Long story short, mankind's influence on climate change is not a hoax, and the common rebuttals against it are basically always founded on ignorance.
OR
Well yes I know that there are legitimate scientists who provide research claiming to be evidence challenging GW
Which is it? And if you
"knew" there are scientists with relevant credentials among AGW skeptics, why did you post "
always founded on ignorance"?
... there have been cases where scientists with agendas have been guilty of exaggerating how much their research supports it.
Quite an understatement! Data has been cooked and re-cooked to fit the theory rather than the reverse. And contrary data has been ignored.
For every 1 scientist that claims to have evidence against it, there's 50 scientists who claim to have evidence for it.
Another venture into hyperbole?
The evidence for GW goes beyond just measurments of temperatures over the past decades or so ...
Climate is a phenomenon encompassing centuries and millennia. Mankind's ability to measure temperature - accurately and with a standard scale - at all may not extend back 3 full centuries, and the kind of worldwide network of numerous carefully installed and monitored measurement stations has been around, at best, a century and a half (and very likely, for less than a century). Indirect estimation methods are insufficiently precise and discriminating. All in all, the data we have is vastly insufficient to tell us whether recent observations represent actual climate change or just part of the pattern of multiple overlapping natural cycles (though the indirect data we do have actually are more consistent with the idea that we are yet within natural cycles).
... there have been computer generated models and such of effects of the sun's infrared rays interacting with molecules of certain man made gases, and those support the idea that manmade gases are enhancing the earth's greenhouse effect, and leading to an eventual runaway greenhouse effect.
Computer models are not evidence, for two reasons. First, models are generated using data and guesstimates to try to create something that would predict the future. Models work OK if we are talking about electronic circuit design. But climate/weather are vastly more complex, and the unknowns being guesstimated are very significant (and may be fatal to the various models). Second, the models have been around long enough that two things are known: their "predictions" of the past (time prior to the data on which the models were based) are usually very wrong; their predictions for the future have been wrong.
The bottom line is that we simply do not have enough data or understand the Earth's climate enough (anywhere near enough!) to be making grandiose proclamations about the future.
The "gases" that have been central to this debate have been CO2, methane, NOx, and water vapor. These sometimes are byproducts of various human activities, but they are all natural gases; they are also produced, probably in vastly greater quantities, by other processes and activities in which humans are not involved.
... but it seems to me that when an average joe is skeptical of it, it usually is.
Joe, here,
. How about you? Do you have a formal background in Climatology, Climate Physics, or Meteorology? Or are you also basically repeating what you have read? And regardless of whether or not we both are repeating what we have read, is that "ignorance".
That article you posted however, mostly just points out that there have been times in the past where the scientific consensus has been wrong. Does this mean that all underdog theories in the present all of a sudden have as much credibility as the one generally acknowledged by scientists? I don't think so.
No, but it demonstrates the fact that what we think we know may in fact be wrong or terribly misunderstood or incomplete. It shows the folly of arguing that a "consensus" proves anything in Science.
Also, forget Al Gore, he is not even a scientist and is far from the only proponent ...
I would gladly forget AlGore ... if he would just shut up and enjoy his mansion(s?) and jet-setting quietly. And maybe give places he visits in winter
Gore Effect warnings. I brought him up because AlGore is easily the most visible proponent of the AGW theory and you had pointedly stated that AGW Skepticism is "always founded on ignorance".
I'm also wary about an article posted in the wall street journal about climate change. I may be wrong on this, but they're an economic based news source, so theyre likely to be skewed in favor of what "truth" is more convenient to investors. Some have called them "a mouthpiece of corporations".
I was wondering if you'd get to this standard-issue well-poisoning. Let me put the shoe on the other foot:
I'm also wary about an article posted in Global Warming advocating publications. I may be wrong on this, but they're all government funding based news sources, so theyre (sic) likely to be skewed in favor of what "truth" is more convenient to getting more government funds. Some have called them "a mouthpiece of government grant hunters".
See how flexible that "reasoning" is?! Change a few words and the "reasoning" is turned against you. Well-poisoning is fallacious; it's just a form of ad hominem attack. And this particular case illustrates that rather well. Had you bothered to read the article - or at least taken the comment in my post seriously - you would have read this at the bottom of the article:
Messrs. McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.
IOW, while TWSJ was the publication, the article authors have ample expertise and credentials. It wasn't simply for brevity that I did not include those two sentences in what I quoted this AM. To be honest, that you didn't bother to read the article far enough (if at all) to learn the authors' credentials, yet still dismissed them as bogeyman-corporation mouthpieces, doesn't surprise me.
