Is Global Warming a Crisis?

Global warming has quickly become one of the most heated issues in America (pun intended). Rising temperatures and melting icebergs are indisputable evidence that the Earth is warming, but is this global heat wave a man-made crisis or just overblown hype?

Next question in Global Warming

You are seeing 42 Comments on this Argument. See all 147 Comments on this Question.

Regarding Argument

Scientific Consensus Overstated

- From NCPA

Open Argument Go to this Argument

This evidence is questionable

I can't help but question the evidence attached to this argument. This paper, "A Global Warming Primer" prepared by the National Center for Policy Analysis, is focused entirely on economic impact, and recommends just adapting to global warming. Yet, it doesn't address the full economic impact of adapting to global warming. What about the real, current issue of wild fires in California? California has already broken all records for wild fires this year, and the economic impact has been catasrophic for the state. The solution this paper discusses in adapting to global warming is to try to eradicate maleria by using pesticides. Never mind the economic impact of the health problems caused by the pesticides. This proposed solution would be laughable if it weren't so depressing.

- Santa Cruz Mom July 15, 2008 11:05AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Heartland's Funding...

Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Biased? You decide...

- subgenius July 25, 2008 4:09AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- let's discuss the issue please
  
  Research always costs money. Reality that is. Who would be an unbiased provider of funds? I want to know. The government perhaps?? Discussion should be about the results of research not about the funding. That is the way you can find out some more if you're really interested in truth.
  
  - Ralf Wilmes September 3, 2008 2:43PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - not research
    
    I object to the classification of the studies cited above as science. Science tests hypotheses. The studies above were designed to support a position. It is possible to distinguish valid research from advocacy. The scientific method is not some newfangled fad. I agree that funding isn't the issue, but it is fair to examine the methods. The NCPA and Heartland Institute do not use scientific methods.
    
    - Adam Hammond September 4, 2008 8:30AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - One step back
      
      I'm gonna take a step back for a moment and ask you to support the statement "The NCPA and Heartland Institute do not use scientific methods" with facts that undeniably demonstrate it, without going into funding and 'likely to be'.
      
      What is the evidence? You might be right but convince me and I will honestly admit that you are right about that particular statement.
      
      - Ralf Wilmes September 4, 2008 10:37AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Reasonable request
        
        You are making a reasonable request, which I am not going to be able to fully satisfy. The full proof would ultimately involve going through everything they ever wrote and arguing that none of it met my standards of science (which are high, and evenly applied).
        
        I also hesitate because I have been burned by trolls in the past, who convinced me to spend a bunch of time and then disappeared. Nevertheless, game theory recommends cooperating until burned.
        
        So ... start by going to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed / and entering 'attitude' in the search field. While I cannot vouch for every article that comes up, you will find many examples of actual science. The papers spend a great deal of time discussing the specific methods used and explaining how they developed them. I examined #6 - Rhode et al in more depth because it appeared to be survey based. If you want to discuss what makes science, then we could use this as a starting point. I can send you a pdf of the publication if you don't have access.
        
        Now go to the NCPA site http://www.ncpa.org / The first thing to note is that they do not claim to be a scientific organization, they do analysis. That doesn't make them wrong! But they make no claim to scientific methods that I can find. Digging further I found the debate-central area where they have links called Evidence and Research Current Topics. These links are to information that helps in debating issues not a discussion of scientific methods or links to such. The ability to debate an issue is important - this is a great resource. Not science. I note further that the information that they link to appears to be analysis rather than science.
        
        Next, the specific graphs shown: It took some digging because the links are broken, but here is the actual study cited by NPCA: http://coast.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html /BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/surveyframe.html
        
        The original study (1996) was conducted by mail and may have merit, but the 2003 follow up (from which the cited data arises) was a web survey which was not conducted to scientific standards and appears to have been gamed. Here is a quote from the site:
        "It seems members on a skeptics-mailing list were specifically requested to participate in our survey by one of its members. Indeed, the format of the 2004 survey was not as safeguarded against biasing practices as the original survey form 1996."
        
        I am not sure why it is referred to as the 2004 survey here and 2003 elsewhere, but I believe it to be the same survey.
        
        So, this study was not conducted by the NPCA itself but a separate party who did not use scientific methods. The NPCA cherry picked a bit internet pseudo-science and claims that it is data in this debate.
        
        The actual question was: "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?"
        Consider what the decidedly imprecise word "mostly" means. Then look at the title they use in their post. This is not honest discussion of facts.
        
        It is important to note that while the people who conducted the survey are scientists, they did not publish the results in a scientific journal or make any inaccurate claims about the quality of the numbers. That was done by Joseph Bast and James M. Taylor and the Heartland Institute
        
        Both graphs come from the same internet survey, but the reference given here was to a slick restatement of the data with none of the caution of the actual people who did the study (and still no scientific method). http://www.heartland.org/pdf/2086111.pdf
        
        You asked me to prove that these organizations do not use the scientific method. Instead, I have simply found no evidence of scientific method. At least I can conclude that the data shown is not science. I feel that I have done a reasonable amount of work to convince you. I am not going to dig further into these organizations, but all you would need to do to disprove my assertion is to find one piece of science generated by either group.
        
        Please do respond to my effort.
        
        - Adam Hammond September 4, 2008 12:27PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Thank you
        
        As a first reaction: I appreciate the effort you made a lot. Just give me some time over the weekend to go through it. I will react, as I'm very interested to understand more. Thank you.
        
        - Ralf Wilmes September 5, 2008 5:48AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        You are not burned :-)
        
        Ok then.
        
        I agree to say that the NCPA is not basing it's statement on an original scientific report but on a survey.
        
        We are speaking about different approaches in the first place.
        The test to which NCPA refers is a survey. A survey indeed is something different than an original scientific report as the ones on the ncbi site. (true)
        
        The survey shows how on different questions different scientists think. But there's nowhere any sign of denying that it is a suvey and not an original scientific report. The results of the survey explain only how a group of scientists think about the questions that are listed. Nothing more. Nothing less.
        
        The german site indeed shows the quote you copied above, but also shows two different analyses to verify the claim of being biased.
        
        So I can agree with you on the statement that it is not an original scientific study but a survey showing opinions of a group of people. (which might be valid or not, we cant tell).
        
        So there: you win on this one.
        
        Still.....returning to the thesis if global warming is a manmade crisis. I still have too many doubts to answer this with a loud and clear 'Yes'. There are too many signs of insecurity (global temperature is not rising since about 8 years, but dropping slightly; solar cycle variations; ocean phase shifting patterns and more) to base a firm policy upon. (carbon tax for example should not be based on this).
        
        To close consider this article in the AP: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OFFSHORE_DRILLING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
        
        So environmentalists against oil company regarding offshore drilling on California. So this is about principles I thought. But what happens? They make a deal of which the "summary shows that the company agreed to donate 3,900 acres of land to the Trust for Public Land, contribute $1.5 million to a fund that could be used to buy hybrid buses and end its local operations in 14 years"
        
        In return for money and private investments in public costs they can drill anyway!
        
        If something is a crisis it is a crisis also in return for money right?
        
        I know that this example is but one example. But I remain skeptic until I have the whole thing cristal clear, even if that requires a lot of information and time!
        
        Thanks for an interesting discussion.
        
        Ok then.
        
        I agree to say that the NCPA is not basing it's statement on an original scientific report but on a survey.
        
        We are speaking about different approaches in the first place.
        The test to which NCPA refers is a survey. A survey indeed is something different than an original scientific report as the ones on the ncbi site. (true)
        
        The survey shows how on different questions different scientists think. But there's nowhere any sign of denying that it is a survey and not an original scientific report. The results of the survey explain only how a group of scientists think about the questions that are listed. Nothing more. Nothing less.
        
        The German site indeed shows the quote you copied above, but also shows two different analyses to verify the claim of being biased.
        
        So I can agree with you on the statement that it is not an original scientific study but a survey showing opinions of a group of people. (which might be valid or not, we cant tell).
        
        So there: you win on this one.
        
        Still.....returning to the thesis if global warming is a manmade crisis. I still have too many doubts to answer this with a loud and clear 'Yes'. There are too many signs of insecurity (global temperature is not rising since about 8 years, but dropping slightly; solar cycle variations; ocean phase shifting patterns and more) to base a firm policy upon. (carbon tax for example should not be based on this).
        
        To close consider this article in the AP: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OFFSHORE_DRILLING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
        
        So environmentalists against oil company regarding offshore drilling on California. So this is about principles I thought. But what happens? They make a deal of which the "summary shows that the company agreed to donate 3,900 acres of land to the Trust for Public Land, contribute $1.5 million to a fund that could be used to buy hybrid buses and end its local operations in 14 years"
        
        In return for money and private investments in public costs they can drill anyway!
        
        If something is a crisis it is a crisis also in return for money right?
        
        I know that this example is but one example. But I remain skeptic until I have the whole thing crystal clear, even if that requires a lot of information and time!
        
        Thanks for an interesting discussion.
        
        - Ralf Wilmes September 8, 2008 6:42AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Heartland's Funding
  
  Where else are they going to get funding? The pro global warming researchers get funding from those who believe that global warming is a crisis and would have their funding cut off if they disagreed. They would have equal reason to be biased. Funding for anyone who disagrees with the "Global Warming is a man made crisis" point of view find it impossible to get funding from anyone but those who agree with their views. I've noticed that when someone can't argue the facts they attack the motive.
  
  - tbcass September 4, 2008 3:51AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Whar does consensus mean?

In reading this statement and the Sierra Club statement, what is apparent to me is the Sierra Club used the word consensus as most of us do to mean a majority. The NCPA wants to make an argument by sticking to the dictionary meaning of 'we all come together'. Such picaune tactics generally signal to me that there is no concrete statement for the opposing view, especially when they state that 56% of the scientific community agree. Let's borrow from civil court. At 56%, there certainly appears to me that there is a preponderance of evidence to support the claim that there is a crisis. Use the facts, not your ability to word-smith.

- JimWa LoCra August 19, 2008 7:56PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- 56% does not equal 100%
  
  What reasoning is that? Because 56% agree it follows that it must be right? Apply this to ex nazi -germany and you see this reasoning can't be the one to go for.
  Use the facts also means seeing the other 46%.
  
  - Ralf Wilmes September 3, 2008 2:36PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Science is not a Democracy
  
  At various times in history the scientific consensus was that: the world is flat, T Rex dragged his tail on the ground, and, an Ice age is coming soon. Because something is believed by a majority of "scientists" does not make it true.
  
  - tbcass September 5, 2008 3:44AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- 56%
  
  Almost this exact same split was present in the 60's. 60% believed in the steady state universe. The majority is not always right.
  
  - Fenderman89 July 22, 2009 1:26PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - That's the coldest response I think I have ever seen.
    
    So, it's better that three women were repeatedly raped for 14 hours than one of them had a gun and stopped it with the first victim almost immediately? I'm sure glad my safety doesn't depend on you.
    
    - LagerHead September 22, 2009 1:30PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - huh?
      
      What does that have to do with global warming ?
      
      - MrBook September 23, 2009 6:43AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - I have no idea.
        
        I wasn't in this thread when I responded to a post that had nothing to do with " global warming ." Curious, ain't it?
        
        - LagerHead September 23, 2009 11:34AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The National Center for Policy Analysis Are Not Truthful

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a think tank. It is a "communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems ... [and] prides itself on aggressively marketing its products for maximum impact by 'targeting key political leaders and special interest groups, establishing on-going ties with members of the print and electronic media, and testifying before Congress, federal agencies, state lawmakers, and national organizations.'" -- NCRP, The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis

Just look at their donor list.

- ElaineVigneault September 1, 2008 9:02PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- So how does this prove the crisis?
  
  With these arguments you are saying nothing on the facts or doubts of global warming. But it does add to my suspect that the whole green-crusade really is against.. the free market.
  
  - Ralf Wilmes September 3, 2008 3:04PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Don't need proof
    
    It's doesn't prove it, but you don't need proof. Just weigh the consequences of action versus inaction. If climate change isn't real and we act as though it is then, oh well, we made some lifestyle changes. If climate change IS real and we act as though it's not, then DISASTER.
    
    I made my above point about NCPA because they cannot be trusted to provide accurate, reliable information. They are biased.
    
    - ElaineVigneault September 3, 2008 6:06PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Don't base policy on anxiety
      
      For centuries -and still- the church made people believe that hell exists. We didn't need proof, but just 'in case' it exists, it's better to switch off your reasoning and doubts, and blindly obey everything they say.
      
      Please: 'just in case' is not a rational concept to base policy on. You don't put people in jail, 'just in case' they could be a danger, yet we are basing policy on this basis as far as global warming is concerned?
      
      - Ralf Wilmes September 4, 2008 1:22AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Relax
        
        This is not about "the church." No one is suggesting putting people in jail. We're just saying that the prevention of climate change is an urgent matter. Enough with the hyperbolic nonsense. Now please reconsider some of your lifestyle choices and see how you can reduce your footprint :)
        
        - ElaineVigneault September 4, 2008 8:33AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        What footprint
        
        I'm not reducing any footprint that's the whole point. I have the habit of doing things when I understand why I should. And when I understand that it is in my interest,nobody needs to force anyone you see.
        
        The church stands for irrationality. Jail stands for using government force to coerce people into doing what they want. By fines for example. (Metaphors they are called, sorry if I didn't make myself clear about that)
        
        - Ralf Wilmes September 4, 2008 10:28AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Yes you need proof.
      
      Who can we trust since both sides seem to be biased? First, as a former science teacher, I believe that scientific research should be pure and unbiased. The facts should speak for themselves. There is so much emotion and politics involved in the global warming debate that it hides the fact, at least as I can see from examining the science, that there is no proof of human caused global warming or that the recent warming trend will continue past the present day. What I'm afraid of is that if the global warming crisis is revealed as a sham then irreparable damage will occur to the environmental movement which will result in people becoming complacent and all research on alternative energy sources will slow or cease. I am in total agreement that we should wean off our dependence on fossil fuels but for the right reasons.
      
      - tbcass September 4, 2008 4:34AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Good argument
        
        Good argument there about people becoming complacent. I think that alternative fuels need to be used for the right reasons too, mainly cost and dependency issues.
        
        - Ralf Wilmes September 4, 2008 8:02AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Anxiety is not a guideline for policy
      
      That's the whole point: you need proof to base policy on.
      You can't just start punishing 'just in case' it might be true. Think this logic trough if applied to justice.
      Or: Maybe martians will destroy the earth in 10 years time? we better prepare just in case?
      
      I am an advocate of lifestyle changes too, but that does not solve the question of what to change and how. Example: I am sure I buy a hydrogen fueled car as soon as it comes out. It is cheaper.
      
      See, even if global warming is due to human activity I still don't see how present policy changes it for the better.
      
      - Ralf Wilmes September 4, 2008 6:35AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - One wonders...
        
        Why aren't there groups advocating for a larger anti-martian effort? It seems just as reasonable as the environmentalist effort by these standards.
        
        I think there is an implicit premise that the current denizens of Earth be concerned for the future denizens of Earth. If the argument is that we should not care about our children 's future, or our neighbor's children's future, then how could anything like climate change be a crisis for you?
        
        I think the idea that this is an even debate amongst sincere and concerned parties is an illusion. Everyone seems either concerned about the future or concerned about the present. Those concerned about the future are going to try to for see the ramifications of our way of life, and seem to agree that Global Warming is a crisis. Those concerned with the present all seem more concerned with not losing their current quality of life or not being told what to do. Or they are paid to represent that ilk.
        
        - Submariner June 17, 2009 8:09PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Ironic
      
      For someone who votes "No" on "Is there a God?" you sure seem to be falling into one great big contradiction. Using your logic everyone would have to blindly come to that conclusion not on the basis of their own convictions and experiences. Instead on the notion that if they are WRONG, they go to hell. If they are RIGHT, nothing happens, therefore we should all believe in God whether we see reason for it or not.
      
      This is not at all the source of my conviction at all for obvious reasons.
      
      - F2XL November 14, 2008 9:22PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Sourcewatch donors?
  
  Who supports sourcewatch?
  
  Does it count if their donors are typically anti-free market?
  
  - Highlander September 11, 2008 12:50PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Good Question
    
    I'm sure Elaine will be more than happy to dodge it of course.
    
    - F2XL November 14, 2008 9:23PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - I think its pretty grass roots actually...
    
    What free market are yall talking about anyway? Capitalism never had much chance in the US especially, since 1913, but even before. Free markets are little more than village hobbies.
    
    I am skeptical there has ever been a successful entrepenurialship that was not subsidized by the government or funded completely from existing inordinate wealth.
    
    Even so, there's nothing sacred about the idea, and its mostly been most profaned by the quarters that espouse the sancitity of free-market economics.
    
    - Submariner June 17, 2009 8:38PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- SourceWatch is not truthful
  
  It's a purely progressive site that seeks to cook up as many conspiracies about Exxon funding false news stories or Rupert Murdoch trying to impose a global agenda. If you feel that the donors of an institute are what influence it's policy, then why not have an army of Air America listeners throw money at it and see if they change their mind?
  
  - F2XL November 14, 2008 9:19PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
These statements are sophistry

The NCPA and the Heartland Institute both generate studies for the purpose of supporting their side of arguments, not to honestly investigate the issues. That is an incredibly important distinction. In the present cases the results are simply irrelevant to the question posed: Is Global Warming a Crisis, and have very little bearing on the lesser question of scientific consensus.

- Adam Hammond September 3, 2008 1:35PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- I could say this about both sides.
  
  Without proof your statement is sophistry. Lets stick to the science and the issues not unprovable motives. Researchers get their funding where ever they can. Unfortunately on divisive issues like global warming it inevitably comes from sources that support their views. That goes for both sides. The idea that somehow the global warming proponents motives are pure is laughable IMO.
  
  - tbcass September 4, 2008 4:44AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - motives
    
    You say, "Lets stick to the science ..." and then discuss motives.
    
    Speaking specifically about the items at the top of this thread: They are junk science. The questions posed were designed to serve the purpose of the questioner. Such bogus studies are a discredit to whatever side employs them. The argument NCPA makes here is that the "consensus is overstated," but the data they show in support of their argument are useless. Logically, that doesn't disprove their argument, they have simply utterly failed to support it.
    
    Researchers get their funding from government agencies through an arduous vetting process, and then their results are reviewed again by a properly skeptical audience before publication. They are subject to censure or even federal prosecution for fraud if they do not follow legally established guidelines and ethical rules regarding the conduct of federally funded research.
    
    You (IMO) are judging the fast and loose world of advocates (indeed, on both sides) who are not constrained to be fair or even honest. Unfortunately, there are individuals who straddle the distinction and tarnish their scientific reputation by pursuing advocacy. However, that is not the case for the NCPA nor the Heartland Institute. They are pure advocates, and nothing more. Their motives are indeed unprovable, but easily guessed.
    
    I do not believe that this new forum should grant the "expert" title to advocates of either side. There are experts whose conclusions span the breadth of the discussion and who are not financially indebted to partisans. These people should not be lumped together with groups that have financial interests in the debate. I would suggest having two titles available (most of the experts currently posting would be switched to advocates - both sides).
    
    - Adam Hammond September 4, 2008 7:43AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Assumptions
      
      Having financial interests in a debate per se is not wrong. Example: if your employer is about to fire you for a whim he has and it is not for any rational reason, I assure you that you have a financial interest in the debate and that your arguments could also be sound.
      
      I do not see a conceptual contradiction.
      
      Also I would argue that any set of posed questions in whatever issue is by definition designed to serve a purpose right? Again this is not proving anything. Correct me if I'm wrong or unclear.
      
      - Ralf Wilmes September 4, 2008 10:51AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Interesting
        
        In your example, my arguments would likely be biased by my interest. Nevertheless, you are right that financial interest does not preclude unbiased argument. Additionally, people can be biased for reasons other than money. Bias can be easily hidden, but money can't. Financial involvement is imperfect but practical as a measure of impartiality. For important things (like law suits) a better method is needed. For less important areas, like online forums, perhaps it is good enough. If you have a financial interest, you are an advocate instead of an expert.
        
        "Designed to serve the purpose of the questioner" was an inaccurate sentence - my bad. Designed to reinforce the preconceptions of the questioner is what I mean. This may be a moot point, since I am now unsure that these groups do any data gathering at all. They may simply be limited to cherry picking - as they did above.
        
        - Adam Hammond September 4, 2008 1:00PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Fair
        
        One more I appreciate your frankness. That's more important than deciding who's right or wrong to me. I suppose it's the truth we're after regardless the side we choose at present. Thanks.
        
        - Ralf Wilmes September 5, 2008 5:53AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - motives
      
      You Said (You say, "Lets stick to the science ..." and then discuss motives.) What's the problem with my statement? My purpose in discussing the possible motives of both sides was to demonstrate the futility and uselessness of attacking the opinions of those with whom you disagree since it can't be proven and in fact both sides could be biased. Just because money comes from the government doesn't mean that the money is equally distributed. The fact is anyone who is on the anti global warming side has trouble getting money for research. There is a strong movement to shut down any descent. One of the Weather Channel's chief Meteorologists even suggested that any Meteorologist who declared skepticism over Global Warming should be stripped of their license. If that's not bias what is? That attitude is typical of the Global Warming activists.
      
      I would suggest that you read "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus" by Richard S. Lindzen PhD. who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at M.I.T. This esteemed Climate Scientist has been severely attacked by Global Warming supporters simply because he is a skeptic. The bias and emotional fervor demonstrated by many of the Global Warming supporters is matched only by the Abortion (both sides) and PETA crowd.
      .
      
      - tbcass September 5, 2008 4:25AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - sophistry
    
    "the use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving" (Oxford dictionary)
    
    An argument that is not proven does not automatically qualify as sophistry. I strongly deny that any of my statements are sophistry. I hope that I have not used any fallacies and guarantee that I have no intention of deceiving.
    
    - Adam Hammond September 4, 2008 8:07AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Computer models unreliable

The fact that 35% of "experts" think that computer climate models disturbs me. The complexities of climate, many still unknown to us, and the lack of necessary computer power even in super computers, makes computer models very unreliable. All computer models have to be calibrated by running the model and comparing the results to real world tests. Since climate change can take a hundred years or more this approach is impractical so they try to compare to short term trends. This is a useless approach that can actually make the model more inaccurate. From where I stand the computer models for predicting climate change are worse than useless as they are likely to give inaccurate results. All one has to do is observe the accuracy of computer models for predicting the weather. 3 days out is good, 2 weeks is iffy and beyond that is anybody's guess. How can we expect models to predict 50-100 years out and more?

- tbcass September 4, 2008 3:43AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the earth is now cooling

The theory of AGW is supported only by theoretical models that have no basis and can be easily manipulated to show whatever outcome the author desires. Climate is a very complex thing to model.

Here are some important facts.

The warmest year in the 20th century was 1934.

The warmest decade was the 1930s.

Five of the ten warmest years were before 1940 in the 20th century.

Antarctica has 90% of the worlds ice, and in 2008 has the most ice
ever recorded (something the press never mentions)

CO2 is a trace gas, it is less than 4 one hundredths of one percent
of the atmosphere.

CO2 as a percent of the atmosphere has only increased 1/10,000th
since the beginning of industrialization in 1750

1998 was the second warmest year of the 20th century, but it has been
cooler every year since even though CO2 levels continue to increase.

temperatures declined between 1940 and 1975 even thoough CO2 levels
increased.

in 2008 US temperatures, as tracked by the National Climate Data Center
were 0.2 degrees above the 114 year temperature average, there is
no warming.

So what drives the climate, the sun. Its output is not constant. It
caused the warming of the late 20th century and the cooling we now
experience. The solar winds are the lowest ever recorded according to NASA.

See this website for all the answers

www.isthereglobalwarming.com

- geoff January 24, 2009 12:41PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- exactly
  
  that's what i worry about the most
  
  the cooling trend is a result of global warming and is bound to continue as more co2 is pumped into the air
  
  i know this founds like the film, but i think it might trigger an ice age
  
  we are current in a interglaceric warm peroid, and the warm climate can end any day
  
  - Stormwolf February 12, 2009 8:23PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Related Debates

Experts on "Yes" Side

Sierra Club
Explore, Enjoy and Protect the Planet See arguments
NRDC
The Earth's Best Defense See arguments

Experts on "No" Side

NCPA
Seeking Private Sector Solutions See arguments
The Heartland Institute
Chicago-Based Think Tank See arguments

Most Objections

Is Global Warming a Crisis?

Spotlight

National Center for Policy Analysis

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal is to... More

Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms

Email a Friend

Experts and users discuss global warming, environment: Scientific Consensus Overstated

Scientific Consensus Overstated

- From NCPA

By National Center for Policy Analysis - Seeking Private Sector Solutions

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Is Global Warming a Crisis?

Ask Your Friends to Vote

Spotlight

Subscribe to Opposing News

Email a Friend

Is Global Warming a Crisis?