Global Warming Fact From Fiction

The positive argument

Published on October 13, 2006 By rabidrobot In Current Events

Dr. Guy has a recent entry where he claims there is a debate, yes a debate, about global warming. You can deny global warming if you like, but denial does not make a debate. To debate you should do more than just point to extreme behavior from the opposing viewpoint--you should also provide some justification for your own. This is difficult to do, because climate change denial is at its heart nothing but a statement of opinion that there isn't enough proof. It is an argument of negatives.

Negative Space

Global warming deniers have no evidence to support their ill formed opinion. Having little to defend themselves they attempt to draw attention to the unknown and irrelevant. Pointing out that not everything is known yet about climate change is not an argument that global warming does not exist.

Not everything is known about gravity, there are many holes and inconsistencies in grand theory. But that doesn't mean things don't fall. Electricity is both highly understood, and still vastly mysterious, but you can't deny that science and the scientific method have allowed you to be at a computer reading this.

When we want to know about things like global warming or climate change, we ask scientists. And they tell us what they know and what they don't know. The fact that they don't know something, is, again, not a direct refutation of what they do know.

So what does science say?

If any debate exists , as is Dr. Guy's main claim in my opinion, it is not among the people I would trust to know. Scientists, people who devote their lives to specifically and methodically studying the world, say global warming is real. Dr. Guy says, "there is no conclusive answer yet", but provides no evidence of that. On the contrary, all evidence points to scientists being in near agreement on the base ideas of increasing average temperature and a real human influence on that.

Even the Wiki pages discussing the "Scientific opinion on climate change" and the "Global warming controversy" are not marked as controversial, disputed, or biased in any way. The facts are in and global warming is real.

There may exist individuals who will dispute this, but no repeatable, methodologically sound experiments exist to provide any factual evidence for global warming deniers. You can find someone to say anything, as Dr. Guy demonstrates with his unsourced environmental group asking for climate change denial to be illegal, but the overwhelming scientific evidence supports the consensus among the scientific community--global warming is a real phenomena.

The evidence supporting the broad topic of global warming is based on contributions from fields such as geology, climatology, biology, archeology, and many more. The few "scientists" who deny global warming tend to come from perhaps the one field least likely to have a valid opinion on the matter, "political science". Most global warming deniers have no credentials whatsoever, and even irrelevant economic and political arguments are soundly debunked. The jury is not still out, scientific facts, empirical data(PDF), and the agreement of experts in relevant scientific fields confirm the reality of global warming.

WWJD?

There really is no serious debate among the scientific community, as my sources have shown. There does exist some debate among theologians, specifically Christians. But even among many evangelicals, the debate centers not around the reality of climate change, but around how God's word in the Bible tells us to deal with it. Does the concept of "stewardship" mean Christians should strive to protect God's gift, or do Biblical imperatives for helping the poor trump such arguments? While this may be a debate, it remains a debate of theology at best and political policy at worst. It is a debate of the response to more so than a debate about the reality of climate change.

There are many Christian deniers, of course, but they almost always resort to the negative argument and are in no position of scientific expertise to speak on scientific matters. If believers want to believe because they feel some Biblical justification, then they can debate the Biblical justification. Until they provide scientific evidence in support of their opinion, it has no bearing on the actual state of the world, and should not affect public policy.

Truth and Consequences

Pascal's Wager is not a purely logically sound argument, because in it's strict application it could apply to any fanciful notion. But, in light of the scientific proof and the theological near admission, climate change becomes an apt subject for an exploration of Pascal's base argument. Applied to global warming, Pascal's Wager might be phrased:

Considering the authority of experts--secular and sectarian--argument, the experimental supporting data, and moral motivations for accepting global warming, we are faced with an option.

Deny that it exists, do nothing, run out of oil, drive plants and animal species to extinction, and possibly ruin things so spectacularly as to wipe out humanity altogether in a horrific manner.

Or, accept that it is reality, and make efforts to protect the environment and prevent further damage in concert with a strategy to improve the standard of living for everyone economically and spiritually.

Unlike the existence of an afterlife, the fact that we are going to have kids is well established. How should we behave in this life to best deserve, receive, and achieve the spiritual reward of a better life for our descendants?

What is the point?

Dr. Guy points to an extremist view held by passionate environmentalists. First, extremists views are just that; non-reflective in many cases of the mainstream. Not only besides the point he seems to be trying to make, it also ignores the larger context in which this statement was made. Think what you may about France and Germany, but they have laws against lying and are not communist. The United States has laws against lying, such as against slander, libel, and perjury. Denial law is a current global ongoing debate, and this is an attempt to ride the bandwagon. I'm sure they appreciate the free publicity Dr. Guy has given them.

I tend to agree with Dr. Guy that freedom of speech is more important than making lying illegal, but I find it disingenuous for a supporter of Bush's Patriot Act and, presumably, the Military Commissions Act, to cry about infringement of civil liberties.

Climate change denial is simply factually incorrect, theologically nearly indefensible, philosophically unwise, morally irresponsible, and ethically neglectful .

If a debate about global warming really does exist, as Dr. Guy claims, it is a debate the deniers have lost.

Comments (Page 1)

MasonM

on Oct 13, 2006

I see that you completely skirted the cause issue which was in fact at the heart of the article you are trying (and failing) to dispute.

spindoctor

on Oct 13, 2006

Gee the earth has been warming and cooling for MILLIONS of years, but now the left wants to make an election issue of it. Typical of the party that lost its way years ago and has fallen with the ENEMIES of America.

bakerstreet

on Oct 13, 2006

lol, this is science at its most medieval. If wood burns, and witches burn, and wood floats, then witches must float.

The misdirection involved in Inquisitional environmentalism is a matter of causation. Correlation does not equal causation. When they are accused of making such shoddy assumptions they scream "HOW CAN YOU DENY THE EARTH IS WARMER??!?!?!" as we see here, when the issue is what is making it warmer.

Sure the earth is warmer, but not the warmest it has been in the past; a past without the effects of modern civilization and its pollution. The Luddites see pollution, and they see the earth getting warmer, so they start the witch hunt. Not unlike some 16th century farmer whose cow died after he offended the crone next door.

The saddest part is that these people are dupes for politicians like Gore who don't really give a damn about the environment. It's just a 'guru' issue they can use to remain relevant, since their economic, military, etc., expertise is non-existent. If you want to talk about irrational religion, this blog looks a lot more like the rants of the brainwashed than anything the opposition has offered in a long time.

cactoblasta

on Oct 13, 2006

The misdirection involved in Inquisitional environmentalism is a matter of causation. Correlation does not equal causation. When they are accused of making such shoddy assumptions they scream "HOW CAN YOU DENY THE EARTH IS WARMER??!?!?!" as we see here, when the issue is what is making it warmer.

It's something I've always been a bit suspicious of. I'm all for improved environmental efficiency, don't get me wrong. But a volcanic eruption will put out more pollutants than some countries greenhouse gas outputs for an entire year.

I think we should do everything we can to reduce output, but only because it has a direct influence on the standard of living and health of anyone exposed, not necessarily because it's causing global warming. Car exhaust contains known carcinogens; it'd be easier to argue cleaning it up on the basis of public health than convincing the intractable we need to cos of global warming.

Oh, and oil's not about to run out in the next century or so even with higher demand. As the cost rises new forms of extraction (eg from oil shale, which the world has a lot of) will become economically viable. Oil will be hideously expensive far before we're at any risk of losing it altogether.

MasonM

on Oct 13, 2006

Will wonders never cease? Something we actually agree upon!

bakerstreet

on Oct 13, 2006

I agree with you, I'm not a pollution advocate or anything. What bothers me is how some of these treaties and agreements can be used to penalize industrialized nations and leverage a better position for nations who are just so damned backwards they CAN'T produce much pollution.

I just find it humorous that America is the focus when a couple of other crumbling empires dump everything they make in the nearest water source and burn anything they can find to stay warm in the winter. It's like China condemning the US human rights situation, or if Russia was suddenly concerned with the safety of our nuclear plants.

Little European nations whose industrial economies withered generations ago are suddenly concerned with all the soot we're putting out... lol. A cleaner environment would be better for everyone, I don't dispute that. Letting opportunists undercut prosperity on the fear of global warming won't benefit anyone.

cactoblasta

on Oct 13, 2006

What bothers me is how some of these treaties and agreements can be used to penalize industrialized nations and leverage a better position for nations who are just so damned backwards they CAN'T produce much pollution.

The backward nations generally produce the most. They're the ones creating the Great Haze of Southeast Asia, they're the ones dumping everything in the waterways, they're the ones deforesting jungles (goldmines for medical products) in favour of unproductive agricultural land. If the global community was really that serious about global warming they'd put funding into giving the 3rd world less destructive technologies and tightening up their capacity for enforcement of environmental laws.

MasonM

on Oct 13, 2006

That is really the whole point. It's all political and economic games. It has nothing to do with any actual environmental concerns.

stubbyfinger

on Oct 13, 2006

The media, in a desire to appear balanced has presented any apposing view as equal, no matter the source. This has given the illusion that there is a debate among those in the field. There is no such debate as you quite clearly prove.

Now that it’s been so politicized some can’t seem to separate the rhetoric from the fact that best scientific minds we have are telling us we’re warming the planet. When confronted with this the GW deniers call into question their integrity. Well if these scientists had no integrity it wouldn’t be hard to find several with there hands out willing to tow whatever line paid the most. And it’s very clear the ones getting paid are the ones with no credentials.

MasonM

on Oct 13, 2006

Now that it’s been so politicized some can’t seem to separate the rhetoric from the fact that best scientific minds we have are telling us we’re warming the planet

So what you're saying here is that those scientists who disagree are obviously not the "best minds"? Give me a break. There is plenty of geologic evidence that the planet has been much warmer in the past than it is now. Also much colder. I used to actually believe this global warming is being caused by people thing until I started researching the facts. It isn't nearly as cut and dried as some who have serious research grants at stake would like us to believe.

stubbyfinger

on Oct 13, 2006

No that’s not what I’m saying but I should have phrased it to say, the best scientific minds in the field of Climatology. The only scientists whom disagree aren’t in the field. They’re geologist or paleontologist forming opinions based on one piece of the puzzle. And apposing view even from the peanut gallery scientist is hard to find. The consensus on this is equal to that of special relativity.

So you believe that they’re aware of their findings that suggest the earth was warmer in the past and are deliberately ignoring this evidence so they can continue to receive grants? If this were true then there really would be debate going on because scientist love to prove each other wrong.

dynamaso

on Oct 13, 2006

I stand in the middle on this issue. I agree we need to take more responsibility for our environmental pollution but we should also be looking at ways of educating third world nations on how not to make the same mistakes we've made and how to make the best of their natural resources.

There is no doubt temperatures are rising. Today, it is 36 degrees celcius, which is about 97 degrees farenheit. This is about 15 degrees warmer than it normally is. Yesterday was a similar temperature. And of course, the drought Australia is currently experiencing is another indication of climate change. But as I see it, the Earth is a living organisam, and as such, is supposed to change, getter hotter, cool down, etc. I think the difference this go round is mankind being able to witness these changes. We're never going to see anything quite like 'The Day After Tomorrow', which was rather sensationalist and, from a purely scientific view, completely wrong.

There is no denying global warming is happening and the whole world needs to look at ways it can decrease pollution output levels because this will help slow down the process. But the process is happening regardless of whether we deny it or not. I think it was probably always going to happen and maybe all we've done is sped up the process.

MasonM

on Oct 14, 2006

No that’s not what I’m saying but I should have phrased it to say, the best scientific minds in the field of Climatology.

That's better.

The only scientists whom disagree aren’t in the field. They’re geologist or paleontologist forming opinions based on one piece of the puzzle.

That's correct. Climatologists only look at climate data which is only one piece of the puzzle. Most scientists only look at data within their field. A truly curious or skeptical person would take a look at data from many fields of study don't you think? Sadly, most scientists in all fields fail to do this.

And apposing view even from the peanut gallery scientist is hard to find

Handy way of disregarding opposing views.

So you believe that they’re aware of their findings that suggest the earth was warmer in the past and are deliberately ignoring this evidence so they can continue to receive grants? If this were true then there really would be debate going on because scientist love to prove each other wrong.

I am suggesting that many have jumped on the grants bandwagon. Scientists need to make a living just like everyone else. Also, there are many who's view is very narrow and thus do not look at conclusions from other fields. The fact that the planet has been warmer in the past is hardly disputable as the evidence is far too strong.

Scientists studying any field have drawn incorrect conclusions for as long as science has existed so why do people assume that the scientific conclusion du jour must be absolute truth?

In geological references, a 1 degree variation over the course of 100 years isn't even worthy of note and yet some seem to feel that it signifies the end of the world. Let's try and put this in real perspective here, shall we?

Rightwinger

on Oct 14, 2006

~~The Earth is warming up! We can stop it, but you have to strictly adhere to our agenda! The United States (but no one else, for some odd reason) immediately needs to:

1. Halt any and all industrial production!
2. Abandon your homes! Live in caves and lean-tos made of thatch!
3. Stop driving cars!
4. Don't wear clothes!
5. Start wiping your asses with leaves!

.......But; please ignore us if we ourselves take no part in what we tell you to do.~~

Thanks but no thanks.

Nice article, but-----

Last year, I read an article in The Week magazine. I read that scientists have said that all the environmental action legislation passed in the last few decades has negatively impacted the environment. There is so much less pollution in the air now, it seems, that less sunlight is being reflected off into space. Therefore, the Earth is heating up even faster!
Where does it end? Don't pass laws, destroy the Earth; do pass them, and kill it sooner. Which should we do?
If the GW drumbeaters, maybe, could get together and come up with a common agenda, vision and plan of action, maybe people would take them more seriously. Instead, one group of hysterics says one thing, another says another, another yet another.......
Another article I read said that global temperatures in the last century or so (since they started regularly monitoring them, at least) have increased by about---are you ready?--- 1.25 degrees---cue up the scary organ music.

When it gets freakishly hot and dry in the summer, it's because of global warming. When it gets freakishly cold and snowy in the winter....global warming. All your bases are covered, whether logically or not. Three people died in Buffalo because of an early snowstorm. Is that global warming?
I, myself, would find it much easier to believe in all the hysteria if it hadn't appeared right around the time when the all global cooling mania started to wane with no soap. Another emergency conjured up to replace the last failure.

What I'd like to know is what happened to all the big hurricanes that were supposed to appear this year. Didn't Algore say that because of the Bush administration's policies affecting global warming, it would be even worse this year than last?

I don't specifically trust the word of "scientists", either.....they develop their theories, and those theories are, likely as not, disproven. Grain of salt, and all that.
Or, they come up with a theory which meets some criteria or other, gets accepted, and is called FACT; but then, five or ten years later, someone comes along and says something else, and that new FACT becomes the flavor of the week. What do scientists really "know"? Pretty much Squat, when it all boils down.

I once said that, in my lifetime alone, scientists have been through three schools of thought on the nature and future of the universe. I just turned 39. In that same time, the Earth's environment has been careening, out of control and beyond nearly all attempts at halting it, in two different directions. The only constant has been the direction from which the hysterical warnings have come.....the Left.

rabidrobot

on Oct 14, 2006

The Scientific Consensus is that human activity has had a direct causal influence on global climate factors.

Bakerstreet writes with conviction:

Indeed, you at least have the issue right. Now, who should we trust to have an informed opinion, a near paranoid blog commenter whose knowledge of the subject is limited to a couple factoids and determination, or the The National Acadamy of Sciences, or the American Meteorological Society(PDF), or The National Center for Atmospheric Research, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

These distinguished scientific bodies, and many more, have each issued statements confirming a not only correlation, but causal link between human activity and the climate.

Bakerstreet continues.

Sure the earth is warmer, but not the warmest it has been in the past; a past without the effects of modern civilization and its pollution. The Luddites see pollution, and they see the earth getting warmer, so they start the witch hunt. Not unlike some 16th century farmer whose cow died after he offended the crone next door

So, your argument is the earth has been hotter in the past. That's it? Just want to get that straight. Even granting this single observation, your conclusion does not follow. In its simplicity it overlooks that regardless of whether it has been warmer in the past, it is getting warmer than we are used to now, which will change the climate drastically in a negative manner natural causes or not. And as each of those links above demonstrate, human activity directly contributes to climate change.

The Luddite accusation suggests subconscious projection or a misunderstanding. These scientists are the best the world has to offer using cutting edge technology and climate modeling. Science isn't witchcraft, if you disagree with just about every established, respected scientific body in the world, you'll need more than that accusation and a trivial pursuit answer.

Bakerstreet concludes:

The saddest part is that these people are dupes for politicians like Gore who don't really give a damn about the environment. It's just a 'guru' issue they can use to remain relevant, since their economic, military, etc., expertise is non-existent. If you want to talk about irrational religion, this blog looks a lot more like the rants of the brainwashed than anything the opposition has offered in a long time

Claiming that the world's scientists and even greatest religious thinkers who believe the actual evidence are all "dupes" of a failed politician has to be the height of conspiracy and paranoia. Not to mention, the administration's own Environmental Protection Agency admits "compelling" evidence of human impact.

MasonM speculates:

Climatologists only look at climate data which is only one piece of the puzzle. Most scientists only look at data within their field. A truly curious or skeptical person would take a look at data from many fields of study don't you think? Sadly, most scientists in all fields fail to do this.

Well, saying that the scientists who study the climate study the climate isn't much of a point. Again I will refer you to the links in the above post, which are statments and studies made by large bodies of scientists with many fields of study working together.

There are accusations of politicization. I feel I have avoided the political side of this, except a couple jabs. If anyone is politicizing the matter it is the deniers, and I will refer you to Dr. Guy's original article entitled: "Liberals: When You Cant Win with Facts"[sic].

Most of those who have trouble accepting reality are also worried about economic impacts or reduction in the rate of industrialization. If you wish to debate the scientific, economical, and humanitarian effects that responding or not responding to global warming might entail, go ahead.

But don't confuse your politics, and economical opinions with the science on global warming.

The most amusing thing is that deniers simply want people to believe that maybe there is a shadow of a doubt. They have speculation based on cereal box back filler factoids,

"Gee the earth has been warming and cooling for MILLIONS of years...

and little else to refute the opinion of every major scientific organization in the world, and want for us to keep paying attention.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!