• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

TrueSceptic

Master Poster
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
2,143
Hi everyone.

I'm new here and thought I'd start with this little list I've built up after being in a couple of climate change/global warming forums and reading messages at quite a few more.

I make no claim to this list being exhaustive and say nothing about the contents. I have seen all these claims, or variations of them, made quite often, and that applies to the behaviour described in bold type too.
---
You might wonder if you should be a Global Warming Sceptic and I thought it might be useful to show you how easy it is.

Just choose any combination of the following beliefs.
Don't worry if you choose the "wrong" ones to start with: you can change any time and as often as you like.
Don't worry if your choices contradict one another or any that you had previously.
If any of your claims are shown to be false or irrelevant, don't apologise or even admit it: just move onto another one!
Go back to ones previously discredited whenever you like.

----

Global Warming is a creation of the media and they keep ramming it down our throats.

Global Warming is just a scare tactic thought up by governments to make us use less coal and oil.

Governments don't really believe it or they would ban thirsty cars.

Belief in GW is a religion with fanatical followers. It is almost impossible to reason with them.

Anyone who doesn't believe in the GW consensus is a heretic. Heretics are usually right in the end. Just look at Galileo and Darwin.

In the 1970s climate scientists said that we were heading into an Ice Age. Why should we believe them now?

Weather forecasters can't predict the weather a week in advance so how can anyone predict the climate 10, 20, or 50 years ahead?

GW is a conspiracy created by the left-green elite to tax and control us all.

Climate scientists are part of this conspiracy. They all know one other so they can get away with this quite easily.

The scientists invented the GW theory so they can keep getting research grants.

Other scientists, and especially the national bodies such as the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, are part of the conspiracy.

Most scientists are honest. The real conspiracy is in the IPCC, which distorts and misrepresents their work for ideological reasons. There is no real scientific consensus.

Climate models are just a collection of formulae tweaked to produce results that are close to measurements.

Climate models might be based on physics but it's all so uncertain that the results are meaningless.

It's not getting warmer at all. The figures and graphs produced by the climate scientists are all doctored and can't be trusted.

The figures don't need to be doctored: lots of the weather stations are unreliable. Garbage in, garbage out.

The warming seems to have levelled off so the figures and graphs might be OK after all.

China is having the coldest winter for 50 years so obviously GW can't be happening.

Temperatures have stopped increasing so GW must be a hoax.

It has got warmer but it's nothing to do with us. It's all to do with natural cycles.

It was much warmer millions of years ago and we weren't around then so how can we be the cause now?

The Medieval Warm Period was at least as warm as it is now. The Vikings colonised Greenland and grapes were grown in Britain.

Mars has been getting warmer too, so it must be something outside the Earth.

It's electrical heating caused by the solar wind interacting with the Earth's magnetic field.

It's caused by increases in the sun's output.

It's all to do with sunspots. Or cosmic rays.

It's caused by changes in the Earth's core.

The so-called greenhouse gases don't cause warming. It's a lie told by the scientists. What really happens is that the temperature rises first and the CO2 follows.

It can't be caused by greenhouse gases because they are only a small part of the atmosphere and can't have much effect.

Cows produce more greenhouse gas than anything we do.

CO2 is measured on Mauna Loa, an active volcano that spews out CO2, so how can the measurements be accurate?

Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all the factories and cars and planes and other sources of man-made carbon dioxide put together so how can we make any difference?

Greenhouse gases are the cause and global warming is a good thing. More CO2 means that plants will grow faster and who likes being cold? We should increase CO2 output!

Global warming is happening but we have no idea if it will be a good or bad thing. We should just wait and see.

Global warming is happening and it's mainly our fault but we can't do anything about it anyway. Even if we cut our emissions, China and India will more than make up the difference.
 
Also:

Ignore the unprecedented high MEASURED C02 levels (a greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere.

The fact that C02 is a greenhouse gas is a physical property. If its concentration goes up, temperature will too.
 
Also:

Ignore the unprecedented high MEASURED C02 levels (a greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere.

The fact that C02 is a greenhouse gas is a physical property. If its concentration goes up, temperature will too.

Nope, a good GW skeptic can deny that too. "CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas produced by all organisms---even plants!"
 
Also:

Ignore the unprecedented high MEASURED C02 levels (a greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere.

The fact that C02 is a greenhouse gas is a physical property. If its concentration goes up, temperature will too.
Wow, that was quick! :D

Remember that this is a simple list of things I've seen GW "sceptics" say.
 
Nope, a good GW skeptic can deny that too. "CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas produced by all organisms---even plants!"
Another quick response. :)

I think I've sort of covered this, if not in so many words.
 
Hi everyone.

And "Hi" to you :).

As a true sceptic, do you feel at all affronted by the widespread misuse of "sceptic" in this context? After all, a true sceptic can be convinced by a strong enough case. That doesn't generally seem to be the case with AGW "sceptics".

I've been around long enough to see that "sceptic" position go from "It won't happen", through "It's not happening", then "Something else is causing it", to the more recent "It's stopped, so there". The constant is that AGW is a crock of whatsit, which says conviction to me.

Global warming is happening and it's mainly our fault but we can't do anything about it anyway. Even if we cut our emissions, China and India will more than make up the difference.

I can't help thinking that some of these "sceptics" will indeed find AGW acceptable if it can be blamed on the (Communist) Chinese. Along with other foreigners, of course. The remaining "sceptics" might even find themselves labelled as commie-lovers (which would be sweet). I'm tempted to start encouraging that ... :)
 
You missed "Al Gore". Al Gore this, Al Gore that, or just Al Gore. It's not as resonant in these parts as in the US, of course.

Oh yeah, and "It's because they hate America".
 
You missed "Al Gore". Al Gore this, Al Gore that, or just Al Gore. It's not as resonant in these parts as in the US, of course.

Oh yeah, and "It's because they hate America".
You're right.

I started this list a while ago and I've tried to restrict it to "top level" claims. I should've mention "algore", I suppose, but where to stop with heroes/hate figures?

BTW did you enjoy the way the recent UK AIT court case was misrepresented by the "sceptics"? Was it discussed here?

TS
 
BTW did you enjoy the way the recent UK AIT court case was misrepresented by the "sceptics"? Was it discussed here?

TS

Oh, you bet it was. If you dig into the forest litter here you'll find dozens of abandoned AGW threads - they proliferate like crazy. As the same old same-old gets the treatment a new vehicle is launched for the latest piece of dreck, followed by the same old same-old ...

I find algoreism most amusing. It's some sort of comfort blanket to people with very narrow horizons. In their normal environment they need only say "Al Gore" to rouse great cheers and approbation.

But you'll have noticed that already, I'm sure :). Or something very similar.

The US-centric bulk of contrarionism is to be expected, of course, but what's with the Danes? If East Anglia goes, they go; you'd have thought that would concentrate minds. Are they planning to relocate to Greenland, leaving their immigrants behind? I wouldn't put anything past the Danes.
 
"TokenConservative" to reply in 1,2,3..........

With some Rush ass Limpball explanation of how it's all a "farce".

Damn, it's cold here in CO (Colorado) today. ;)
 
And "Hi" to you :).

As a true sceptic, do you feel at all affronted by the widespread misuse of "sceptic" in this context? After all, a true sceptic can be convinced by a strong enough case. That doesn't generally seem to be the case with AGW "sceptics".

I've been around long enough to see that "sceptic" position go from "It won't happen", through "It's not happening", then "Something else is causing it", to the more recent "It's stopped, so there". The constant is that AGW is a crock of whatsit, which says conviction to me.
I am indeed affronted by its misuse by the anti-GW crowd. Anyone who believes that the scientific method is the best way we have of acquiring and improving knowledge is a sceptic by definition; with very few exceptions, GW "sceptics" are not sceptical: they are variously dishonest, delusional, or technically incompetent. Not only do they refuse to accept the scientific evidence but they are also strangely credulous (unsceptical!) about any claims relating to climate that do not come from the mainstream climate science community; they will believe just about anything as long as it's not CO2!

I can't help thinking that some of these "sceptics" will indeed find AGW acceptable if it can be blamed on the (Communist) Chinese. Along with other foreigners, of course. The remaining "sceptics" might even find themselves labelled as commie-lovers (which would be sweet). I'm tempted to start encouraging that ... :)
I've noticed that GW "sceptics" are almost always right-wing and in the USA have a lot in common with Creationists/IDers. Here in the UK they tend to be anti-tax, anti-regulation types.
 
So when does this fit into your schemes for correct thinking and correct understanding?

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-247.pdf

Ocean heat storage changes should be where the focus is with respect to diagnosing the magnitude of global warming, as summarized in the paper


Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.

One of the issues, however, is whether heat is being transferred deep into the ocean, and thus sequestered there for a long time, perhaps to reappear at the surface unexpectedly. A paper in 2007 looked at this issue (thanks to Fergus Brown for alerting us to it). This paper is

Gregory C. Johnson, Sabine Mecking Bernadette M. Sloyan and Susan E. Wijffels 2007: Recent bottom water warming in the Pacific Ocean. J. of Climate. Volume 20. November 2007.
and has the abstract
Decadal changes of abyssal temperature in the Pacific Ocean are analyzed using high-quality, full-depth hydrographic sections each occupied at least twice between 1984 and 2006. The deep warming found over this time period agrees with previous analyses (Fukasawa et al. 2004; Kawano et al. 2006b). The analysis presented here suggests it may have occurred after 1991, at least in the North Pacific. Mean temperature changes for the three zonal and three meridional hydrographic sections analyzed here exhibit abyssal warming often significantly different from zero at 95% confidence limits for this time period. Warming rates are generally larger to the south, and smaller to the north. This pattern is consistent with changes being attenuated with distance from the source of bottom water for the Pacific Ocean, which enters the main deep basins of this ocean southeast of New Zealand. Rough estimates of the change in ocean heat content suggest that the abyssal warming may amount to a significant fraction of upper world ocean heat gain over the past few decades.”
The text includes
Between 3000 m (or 4000 m in the case of P06) and the bottom these estimates of heat flux range from 0.01 W m–2 along 47°N (P01) to 0.06 W m–2 along 170°W south of the equator (P15S). These values are between 5 and 30% of the heating trend of 0.2 W m–2 estimated for the 0–3000 m world ocean heat content change between 1955 and 1998 (Levitus et al. 2005) and between 2 and 10% of the heating trend of 0.6 W m–2 (per unit area of the Earth’s surface) estimated for the 0–750 m world ocean heat content change between 1993 and 2003 (Willis et al. 2004). Thus, abyssal Pacific Ocean heat content variations may contribute a small but significant fraction to the Earth’s heat budget…… The data from these repeat sections suggest that abyssal variations may contribute significantly to global heat, and hence sea-level, budgets. To close ocean heat, sea level, and likely freshwater budgets on interannual timescales, the ocean below 2000 m must be much better sampled in space and time than it has been, or is likely to be, relying on repeat hydrography alone.
This is an important paper with respect to diagnosing the radiative imbalance of the climate system (i.e. global warming and cooling). Moreover, if heat is being stored in deep depths, this would help explain why sea level continues to rise yet the upper ocean has not been warming in recent year. It also means that the feedback of this heat into the atmosphere is delayed, or even lost for a very long time in terms of how this heat affects the rest of the climate system.
 
What about the war on "skeptic?" They try to confuse the issue by confounding skeptics with sceptic tanks. They even disguise these cleverly in posts that would appeal to skeptics.

:duck:
 
Last edited:
What about the war on "skeptic?" They try to confuse the issue by confounding skeptics with sceptic tanks. They even disguise these cleverly in posts that would appeal to skeptics.

:duck:
Eh? What? :eek:
 
I really hope I didn't bumble into another international spelling problem...

Skeptic is spelled with a "k" where I'm from....

AND I SPELLED SEPTIC TANK WRONG!!!


ARG!!

I gotta quit with the spelling jokes... :(
 
Last edited:
I really hope I didn't bumble into another international spelling problem...

Skeptic is spelled with a "k" where I'm from....

AND I SPELLED SEPTIC TANK WRONG!!!


ARG!!

I gotta quit with the spelling jokes... :(
I'm aware of most of the variations in spelling between British and American English.

Yeah, jokes work better when you get the details right. :D
 
I'm aware of most of the variations in spelling between British and American English.

Yeah, jokes work better when you get the details right. :D

Very much so. Anyway, back on topic.

What irks me most about the global warming issue is what's at stake on the two sides:

GW people are wrong and we take recommended steps: Economy Slowdown for no good reason.

GW people are right and we don't take recommended steps: Planet fries us.

To me, whether global warming is man made or not is irrelevant in the face of the potential consequences if it is, and we could do something about it.

(this argument applies to the question of whether or not there are too many people on the planet.)
 

Back
Top Bottom