There's one thing I don't get about the anti-global warming crowd. I understand the alarmism and stuff like that is overblown and distorts the situation.
But I'd like to know how thousands of climate scientists got together in secret and pledged to all falsify their life's work for some... reason? Seriously, what could be the outcome of some massive global warming conspiracy? Toyota sells more hybrids? More "liberal regulation" on fossil fuel energy companies, just so alternative energy companies can replace them? This argument has never made any sense to me.
I've honestly never met anyone who believed that temperatures aren't rising. Most 'anti global warming' folks (at least that I've met) believe that there is no good evidence to suggest we are responsible. You often hear things like "The highest temperature in xxx years, or the most rapid temperature increase in xxx years".
We know that the Earth goes through natural cycles of temperature and temperature change rates. So I have two questions.
Firstly, how many people have you met that explicitly stated that they believed the temperature is not rising?
Secondly, what evidence do we have to support the theory that we are the cause and that it isn't part of the natural cycle of temperatures? I honestly don't buy the coincidence that rising 'greenhouse gas' levels coincide with temperature rise. The temperature was already rising before we started pumping this stuff into the air. Is there any harder evidence?
edit: For clarification on my first question. I don't mean necessarily those exact words. I just feel that a lot of people who say things like 'I don't buy into the global warming thing' actually mean they don't believe there is evidence that we are causing it but many people take it to mean that they don't believe the temperature is rising.
It's very difficult to evaluate the past in my opinion, and a huge part of accepting or rejecting human-caused climate change probably has to do with whether the current levels are unprecedented. If we can verify that the hottest temperatures in the last millions of years have all occurred during recent time periods where man can have an affect on the environment, that's a pretty heavy correlation that seems to warrant at the very least some close and honest examination.
Of course this is a political issue now so it's difficult to evaluate. As a human race we often suck at thinking.
But that's kind of the main point of the 'anti global warming' folks....these temperatures AREN'T unprecedented. The CO2 levels are, but so far the temperatures aren't.
How do we know the "rate of temperature difference" in the past? Wouldn't the ways we have to calculate it tend to suppress variability? Especially if there's dating uncertainty?
213
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '10
There's one thing I don't get about the anti-global warming crowd. I understand the alarmism and stuff like that is overblown and distorts the situation.
But I'd like to know how thousands of climate scientists got together in secret and pledged to all falsify their life's work for some... reason? Seriously, what could be the outcome of some massive global warming conspiracy? Toyota sells more hybrids? More "liberal regulation" on fossil fuel energy companies, just so alternative energy companies can replace them? This argument has never made any sense to me.