Why Should You Believe in Global Warming?

@Rollo1 (16650)
Boston, Massachusetts
December 13, 2009 11:38am CST
In the face of the current Climategate scandal and the summit in Copenhagen that could affect the economies of all the nations on Earth, you might be feeling a little confused about your stance on global warming. Maybe a little Q&A will help clear this up. Q. How do we know these emails are genuine? A. The University of East Anglia has admitted they are. Q. Do they really reflect a deliberate attempt to skew the data? A. Some of the emails urgently requested that the recipient delete all emails to avoid having to turn them over in response to a Freedom of Information request. If they didn't reflect something questionable, why the scramble to get scientists to delete them? Q. Since global warming theory is based on computer models, why not just believe the computer models? Computers don't lie, do they? A. One computer model, the famous Hockey Stick Graph was discovered to be significantly erroneous. In order to show a sharp increase in global temperature, the program that created it was tweaked to automatically disregard any temperature data that did not fit the hockey stick shape. This clever program completely did away with the Medieval Warming Period. The hockey stick graph was developed by Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania. He's the Mike referred to in the email that discusses using Mike's trick to "hide the decline" in temperature. Michael Mann is currently under investigation by the University. Q. Well, if the computer models are called into doubt, why not just go back and check the original temperature data, to make sure that the models are reflecting real data? A. That would be a great way to double check their work, except for one thing. They deleted all the original data. They dumped it, it no longer exists. All we have now is what they termed the "value added" data. There is no way to check their work, their models or their findings. We have to take their word for it. Q. Why should we doubt their word? Would scientists lie or try to deceive us? A. The problem for scientists these days is that it is impossible to get funding if you don't support anthropogenic global warming theory. Even a scientist has to follow the money. Recently asked about the emails, Al Gore said they were all ten years old, but the truth is that some are as recent as November of 2009. A journalist asking a question of Stanford Professor Stephen Schneider at the Copenhage conference was accosted by security guards, his cameraman threatened and was prevented from asking any further questions after having brought up the emails. It's now unlawful apparently for a journalist to ask questions. Why, if everything is so "settled". Q. I am not a scientist, what right do I have to doubt their theories? A. You have the right to decide who is consistently telling the truth and who is consistently lying. If someone or a group has demonstrated a pattern of cover-ups, manipulation of data and outright lies, you have a right to doubt their word. You also have the obligation to take that into account before making sweeping changes and enacting legislation that will cripple the already frail global economy. You have the right to demand that your president make no promises until and unless the questions about their actions and their methods are satisfactorily answered. To do less would be irresponsible. Q. So, why should I believe in Global Warming? A. Honestly, there's no good reason that you should... at least, not based on the word of scientists whose work cannot be verified. They threw out the data and made it impossible to verify their theories or any of their work. Game over, hit restart.
1 person likes this
7 responses
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
13 Dec 09
What happened with "climate-gate" was a blatent demonstration on how to completely toss out the scientific method. Man made climate chnage is based on the exact reverse of the scientific method. The basics of the scientific method are: [i]Ask a Question Do Background Research Construct a Hypothesis Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion Communicate Your Results [/i] But, what happened in determining climate change instead was: [i]Propose a conclusion based on political expediency Do research in stealth using only data that supports your conclusion Base your hypothesis on that same conclusion Test the hypothesis and when it doesn't add up, cover up said tests or fake them hide all data not fitting your conclusion/hypothesis Communicate your fraudulent results in a political and crisis oriented manner.[/i]
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16650)
• Boston, Massachusetts
13 Dec 09
"Communicate your fraudulent results in a political and crisis oriented manner. " The "crisis" bit gets funnier every day since it was Gore who told us we had just a matter of decades, then years, then months and then "you must do this now or else!" as the planet gets cooler and cooler. I saw a wacky scientific theory the other day. Some guy actually thinks that it's the sun that warms the Earth. Crazy fellow.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
14 Dec 09
It's sad that people have been told the same lie so many times that they believe it's fact. These are the same kind of people that mocked Christopher Columbus for saying the world was round, or Galileo for saying the earth and planets revolved around the sun. I had a professor in college once who explained how a mountain of evidence supporting your theory means nothing if you have one good piece of evidence proving it wrong. The theory he proposed, "Gravity affects everything except metal." He had a blast proving his theory by dropping everything in the room that was not made of metal. Clearly gravity affected everything he dropped. He then dropped a metal ruler, insisting that it only fell because the numbers, written in ink, were affected by gravity thus causing it to fall. Eventually he dropped a coin. He explained that the coin fell because there was dust on it, with that dust being affected by gravity. Finally, he cleaned the coin and dropped it. It still fell. That's how he showed us that the mountain of evidence he'd accumulated meant nothing because the drop of one clean coin disproved all of it. A less respectable scientist might have called that coin an outlier, erased the data, and continued to push a bogus theory.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16650)
• Boston, Massachusetts
14 Dec 09
That was a great demonstration. If you look at the comment of the next responder, he believes in global warming because they've had two hot summers in a row. Well, using that criteria, I could point to record cold in the Northeast, Midwest, West and South of the US, as well as snow on the first day of summer in Australia, the first snow in Johannesburg in 25 years and the worst winters in Europe in recent memory to declare that we are already in the midst of an ice age. Neither of us would be correct. Some scientists attribute the cooling temps to low solar activity, global warming scientists say they don't count because it's due to La Nina and all the crazy changes that global warming brings. I read another discussion that attributed it to a government plot using chemtrails to seed the clouds. The truth is that climate is complicated and they don't understand all the factors that cause decadal cycles and they don't have records going back far enough to put a couple of decades into perspective. The amount of data they have is simply not enough to enact treaties that endanger the survival of mankind more than the spectre of global warming ever could.
1 person likes this
@trruk1 (1031)
• United States
16 Dec 09
Climate is indeed complicated. The study of climate change is fairly new and there is a lot of stuff nobody understands. One thing that is indeed predicted by higher temperatures is more storms and more severe storms. Summers will be hotter with more hurricanes and winters will have more storms as well. All of it is driven by heat. Yes, if you have one solid piece of evidence that clearly refutes all of the accumulated data that indicate temperatures are rising, that would be a powerful indicator that something was wrong with the theory of global warming. There are probably a lot of things wrong with current theories. One thing that is clear, though: the planet is getting warmer and burning of fossil fuels contributes to that process. We could sit on our hands and say it is just so unclear. We could say it would cost too much to try to slow the process. We could do that. Then, in 50 or 60 years, when all the people who now live on the coast are underwater, they can deal with it. Most of us won't be alive, so why should we care? It is mostly the right wing in this country that denies there is such a thing as global warming, and they have fought their battle mostly on political grounds. They don't attack the data, they attack the person who collected it, or the periodical that published it, or the source of the funding. They present this as something that is somehow a matter of "belief", rather than a subject for scientific study. Many of the same people who say they do not "believe" in global warming also do not "believe" in evolution. I expect some of them do not "believe" in gravity, either.
@snafushe (794)
• Canada
14 Dec 09
I think we should believe it because like it or not it is happening! Ignoring it will not make it better, and pretending it's fake isn't going to help us. We have proof through science and climate change that it is happening and it is happening fast. If we don't do something about it we may not be able to reverse the damage that already has happened. Ignorance is bliss, but it doesn't save the world.
@Rollo1 (16650)
• Boston, Massachusetts
14 Dec 09
I think you read only the title of the discussion.
1 person likes this
@snafushe (794)
• Canada
14 Dec 09
No I read it through, I just don't agree with your arguments and was giving my view on it. :)
@matersfish (6313)
• United States
14 Dec 09
There was a supposed authority about climate change on O'Reilly Friday. Okay, nobody has to buy that O'Reilly's show is a legitimate source for anything, but this guest touted himself to be a leading authority and claimed to have the definitive answers about the emails and yada bla. Anyway, when asked about the emails, he asserted that they were all old. When told they weren't all old, he said, basically, "Oh well. It's just a few emails." When asked why other scientists and their theories aren't included in the debate, he said, basically, like Al Gore and some of your responders here, not believing in climate change is like not believing in gravity. (Oddly enough, nobody knows what gravity is, as in its universal place - only what it does.) He then went on to say that the proponents of climate change receive their data from peer-reviewed science, and that naysayers aren't peer-reviewed. That's all he said for the next 5 minutes: "Peer-reviewed!" So, basically, that's like saying Olbermann's always right so long as Matthews and Maddow sign off on what he's saying. Because, let's face it, you're only allowed in the climate change circle if you agree to begin with. Your peers and neighbors. So here's the way I see it, as simplistic as a kool-aid drinker might think it is: If proponents of climate change are actually giving people reasons for debate and reasons to be concerned yet still won't address these things, then people are going to start jumping off the bandwagon. If they want people to believe, then they really have to do a better job of convincing people it's still happening. It's NOT treated as a real problem by the very same (elitists) people claiming it is a problem! Why? Everyone pushing for climate change legislation outright refuses to debate ANYTHING about it. And, logically, they really have no grounds to say the debate is closed. After all, it was still called "global warming" until a few years ago. So if anything's actually "changing," that means there's always room for debate and multiple opinions. You can't sit around with likeminded people, have them sign off on your theories, and then expect the rest of the world to jump on board. Every piece of evidence that I know of suggests that the Earth was going through a warming period. Since then... Yeah. Give it a new name and resell it. I could definitely be wrong thinking it's all about a bunch of nonsense, but I've looked at this thing from every angle and all I see are a bunch of phonies promoting something that makes everyone at the top richer. It's like the worst accusation liberals ever made about conservatives and their business interests multiplied by a trillion (literally). As as agnostic, I approach climate change the same way I approach religion. Like I told my parents and their priest: If it's out there, prove it to me. Until then, I will remain skeptical. I suppose he could of pulled in a dozen other priests off the street. But I still don't think that woulda done it.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16650)
• Boston, Massachusetts
14 Dec 09
"That's all he said for the next 5 minutes: "Peer-reviewed!" It wasn't Ed Begley Jr., was it? Those are his favorite words. Of course, if you prevent anyone who disagrees with you from getting published in "peer-reviewed" journals, you can safeguard yourself from opposing viewpoints. Strangely enough, no one seems to realize that scientists with comparable credentials in the same field ARE peers, and have every right to REVIEW your findings, even to the point of publishing other viewpoints - even if you don't like it. "Every piece of evidence that I know of suggests that the Earth was going through a warming period. Since then... Yeah." And every piece of evidence in the period before that suggests that the Earth was going through a cooling period - to the point where reputable scientists were predicting an ice age and working out ways to increase global warming. It got cold, then it got warm and now it's getting cold again. The warmists don't have an explanation for that, it wasn't predicted by their computer models and unless the models actually predict climate, they are useless for the purpose of developing policy regarding climate. That's the reason not to go along with it - it's not scientifically precise and so far they've got a whole lot of things wrong. Since they won't explain, discuss or debate, there's no way to find out why they got these things wrong or if we can trust any of their theories to be right. That makes it a theory not worth betting the farm on.
1 person likes this
@evydabest (197)
• Malta
14 Dec 09
I believe in global warming for a number of factors. The main factor is the status of our planet itself. I have experienced dramatic changes in climate over the past few years. Especially considering where i live; Malta. The summers couldn't get any hotter then they already are. The peak has risen by a whole degree in the previous 2 years. Maybe for you it's not a lot, but if you where in my position yo would be definitely feeling it. Anyways, i don't think scientists are lying, otherwise there wouldn't be such a fuss about it all the time. Stop criticing stuff that you don't know, open your eyes and look around eh. Happy mylotting.
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
15 Dec 09
That's a weak argument. Every winter feels colder and every summer hotter if that's the dominant season where you live. Ask people in Siberia how much colder this winter is. Globally, we're down 1 degree for the annual temperatures. "i don't think scientists are lying, otherwise there wouldn't be such a fuss about it all the time" There's a fuss about it BECAUSE the scientists are lying.
@trruk1 (1031)
• United States
16 Dec 09
If the scientists who have all of this evidence for global warming have actually faked it and there is nothing unusual happening, then I would like to know why? If you create fake studies and publish fake data, you WILL get caught. Remember cold fusion? It looked like those guys had found something remarkable that our current theories of sub-atomic physics did not predict. Other people repeated their experiments but did not get the same results. That is how science works. I have noticed a lot of anger from those who deny global warming. Why? Why does it make their blood boil and induce them to load epithets on those who say it is happening? The anger, the rude attitudes, the name-calling, all take this issue out of the realm of science and place it squarely on the shoulders of ideology. That is how politics works but that is not how science works.
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
16 Dec 09
"I have noticed a lot of anger from those who deny global warming. Why?" Because people like Al Gore are becoming millionaire off the global warming shtick. Because people who dispute not the existence of global warming, but rather the cause, are mocked and ridiculed by those the profit off it. Because public policy is being set based on unproven theories, that are the result of scientists who are hiding data that does not support their theory. The biggest thing right now is that Obama is willing to make "energy prices necessarily skyrocket" which will greatly hurt families who are struggling just to put gas in their cars and keep electricity in their homes and it's all based on manufactured results by scientists who have trashed their raw data to keep people from learning the truth.
@LIENROSE (910)
• Philippines
14 Dec 09
It was evidently affecting our country
@rjvb26 (2518)
• Philippines
14 Dec 09
Hi there, just read my comment on the number 2 response that becomes a discussion and debate to you guys. All i want to say is that, true or not, just do our thing, and be responsible human beings next time so that we will not have this problems again in the future, if there will still be a future. let us do our thing, do the things that is needed to be done, do much more important work and let us do our purpose as human beings in this world, and that is to maintain this planet. We get so many things in this world without returning even a leaf. There is so much gain but no taking back and i guess this planet is really selfless. And now we are paying the price. I guess restoration of the old earth is better, where there are so many trees, clean air and healthy living. True or Not, just do our part! That is the best way that i am thinking right now Sorry if this was a short one, just read my comment on the response number 2 Have a great day.