Why I’m debating human-induced global warming deniers
Let me explain why I’m debating anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming (AGW) deniers…
- The deniers’ main arguments don’t hold water. In other words, there have been no acceptable arguments by AGW deniers that human activities taken globally, on (usually decadal) average (not shorter), can not significantly influence climate.
- I am a credible expert. I have a PhD certificate in atmospheric and oceanic science. I have taught numerous university-level courses in meteorology and physical climate science. Lemme tell you, a great way to understand the science is to teach it over and over! I am a tenured professor of climate science. I am a contributing author to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report. I have published 26+ peer-reviewed publications directly related to climate science.
- While the vast majority of climate scientists and national policy makers have dismissed human-induced global warming deniers attempts at debunking (human-induced) global warming science, there remain many undecided folk. Thus, some debate is worthy of my time.
- Given the maturity of the science and what’s at risk (the livelihoods and economies of present and future generations), policy makers must act, even accepting the apparently very small odds catastrophic climate change won’t happen. Civilizations weigh the odds while hoping for the best yet prudently prepare for the worst.
- I want to help civilization achieve sustainable development. Putting the deniers in their place (evidently as pseudo-scientists) makes the world a better place.
Let me warn you that I cannot justify spending more than some fraction of my time engaging the deniers. If it weren’t for the chance of helping the non-scientific as-yet undecided folk, I’d also dismiss the deniers. They are so last-century. Yet, do not take any delays in responding to counter points to mean that I’m stalling or have given up. I just don’t have all my time to devote to this cause. So, be patient. Also, alternatively, please read the science for yourself and see what I consider to be highly credible alternative sources of scientific discourse and some unequivocal truth…
- The IPCC Fourth Assessment Reports and in particular the rather dense IPCC FAR 2007 Summary for Policy Makers. Please beware that while most of the earlier IPCC reports’ conclusions have not changed, you should consider the advancements in science since earlier reports to supercede the earlier results.
- realclimate.org
Finally, be aware that there remain uncertainties. Understand that predicting future climate is a very complex problem that has engaged many of the worlds brightests atmospheric and climate scientists. Me stating that uncertainty exists does not mean that climate scientists lack crediblity, the ranks of climate scientists contributing to international assessment reports include Nobel prize winners, national science medal winners, heads of academic and governmental departments, and many who are deeply patriotic, skeptical, and caring for the world’s challenges. Me stating that uncertainty exists does not mean that climate science has not made major advancements in knowledge, climate scientists have. Don’t let the 1970s global cooling scare discredit advances in science since! Me stating that uncertainty exists does not mean that climate science has not provided projections of future climate worthy of policy response, climate science has made useful and honest projections, again, see the IPCC FAR 2007 Summary for Policy Makers. Again, given the maturity of the science and what’s at risk (the livelihoods and economies of present and future generations), policy makers must act, even accepting the apparently very small odds catastrophic climate change won’t happen. Civilizations weigh the odds while hoping for the best yet prudently prepare for the worst.
Tags: refuting the skeptics
April 8th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Dr Box Says: “1.The deniers’ main arguments don’t hold water. In other words, there have been no acceptable arguments by AGW deniers that human activities taken globally, on (usually decadal) average (not shorter), can not significantly influence climate.”
1) I think that is still a debatable claim.
2) We will let the public decide once they see our event
April 8th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Dr Box Says: “2.I am a credible expert. I have a PhD certificate in atmospheric and oceanic science. I have taught numerous university-level courses in meteorology and climate science. Lemme tell you, a great way to understand the science is to teach it over and over! I am a tenured professor of climate science. I am a contributing author to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report. I have published 26+ peer-reviewed publications directly related to climate science.”
1) I would like to stress the GOVERNMENTAL in Intergovernmental panel on climate change.
2) Asking an environmental/climatologist is man causes global warming is like asking the Pope is Jesus is the son of God.
3) If I have a neck pain and read the surgery journal 100% will recommend surgery if it real the IM journal 100% will recommend pain killers and if I read the chiropractic journal 100% will recommend an adjustment. A consensus of advocates means nothing about the truth.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Dr Box Says: “3.While the vast majority of climate scientists and national policy makers have dismissed human-induced global warming deniers attempts at debunking (human-induced) global warming science, there remain many undecided folk. Thus, some debate is worthy of my time.”
1) That is all they are taught. That is like asking a surgeon to refer you to a chiropractic. If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Climatologists are simply way too biased to be credible. Their political agands and funding depends on CO2 being the cause.
2)I agree, this debate is badly needed
April 10th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Dr Box, here is a video that demonstrates that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. This video is well worth watching. Be sure to forward it on to your friends.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjO-YRFaM-g
September 27th, 2009 at 1:25 am
Dr. Wagner,
You can try to argue this all you want from a political perspective and call climatologists “advocates”. One problem that you are running against is science. Let’s look at a few scientific facts that are as clear as the laws of gravity and thermodynamics (i.e. there is no political debate):
1) If you increase the concentration of greenhouse gasses in any layer of air, whether in the atmosphere or in a lab, you will increase the absorption of longwave radiation. (This was first published by Jean-Baptiste Fourier in 1824.)
2) Burning of fossil fuels leads to a build-up of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. (John Tyndall publishes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in 1861. Svante Arrhenius proposed the anthropogenic greenhouse effect due to burning fossil fuels in 1896.)
3) The Earth is now warming due to the build-up of greenhouse gasses. (This was first published in 1938 by G.S. Callendar.)
Forgive me for not posting any cutesy YouTube videos like Dr. Wagner.
And for the record, climatologists are taught to think analytically, deductively, and independently, not to all buy into some conspiracy. Sorry to burst any skeptical bubbles.
Scientifically,
Dr. Todd Albert, Climatologist
October 4th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
In the summer of 2007, there was less sea-ice in the Arctic than at any time since records began – but records began only 30 years ago, when satellite imaging of the entire ice-cap became possible. And by the winter, the sea-ice extent in the Arctic, like that in the Antarctic, was at record levels. It is known that there was no ice in the Arctic or in Greenland 850,000 years ago, when there were no humans to cause “global warming”. It is also inferred that the Arctic must have been free of ice in each of the past four interglacial periods, when temperatures were up to 5 degrees K (9 F) warmer than the present; that it was probably free of ice in the Roman, Mediaeval, and Bronze Age warm periods (the last of which endured for 2000 years); that the North-West Passage was open in 1903, when Amundsen sailed through it; that the Arctic was warmer than the present as recently as the 1940s; and, finally, that the reason for the extensive polar ice-melt in the summer of 2007 was southerly winds driving currents moving warm water from the tropics towards the North Pole – a feature of the current temperature-positive phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (NASA, 2007). In short, the “record” North Polar ice-melt, which arose from natural causes and not because of manmade “global warming”, has been replaced by record ice-formation at the North Pole this winter; and sea ice in the cooling Antarctic is already at record levels.