I'm not really sure where to begin with this post.
I guess I could begin with the statement that 'I am a skeptic'. I am skeptical about everything, not just the theory that current global warming is in part anthropogenic. It is just my nature, especially when I am told to believe something as fact, I tend to question it.
When it comes to an issue like this, what I tend to do is, look more at the opposing argument (often simply because it is more entertaining). I look at the people who are saying this isn't true, and I look at their arguments more. Often what happens is the skeptics arguments/ accusations often convince me that what they are saying isn't true, actually is true.
In the case of anthropogenic global warming this is true. A lot of it stems from the accusations that this is a political issue used by politicians and the media, and so forth, to further personal agendas and for certain people to make money, or for scientists to get funding.
This doesn't sit right with me at all. Firstly, because it makes AGW a conspiracy, that lots of people are in on. Secondly, because these politicians, media, etc, the people in the spotlight that talk about AGW, and talk about its possible calamitous effects, aren't creating the basic data for this problem. All the research and information comes from scientists. People outside the scientific community could be using AGW to further personal agendas, but ultimately the conspiracy would exist within the science world. Where the accusation is, it is all about getting funding.
I do not have a scientific education(beyond basic physics and chemistry in high school) but I do have a penchant for science. I know very little though, but I wish to know more. And it seems to me, that that is fundamentally what science is all about. The desire to know more. Scientists want to know the truth, and to share it, as I'm sure Einstein was like with General Relativity, 'In your face, biatches!!'
Fundamentally, or rather pathetically, this is where my belief in Anthrpogenic global warming comes from. My belief that scientists become scientists because they want to know the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelangelica
I don't think anyone with half a brain can deny anthropogenic global warming.
|
The problem is, they do. Some highly intelligent people deny the authenticity of this theory, or hypothesis as they say.
This is the crux of my problem. I am the member of a forum(nothing to do with science), where this AGW topic came up. The people that think this is bogus were very vocal, and the people that believe AGW to be true remained silent. Which unfortunately leaves me, whilst skeptical on the whole issue, and not having the scientific knowledge to argue the truth of AGW with expertise, but hating to see an argument be so onesided, I leapt into the lions den. With very, very little knowledge on this subject.
With what little time I have, I am trying my best to research both sides of this issue, and I might add, also trying to leave any bias at the door. I think that coming to a topic with a completely closed mind is just horrendous. I mean, what's the point in researching something divided like this, if you believe no matter what in one side of the argument. Unfortunately, my main 'opponent' is completely close minded, however, I do consider him to be quite intelligent. I would prefer if he had a life, instead of what he apparently has, no need to sleep/work/eat and boundless energy to research this topic.
Anyway, I would love to hear from intelligent.. (respected)members that don't believe the AGW theory, and why that is.
Right now, I am arguing that temperature hasn't stopped rising from 1998, but the increase has slowed down, in part due to La Nina. My opponent(who I'll call nappy from here on, if I get valuable responses from members that want to help me out and further my understanding of this issue) says that it is accepted by "denialists" and "alarmists" alike that the global temperature has stopped increasing after 1998, and we are in a short term cooling trend.
Temperature after 98 is the focal point of the argument(which he's rather annoyingly fixating on), but there are a couple of other tidbits in between. A very helpful member of hypography gave me some links to look at(which I am very appreciative of) and some information to help me understand this, and argue it rationally, I'd like broader scope though. In essence, the more brains to help me understand this(both sdes of the argument) and to argue it better, can only be a good thing.
Here is a video by Bob Carter, who doesnt believe AGW. He seems to be quite an intelligent man. I'd love to know what some of you smarter folks think about what he says in this video, and if there is adequate evidence to counter what he is claiming.
Thanks to everyone for reading my post, and to anyone who responds with some helpful information.
I don't even know if he's still around, or if this is the sort of topic he would look at, but I'd love to know what the Big Dog thought about this issue.
