Global Warming Detractors

What we call “climate” is an enormously complex physical system of causes and effects. Scientists and engineers have developed tools for measuring and analyzing the behavior of complex physical events, and as well they have developed methods for using the fundamental laws of physics to predict the behavior of very complicated physical systems.

The preponderance of scientific analysis, and the conclusions drawn from scientific analysis, argue on the side that Global Warming is an impending threat to the stability of life on our planet.

And yet many people, some of them decision controllers in Congress, do not believe there is a real threat to our future. 

In this post I will examine the arguments of these “Global Warming Detractors,” and provide evidence that they are misinformed in many cases, and in some cases are deliberately and deceptively  arguing against undeniable scientific evidence.

How do you Judge a Debate?

If governments are to take steps to deal with the predicted consequences of Global Warming, then the public (at least, in democratic countries) will be involved. It is likely that taxes will rise to meet the expenses of corrective steps. It is likely that the cost of many essential consumer goods will rise. 

Citizens will be asked to vote on legislation relevant to Global Warming. 

How can we cast intelligent votes when most of us are not educated in the relevant areas of science and technology related to Global Warming? How is one to evaluate the arguments of those who predict that a world-wide crisis is looming?

There is another side to the Global Warming debate. The doubters and detractors of the Global Warming analyses and recommendations, constitute a large body of highly vocal and in many cases politically influential people. 

How is one to evaluate the arguments of the detractors?

One answer to this question is that the arguments against the reality, the magnitude and/or the consequences of Global Warming must be examined with the same methods used to evaluate the arguments of the proponents. 

But if the ordinary individual is not trained to evaluate the data, methods, etc., then on what basis does that citizen decide to accept the conclusions of one body of argumentation, and reject the conclusions of the opposite side of the argument?

The conclusions drawn in the IPCC reports are drawn from decades of scientific research and analysis carried out throughout the world. 

The thousands of studies that form the basis of the Reports have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals. 

The scientific community has worked, over these decades, to improve the measuring techniques and the analysis techniques.

Despite the enormous body of information supporting the reality of Global Warming, some scientists have disagreed on a variety of details which were then subjected to additional studies aimed at evaluating the arguments and methods of analysis. 

Disagreements still exist, as do many uncertainties. But in the end, the vast majority of those experts who have examined the evidence, and who are capable by virtue of their education and experience to evaluate the evidence, conclude that global warming is real, and that it is man-made.

Now let's examine the detractors. 

 Who are they? Do they have the expertise to analyze the arguments put forth in the scientific literature?

Has their work been subjected to the peer review system that is central to scientific progress?

 Do their negative arguments hold up to scientific scrutiny?

 Are their arguments relevant?

At the outset, it is important to acknowledge that there are legitimate scientists who question or disagree with specific aspects or details of the methods, analysis and conclusions of the IPCC reports. 

Science can never be absolute. But there are well-established methods for evaluating these disagreements.

Unfortunately, the people who wish to undermine the whole idea of Global Warming, despite the enormous body of scientific evidence that Global Warming is real and man-made, focus on the existence of these disagreements among scientists to "prove" their case against Global Warming. 

Their "proofs" do not stand up to legitimate scientific examination. Let's explore some of these so-called "proofs"  in the posts that follow.