Talk:Arguments used to dismiss action on climate change

I relocated this list from the former Global Warming page -- it was originally posted with the idea of developing a paragraph or so to each of the propositions and add references. It is a long list and I'm inclined to cull it to the major ones. I'll leave it here for the moment and see what evolves. --Bob Burton 05:39, 15 Dec 2004 (EST)

cutting down the list.

Try culling the items by whether they are opinions or based on facts. Then look up the related material. The list will be much shorter and some will prove to be true. Sorry, the facts do not lie.

For example: "Climate change is just a theory - we should wait until it's proven before taking action." Theories are well proven hypotheses and since AGW in not even proven, it fails to be a theory. We definitely need to prove or disprove it before we make huge plans for the future.

"Climate science is skewed by unconscious assumptions that climate change is anthropogenic." To assume everything is our fault is foolish and too many feel free to assume so. But, not in trying to avoid the blame, but in trying to properly identify the problem, skeptics think we should properly collect the real facts. It is established that the records show that ancient increases in CO2 lagged many years behind increases in temperature. So, to assume that it is our fault that the two are rising at the same time, particularly as we are post-ice age, fails to make sense. Not to mention the real science behind greenhouse gases shows that increases will have a marginal effect, particularly as the methane levels are not doing what AGW claims and been level for several years. Wow, these little phrases get thorny. They are packed with hidden unscientific assumptions.

"we don't know enough about the climate to accurately predict the week's weather, let alone next century" Ouch, this one is completely true. There are 22 major climate computer models out there. Why? Because they do not work. Models have never managed to get it right, all of the way back to the 1970's. And if they cannot reliably reproduce the past chain of climate changes, why oh why would we trust them to predict the future? Only very recently did a model try to incorporate the effects of water vapor and now they are blaming water vapor levels on human activity! We quite honestly do not know how to model the multitudinous effects of water vapor on local, regional or global scales. Models are very complicated, flawed, opinions formed by the programmers - they show just what they set out to show. Holy smokes, Batman! I found a paper the other day in which the computer model disagreed with the facts. So, the researchers built another model to confirm the first model, ignoring the fact that neither agreed with the real facts. Apparently facts are only suggestions in some researchers' minds. Basing future plans on unreliable predictions has never been a reliable strategy. The only responsible approach is to seriously examine the real facts and act accordingly. We want to avoid the Chicken Little approach, which, unfortunately, is just what many people are doing

Just helping move the list along.

Dr. Colton