Motives behind global warming skepticism

[John Dibble]

The debate about global warming divides people into two major crowds - those that believe there is no debate and those that insist it's all a gigantic hoax of some kind.

What, so there's no group that believes that there may or may not be warming, that if it does exist that the human component may or may not be as significant as some claim, and that there is still ongoing legitimage scientific debate on the subject? Or there's no large group that doesn't believe it but just thinks it's flawed science rather than a hoax? Or people who firmly believe it but acknowledge that there's still legitimate debate going on? There are a lot people inbetween you know.

Piece of advice - don't try to paint things as only black and white. The global warming folks did that and that in my mind is a big reason why the full on opposite reaction (the folks who deny it outright) became significant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if you don't believe there's going to be a disaster, why would you prepare for it? If someone believes that global warming isn't occuring (is a hoax or just bad science, doesn't matter either way) or won't cause any major problems then to them it seems a waste to use our resources to prepare for something that to them isn't a problem. Yeah, maybe it has to do with their checking account, but if they don't see a tangible benefit to doing so then it's just going to seem wasteful to them. That's not to say they're correct - they could be dead wrong, but if they legitimately don't see a problem then don't expect them to want to spend money on fixing it.

And of course there are some who probably do think that there's warming but care more about their money, but if money is their priority then don't expect anything different.

[John Dibble]

Sorry, I didn't mean to paint the whole scenerio as black and white - I was only referring to those that DO see it as black and white (those convinced it exists vs. those convinced it's a hoax). This thread isn't about the middle ground - by definition there is plenty of rationality for skepticism or concern in the middle ground.

No problem then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, again it might come back to their checkbook. Even if the majority wants something, many still would oppose having your tax dollars spent on it if they believe the majority was wrong. If they feel that they're paying for nothing then of course they're going to vehemently oppose it. Personally I'm like that - even if the majority wants something, if I oppose it I won't just sit quietly. You probably do it too on certain issues.

Although you're technically right Tik, the first group of people you describe, those who believe there is virtually no scientific debate on the subject, are the correct ones.

Global warming is just as accepted by scientists as evolution, or the Holocaust by historians. (or the moon landing)  Sure, there's a vocal but insignificant minority that attracts attention, but they're not treated as in any way credible by mainstream science.

Actually, there's plenty of scientific debate on the subject. Realistically though it's not so much anymore as to whether global warming is occuring, the debate is on how much of it there actually is, how much humans are contributing to it, how much of it is natural, and what the overall effects of the warming will be.

[John Dibble]

I agree with this last sentence, but there's a bit of irony in it. If you read the scientific papers they do not speak in terms of a "black or white" view of global warming. If anything, I find them to err on the side of caution about their conclusions. The media and celebrities like to magnify those scientific conclusions, however. The serious analysis gets lost and the headline becomes the story.

Yes, in general I prefer talking to scientists about the issue and they tend to be more cautious about their statements. However you are right that the media and whatnot does have a tendency to exaggerate it as they don't generally have a sufficient understanding of the scientific process and do have some ulterior motives. (ratings and such in the case of the media)

[John Dibble]

But as time tick away that's going to become less and less of an important question because natural increases in temperature are self reinforcing. The amount of CO2 and other green house gasses put into our atmosphere increase naturally as permafrost melts, this increases temperature and as such increases the amount of permafrost that is melting. Our permafrost is already melting at an alarming rate. Surface ice reflects solar radiation back at a low enough wavelength that it can re-emit into space through green house gasses. Solar radiation re-emitting off the balance of the planet increases its wavelength to the point that it can not pass through green house gasses. As surface ice melts, more and more radiation is trapped by green house gasses - which cause temperatures to rise and melts more surface ice. Our surface ice is already melting at an alarming rate, and the current sub glacial water flows indicate that it's going to get much worse in the relatively near future.

The natural increases are only self-reinforcing to a point, otherwise the Earth would have burned to a crisp long before humans even came about. In fact during the Cretaceous period (91 million years ago give or take) the average surface temperature of the planet is speculated to be about ten degrees Celsius higher than it is now. It peaked at that and then gradually declined.

Here's a rough graph of Earth's speculated climate history:



To give an example of one mechanism that stops the reinforcement of heat buildup we need only look at the 'great conveyor built'.



According to theory, as the salinity of the ocean decreases the power driving this thing will decrease. The result of that the currents will change - for instance the current going around Iceland would lower to the point that it's not longer going around Iceland. Enough salinity decrease might even shut it down entirely. Salinity decreases through the introduction of fresh water - since ice contains no salt, melted ice is freshwater! The end result of all this would be a cooling effect, perhaps even an ice age. (just to note, IIRC this what the disaster in 'The Day After Tommorow' is based on, but that movie is utter junk as the theory prescribes the change would be gradual, occuring over many decades)

Long story short, warming can actually result in eventual cooling.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given Earth's climate history I don't think we'll be able to stop global warming. At most we can minimize our effects on the planet, but eventually the Earth's likely to heat up again. Part of the reason we're in a 'cool' period right now is due to the current position of the continents, which determines how the oceans are layed out. We aren't going to stop them from moving, though the hothouse level of warming experienced in eras past isn't likely to occur anytime soon.

Also, given that climate change in general is gradual, I don't see it moving us back into the Stone Age. Life continued to flourish on Earth even during those warm periods, and given human intelligence I don't think adapting will be too much of a problem. On the grand scale of things we might have a few problems, but for it to be that dramatic seems just silly. Given that there are forces beyond our control in this situation I think the best preperations are simply to consider how we should best adapt to the change and less on how to prevent it. I've got no problem with decreasing out impact mind you, but there's a number of mitigating factors in doing that - ecomonics, politics, and all that crud.