even exists of course) should be taking any kind of restrictive actions on such flimsy evidence - period.

18

Is there any studies that measure nuclear detonation’s affects on the warming? I wager release enough heat to vaporize anything in a x mile radius + the area, ought to do something to the temperature. Especially when multiple countries were doing the testing. I think it is still legal to do testing, it just has to be underground iirc. But that still adds heat to the earth.

19

The concern over nuclear testing on the climate came up in the 1960’s and it was determined that atmospheric testing had no long term effects on the climate.

20

No possible way I can argue or even hold an opinion on the science, I have no reason to disagree with it; but I wouldn’t be suprised if there was some form of left wing political shenanigins that is somehow twisting the issue somehow. That is just flat out hunchism though.