the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Why Global Warming Skeptics Believe

Posted by Jeff Id on August 26, 2008

Global warming skeptics are people like me who have a real concern for the environment, yet we feel that the governments of the world are exaggerating even the worst case scenarios for political gain.

- A global warming skeptic believes that the main organization pressing global warming the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate control) formed in 1988 would cease to exist if global warming were not true.

- A global warming skeptic believes the IPCC is centralizing and directing efforts throughout the world to promote extreme policies.

- A global warming skeptic believes because the majority of the data indicates that natural climate variation throughout history is much greater than the mild warming we have recorded recently.

- A global warming skeptic believes because we know most climatologists working for the governments for the world feel that while man may have increased temperature through CO2, most also believe the true amount of the warming is undetermined.

- A global warming skeptic believes because we see the IPCC stifling criticisms, exaggerating effects and promoting simplified climate models ahead of real scientists.

- A global warming skeptic believes that even if the most extreme projections were true, we cannot stop CO2 generation with today’s technology without killing our global economy.

- A global warming skeptic believes in reasonable intelligent solutions not in extremism.

- A global warming skeptic believes in

Common sense for a common goal

For a reasonable discussion on global warming see my other posts HERE!

6 Responses to “Why Global Warming Skeptics Believe”

  1. [...] Why Global Warming Skeptics Believe By Jeff Id Global warming skeptics are people like me who have a real concern for the environment, yet we feel that the governments of the world are exaggerating even the worst case scenarios for political gain. – A global warming skeptic believes … The Air Vent – http://noconsensus.wordpress.com [...]

  2. johnification said

    Why are you not a lawyer? you have great debate skill and seem to be good at researching a topic. I sorta admire you… :-)

  3. Bliss said

    - A global warming skeptic believes that the main organization pressing global warming the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate control) formed in 1988 would cease to exist if global warming were not true.

    Yep. They would get on with their real work.

    - A global warming skeptic believes the IPCC is centralizing and directing efforts throughout the world to promote extreme policies.

    Actually the reverse is true. The IPCC is very conservative in its findings. Most members would much prefer much stronger findings.

    - A global warming skeptic believes because the majority of the data indicates that natural climate variation throughout history is much greater than the mild warming we have recorded recently.

    Over geological time, maybe. The relevant period is the last 10,000 years that is the period of human agriculture (unless a climate skeptic believes the world began October 23, 4004 BC!)

    - A global warming skeptic believes because we see the IPCC stifling criticisms, exaggerating effects and promoting simplified climate models ahead of real scientists.

    It is good for the climate skeptic that IPCC is not litigious as that is outrageous slander!

    - A global warming skeptic believes that even if the most extreme projections were true, we cannot stop CO2 generation with today’s technology without killing our global economy.

    So “Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t, so don’t!” In the Greens we are trying to *save* the global economy!

    Common sense for a common goal

    Not Even, Eoww! Bigotry for elite interests is more like it!

    peace
    W

  4. Jeff Id said

    Ok, Bliss you got me with the bigotry and slander accusations. If you have points which address the science and opinion expressed her feel free. I am happy to negotiate them with you, I certainly have been wrong a lot. Please refrain though from the extremist language of bigotry and libel.

    I want this blog to be a place of discussion. A place to help the public to understand those of us who right or wrong ARE informed enough to be skeptical. I felt the need to condense the beliefs about global warming I and others hold into a readable summary. After all, who wants to spend months of their life researching this for no recognition or monetary gain.

    At least you at least took time to address the points which I tried, perhaps poorly to express.

    Therefore I will reply.

    Since I agree with your first comment the second about the IPCC being conservative will do. In my section in this blog titled “Anthropogenic Global Waming Story #2 – IPCC and Peer Review” you can clearly read the actual comments from the researchers while “PEER reviewing” the last release of recommendations by the IPCC (fourth assessment report). The entire work is cited in my analysis. Take the time to read it. Every climatolgist I have read or emailed agrees this report represents in nearly every instance worst cases. Hansen, may be the exception but he is like the Reverend Jackson of climatology.

    Your second comment is correct, absolutely. The last 10K years. I am currently continuing my analysis of the last 10,000 year data (your correct timeframe indicates that maybe you have done some homework). Please note that in my latest post on global warming, part #5 -2, I point out that it would be improbable not to have our 0.7deg C temperature variation in our last 128 years. It is actually below average variation based on the Vostock Ice core data.

    If you have the will, read more.

    The green party has a good heart, unfortunately heart doesn’t solve science.

    As far as stifling of scientists, there have been numerous complaints of defunding, non-recognition and exaggeration of fact. I even posted an example of one scientist resigning. Again see my previous posts in the Anthropogenic global warming section under Environment posts 1-3. My post was clearly not “Libel”.

    Open your mind, the numbers don’t support your conclusions.

  5. I think a distinction should be made. Most climate skeptics DO NOT disagree that global warming is a problem what they do question is whether global warming is a result of man.

  6. Carrick said

    Bliss,

    The IPCC is very conservative in its findings

    Depends on which paragraph you focus on. There are many IPCC findings that are over the top. The physical basis stuff is pretty good, but it goes down hill rapidly from there.

    It is good for the climate skeptic that IPCC is not litigious as that is outrageous slander!

    referring to

    - A global warming skeptic believes because we see the IPCC stifling criticisms, exaggerating effects and promoting simplified climate models ahead of real scientists.

    Bearing in mind that the IPCC is made of humans, and some of these humans working in their capacity as members of the laureated IPCC have done these things, and further that they have done so can be established as true via the climategate emails and comments made by “real scientists”, I’d say it’s a good thing for warmingists that the IPCC is not litigious (they only win if the court is stacked in their favor, like with the Jones inquiry).

    In the Greens we are trying to *save* the global economy

    Well personally I wish you’d stop. You’re like twits with screwdrivers trying to perform brain surgery. As a group you’re clueless how an economy works, most of your proposed ideas arrive dead at the gate, and would generally be counter-productive were they implemented.

    You’re damned because your ideas are bad. And many of you do have ulterior motives (e.g., social justice) that has nothing to do either with “saving the global economy” or the reality of human existence for that matter.

    Like most Greens you are certain that the only reason the world doesn’t embrace your ideas is because of special interest groups (I figure you mean fossil fuel industry, and are trying to avoid a cat flight in a forum where you will be called on to back up your claims and maybe you’re actually smart enough to know there are big logic holes in that argument). However, the main reason it isn’t being accepted is that much of the dialog from the green community is dishonest, and as I said many/most of the ideas have no chance of working.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: