Richard Black from the BBC News website sent out a questionnaire to climate sceptic groups in order to test the alternative ‘consensus.’ He is now able to report the results:
What do “climate sceptics” believe?
Despite having reported on climate change for more than a decade, I realised at the beginning of the year that I was not entirely sure.
Read ‘Unravelling the sceptics’
See also ‘Climate scepticism: The top 10’
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Climate changes, has always changed and will change in the future.
Is man made CO2 emissions responsible for raising the earth’s temperatur? Physically impossible and in any case a paper to be published in a peer-reviewed journal of the Royal Metereological Society next month by Fred Singer, John Christie and David Douglass will present firm scientific evidence falsifying the AGW hypothesis.
The real problem are the dinosaurs in the AGW who are either unwilling or unable to adapt to climate change.
Oh and I do not regard Bjorn Lomborg as a climate sceptic.
An interesting article by Richard Black. I thought his summary fair and that there is some agreement that:
“Eleven [of the 14] believed rising greenhouse gas concentrations would not result in “dangerous” climate change, and 12 said it would be unwise for the global community to restrain production of carbon dioxide and the other relevant gases, with several suggesting that such restraint would bring economic disruption…
“One of my more gracious respondents, Arthur Rorsch, suggested that rising CO2 might help “green” the world, with increases in food supply.
“There was general disdain for the Kyoto Protocol, with respondents split roughly equally between saying it was the wrong approach to an important issue, and a meaningless exercise because there was no point in trying to curb emissions.
“There was general agreement, too, that computer models which try to project the climate of the future are unreliable. Several respondents said the climate system was inherently unpredictable and therefore impossible to model in a computer.”
I might quote this article next time Luke Walker makes comment on this issue. 😉
PS Ofcourse skeptics tend to be fairly tolerant of the differing views of other skeptics.
Jennifer – “Eleven [of the 14] believed rising greenhouse gas concentrations would not result in “dangerous” climate change”
So eleven of the 14 think, contrary to Louis’s beliefs, that human activities and greenhouse emissions will cause climate change however that change will not be dangerous.
The question that immediately springs to mind is how do they know this? If computer models are unreliable as they also say they how can they possibly say with any certainty that the climate change that they admit will happen will be benign?
Also this paper of that Louis mentions if sent to some of these 14 for peer review, assuming of course that happens, could be rejected as Louis says that is ‘proves’ that it is physically impossible for man made emissions to affect the temperature of the earth. The skeptical ‘scientists’ would know from their own training that the same gases as we emit already contribute to the greenhouse effect. So it is quite likely that a skeptical paper would have a very hard time passing scrutiny from these skeptical scientists, if indeed they are functioning scientists.
Many non-scientist skeptics, like myself, have learned over time who likely can be trusted and who cannot. Time and again, the same untrustworthy group raises fears of various calamities and then get proven wrong over time.
Now, that group has taken up the cause of global warming. It’s especially appealing to them, because mankind and capitalisim are getting blamed.
It’s one thing to toss a few million dollars into research, but it’s another when this same group wants to spend trillions and reallocate those resources from families, education, and medicine.
Realistically, mankind cannot make much impact on slowing whatever warming there is, so let’s see what happens and allocate resources later, if necessary, to adapt to the situation. It will be a lot cheaper and probably unnecessary.
Jen – you guys are kidding yourselves (with respect) – when you are “equally” sceptical – you will have reached “true” scepticism.
I suggest you guys are far from being genuinely sceptical – you’re simply an opposing point of view. A very vigorous politicaly based opposing point of view.
Because it’s “any old iron” isn’t it. There have been some bloody dreadful stuff paraded here as science.
But if it’s in the anti-AGW area – don’t say a word. As long as you’re socking it to them. Any old crap will do.
Any argument – any old rubbish is fine. The fact that anti-AGW ideas are diverse isn’t a problem either as there is only ONE ISSUE to be defeated (at all costs). Anything based around CO2 AGW is the target !.
The AGW issue has been framed as a left wing quasi-communist anti-western civilisation issue and every day this blog sets out to reinforce that at all costs.
Denialist alarmism!
It’s really only a quirk of history that the issue isn’t a right wing issue.
Woody’s comment is interesting as it succinctly illustrates all this:
“Many non-scientist skeptics, like myself, have learned over time who likely can be trusted and who cannot” – based on what – 5-10 years of observing an issue on climate. Framing.
“same same untrustworthy group” – says who & why – framing
“fears of various calamities ” – come on – who’s really scared – everyone is down the pub and at the footy, queues outside Harvey Norman at opening time.
“then get proven wrong over time” – so sudddenly we’ve arrived at the future …-we’re actually there now??? framing
“that group ” – which group – try to portray an enemy – there is no “group”. It’s just people.
“same group wants to spend trillions and reallocate those resources from families, education, and medicine.” errr – no – actually the most would be criticised wanting to do much more here. Simply scaremongering.
“so let’s see what happens and allocate resources later” – yep – let’s not check the brakes and just see what happens later.
This isn’t a fair sceptical debate Jen. This is just science war with big business and left versus right politics.
Fascinating that trusting in technology and models is also the cornerstone of GM technology too. But no problem here.
No real sceptics to be found – just warring opponents.
I’ve noticed a certain amount of disdain on your part for people who frequent social drinking establishments.
Temperance movements – one of Woody’s untrustworthy groups
Ender
Are you talking about the atmosphere or the earth? I am talking about the earth as I explicitly state.
Ender
we do not rely on computer models to determine whether increased CO2 is benign or not. The geological, recent and past, shows that it is benign.
You base your whole position on the efficicacy of computer modelling of a process that cannot be intrinsically predicted.
It’s called science – frame hypothesis, test it.
As for your remark about Singer et al and peer review, that paper went through exhaustive peer review because the majority of the peer reviewers were opposed to the conclusions made in that paper. Any more detail has to wait until publication or when Singer et al release pertinent details.
That said, Singer et al have firmly falsified the AGW hyopthesis. End of story if we are dealing with science. Another matter if we are dealing belief.
Come on Louis – Singer isn’t going to convince anyone. Zip Zero.
Louis of course CO2 is benign – it’s not mutagenic. If you knew anything as a geologist you would know that CO2 has had major role in a number of past climate changes. You have a very slim chance to redeem yourself by defending your position.
We’re commenting speculatively on a paper not yet published?
Fun.
Louis – “The geological, recent and past, shows that it is benign.”
What benign like the Permian extinction that wiped out 95% of the species alive at the time or the Younger Dryas where humanity was possibly down to 20 000 individuals.
“Singer et al have firmly falsified the AGW hyopthesis”
Well that will be very interesting and I await it with bated breath.
I thought that people were sceptical because they believed the science wasn’t settled. If you believe that we are just ‘scratching the surface’ when it comes to understanding our climate then of course there would be a diversity of ideas.
Sceptics tend to challenge consensus, they view the universe as a vast complex place where we still have a lot to learn.
Science started this way by people challenging religious views of the world.
I would be very surprised (& disappointed) if there was much consensus in the world of ‘climate sceptics’
The best science happens when the prevailing consensus is challenged.
This blog is no longer worth reading.
Luke carries on like he’s in the “Dead Parrot” skit in Monty Python. Ender willfully distorts the comments of some scientists who are prepared that carbon dioxide might cause a tiny amount of warming but it’s nothing significant.
You both carry on like children with your twists in the discussion. You’ve worn out any tolerance I had for those with a contrary point of view who were not prepared to rationally argue a point.
On matters related to climate this blog has become a total waste of time.
There is nothing really new in the article about the various positions AGW skeptics have adopted and there is some scientific evidence to back up their arguments.
Antarctica is cooling for example and while the five-year trend line shows continued warming, it seems to have been slower in the last few years than previously.
Computer models are only as accurate as the information they are programmed with.
It’s also true to say that at various times the world’s temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations have been far greater than today without anthropogenic CO2.
It’s also legitimate to question whether the temperature record is sound given growing urbanisation and factors such as the closure of many former Soviet meteorological stations in the 90’s.
There is also no doubt that some of the most extraordinary alarmism from the AGW side hasn’t helped the cause – shut down of the Atlantic Conveyor, 20 m sea rises in the near future, individual weather events such as Katrina being confidently attributed to AGW.
Finally , the hypocrisy on display is breathtaking.
Many of those most disposed towards promotion of dramatic alarmist scenarios supposedly on the basis of rational science or the precautionary principle abandon both with alacrity at even the hint of some admittedly radical but scientifically proven and reliable alternative sources of energy which would lead to dramatic cuts in anthropogenic CO2 without wrecking the economy such as nuclear energy.
But.
There does not appear to be an increasing number of scientific sceptics – there’s one or two notable defections by some very reputable experts but the consensus seems to be fairly solid that the cause of the current warming is anthropogenic and that it’s unprecedented.
I can’t accept a huge, conspiracy of silence as a realistic alternative.
This seems to be less agreement as to how much of a threat this represents.
Several years ago I was sceptical of the hypothesis for admittedly the same reasons Luke posted on [and he’s a master practitioner of] – framing. Many of those ringing the alarm bells most stridently weren’t noted for moderate, emotionless, rational analysis of the facts to back up their assertions.
But at the end of the day I’m not an expert.
If I was diagnosed with cancer tomorrow and consulted 10 oncologists and 9 of them told me I required immediate chemotherapy with one claiming carrot and cactus juice would cure me, I’d take the advice of the majority.
I’d be very interested in listening to the minority opinion [naturally] but I’d follow the advice of the majority.
I agree the debate has become far too politicised and irrational but I lay the majority of the blame for that on the AGW camp for either condoning [in some cases by silence] the more extreme, alarmist and unlikely scenarios and secondly through the vitriol they have unleashed at others who have a different point of view.
I suspect that many sober and responsible AGW proponents find they have a tiger by the town and simply can’t let go because of how polarised the discussion has become.
For goodness sake, Louis. People live, and people die, just like they always have. Sometimes they die before they should, and that always happens for a reason.
John – “Ender willfully distorts the comments of some scientists who are prepared that carbon dioxide might cause a tiny amount of warming but it’s nothing significant.”
I am not twisting it I am just asking the reasonable question how do they know that CO2 will cause a tiny bit of warming?
“On a sceptic’s blog I would read “global warming isn’t happening”. Then I would read an op-ed saying “warming is happening but it’s entirely natural”. Later, someone would tell me “it is happening, it is caused by greenhouse gases, but the effect is so small it won’t matter”.”
So someone else noticed that too……
Primordial Earth, with its molten surface mottled with active spouting vulcanism, necessarily possessed only one form of carbon, gaseous vapor.
From this concentration precipitated our present climate.
This by itself proves that no matter how much CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere by us, the Earth won’t get warmer. You could burn all of it, every stick of wood , every ounce of oil, every lump of coal, and the Earth will still end up with the climate we have.
How do I know? Because it already happened.
AGW falsified. :p
“I am not twisting it I am just asking the reasonable question how do they know that CO2 will cause a tiny bit of warming?”
Ender, is it equally reasonable to question why the co2 will cause dramatic/ catastrophic/ unprecedented/ ( fill in the word) warming?
Some scientists suggest its the first 50ppm or so that cause most of the warming, and the rest is not very significant.
As Arnost has explained so eloquently on a prior link, its been warmer before without us, so why is the current warming all/ mostly our fault? ( Granted it could be, but if its not, will anybody ever listen to a scientist again?)
regards Toby
James
that piece of logic really hit the spot. I can’t stop laughing.
James – “Primordial Earth, with its molten surface mottled with active spouting vulcanism, necessarily possessed only one form of carbon, gaseous vapor.”
So Primordial Earth had exactly the same climate conditions that we have today? The Earth has never been warmer or colder than today?
toby – “Ender, is it equally reasonable to question why the co2 will cause dramatic/ catastrophic/ unprecedented/ ( fill in the word) warming?”
Yes it is absolutely reasonable to question the degree of climate change as it could range from nothing at all to catastrophe. And as you correctly point out computer models are not crystal balls and will only give a range of possible future scenerios.
However what I and others are saying is that given that there is a significant risk that something will happen from human activity that is is better to mitigate the risk by reducing carbon emissions.
It really it boils down to the sensible idea that we should prepare for the worst and hope for the best. This is in contrast to the skeptic view that we should prepare for the best and hope for the best.
Which one of these actions in real life situations usually leads to disaster.
Well ender , 3PO , all you have to do to prove me wrong is … shoot. You can’t. If you were right about AGW we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.
I am skeptical of Luke and that skepticism is sustainable and will be sustained until he removes the pejorative and recants on relativism (is that when Hell freezes over?).
I didnt mention Ender did I? – best not to, its all bad and sad.
Ender says he’s got no idea but he does no know that we have 2 choices, prepare for the worst or prepare for the best.
I’ll take choice #3
James – “If you were right about AGW we wouldn’t be here to talk about it”
Actually as if you could not be wrong about anything else and yet you are, climate change probably was one of the driving forces behind human evolution.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0202_060202_evolution.html?fs=www3.nationalgeographic.com&fs=plasma.nationalgeographic.com
The problem now is that the Earth is pretty stretched supporting 6 billion humans. Human induced climate change, that previously would not have affected us much as hunter gatherers, will hit pretty hard if indeed it does happen.
Ender – very interesting new speculation on dinosaurs being decimated by greenhouse.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/science/2007/10/31/microscopic-evidence-fingers-volcanoes-as-prime-suspect-in-dino-demise.html?s_cid=rss:microscopic-evidence-fingers-volcanoes-as-prime-su
Found in article at Greenie Watch….
“The first key to wisdom is constant and frequent questioning, for by doubting we are led to question and by questioning we arrive at the truth.”
— Peter Abelard (A.D. 1079 – 1142)
Woody
you have just described how AGW came to be discovered. At first, most just wrote it off as impossible.
ST, that just isn’t true. It’s not like the whole word believed that there were no temperature changes until someone disputed that. The Al Gore’s of the world just made it up and ran with it. They weren’t skeptics. It’s like you guys are trying to take us back to the flat earth theory but we know better.
Al Gore didn’t make it up, he’s not a scientist. “We” know better? You’re a scientist?
Hi all.
Dumb question, what do skeptics (scientists) believe?
Shouldn’t the question have been waht does the evidence indicate?
Have we move from theory to a proof?
Ask a priest for belief and scientists for their opinion based in evidence and research.
Woody – “It’s not like the whole word believed that there were no temperature changes until someone disputed that”
You really need to read Spencer’s history here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
The establishment were extremely skeptical of AGW until the pioneers convinced them with hard science.
Read to link it is worth it.
Woody – “It’s not like the whole word believed that there were no temperature changes until someone disputed that”
You really need to read Spencer’s history here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
The establishment were extremely skeptical of AGW until the pioneers convinced them with hard science.
Read the link it is worth it.
Ender, (but your real ID is known to me, ya?) but are you really serious about referencing http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm ?
I can nuke it, (metaphorically), just on the summary paragraph.
Newbies
The hypothesis that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is initially contradicted by the measurements of the chemical compositions of the atmospheres of Venus, Earth and Mars compared to their surface temperatures.
But as it is science, this conclusion is tentative, as it is science.
That it is not so, is in the domain of religion which I have zero expertise.
Louis – “Ender, (but your real ID is known to me, ya?) but are you really serious about referencing http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm ?”
Yes it is the best summary on the net written by someone who understands the science.
“SPENCER R. WEART () is Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) in College Park, Maryland, USA. Originally trained as a physicist, he is now a noted historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics.
Born in Detroit, Michigan in 1942, he received a B.A. in Physics at Cornell University in 1963 and a Ph.D. in Physics and Astrophysics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, in 1968. He then worked for three years at the California Institute of Technology, supported as a Fellow of the Mount Wilson and Palomar Observatories. At Caltech he taught physics, did research on the sun’s atmosphere and on ground-based and space-based telescope instrumentation, and published papers in leading scientific journals.”
I think Spencer might have chance of knowing what he is talking about hence the reference.
Louis – “Newbies
The hypothesis that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is initially contradicted by the measurements of the chemical compositions of the atmospheres of Venus, Earth and Mars compared to their surface temperatures.”
Righhhhhht…. Louis I think even the newest newbie on this list could see this statement for the crap that it is. Give it a rest.
Louis
I’m failing to see where the science is in the bald assertions you are making.
Perhaps a little more explanation to your claim is in order.
Two things in response to comments to me above:
(1) There was no “consensus” about global temperatures before the global warming nonsense started. It’s not like the whole world was firmly fixed on one ideal temperature for the Earth–the one that we had then. In fact, the same alarmist crowd once had people believing in a second ice age. Scientists pushed that global cooling on the media, which pushed it on the public, and scientists who knew better stayed silent. It seems to me that did not make the alarmists into “skeptics” at that time.
(2) I am not a scientist. So what? (While quite different, I have an appreciation for science and had a science show for kids on public television a long time ago.) One does not have to be a scientist to understand conclusions of studies, the motivations behind them, and to beware when someone wants to rush into something before answering your questions. And, don’t give me the nonsense about an imminent “tipping point.” The Earth is much too large and mankind is much too small for us to have approached that.
Just filing this link here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
Compiled with advice from Fred Singer and Gavin Schmidt
Louis? Still there?
Woody. I am not a scientist either, which is why I have to rely on them for the in depth research and findings. For example, “Earth is much too large and mankind is much too small for us to have approached that.” is a completely meaningless statement. You have provided no evidence whatsoever to support that assertion.
Well done Gavin. A carefully considered and reasoned argument that relies on sound science.