Skeptic Project

I am having a hard time finding this info for some reason. Do any peer reviewed studies exist confirming global warming skeptics side of the argument?

Thanks!

i would defo like some more info on this topic...are there any existing articles on this site...i still find it difficult to navigate and find stuff around here beyong the 'popular articles'

my view is that climate science is not as conclusive as it is presented to us (e.g. is the solar system warming, and if so what are the implication for the notion of man made warming on earth?).

also, the recent climate gate debarcle DID leave some unaswered questions as far as I can tell...e.g. there did seem to be an attempted pervertion of the peer review process.

On balance, i do believe in man made warming, but have a few more unanswered questions that i do about the NWO etc..

My skeptic flag goes off whenever anyone tells me that there is conclusive evidence that global warming is a man made phenomenon. A simple glance at the locations of centralized populations vs the landscape today shows that at one point what is now desert was once lush. Heck, according to that PBS documentary series Becoming Human, climate change was one of the major factors in our ancestors becoming more intelligent in order to survive the changes.

So I'm not really sure where I stand on the issue other than to say: climate change is happening and pollution is bad whether its related to it or not. But I don't think it is going to be cause some massive extinction. I think humanity will adapt and overcome as always. Its what we do.

I kinda think environmentalists and their political opponents have hijacked this debate.

I have to agree with Matt on this one almost all the way. While I do believe in climate change, I hate what it has become. The far left version of "The War On Terror", with nothing but exaggerations, nit-picking, and fear mongering.

I remember when I first started hearing this type of rhetoric back in high school, and then Waterworld came out like my senior year, and the teachers were leaching on to that movie like it was going to happen by around this time. And just like the 1999, 2000, 2012, Doomsday's, they always seem to get pushed back as the years loom.

I'm with the lefties. Their argument - that further warming will enable a huge chain of positive feedback, the effects of which are hard to predict and that even the models, which were too conservative in guessing where we would be by now, seem to be united in the point that long-term results will be devastating for people & natural environments - does make more sense to me than any of the "weeeeell, it's always worked out well in the past"-alternatives.

Will climate change make the whole world an uninhabitable place of doom (DO WE HAV TO BUILD UNDERWATER CITIES NAO)?
Most likely not. But I still would stay away from property near seawater, and keep an eye on international spread of disease and vermin.

Muertos,

My biggest problem has always been with the solution. And while I do agree we(humans) are contributing to the warming, and the science does suggest this, I just have to be skeptical that there's some exaggeration when the science is not consistent in it's projections. The only consistency I've found is in the rhetoric. Personally I try to stay away from this topic, because it always ends up the same way: Countless sites everyone here can go back and forth on, from countless scientists, giving countless explanations, with countless rebuttals.

But going back to the solution, which really pisses me off, is that it always comes back to the same thing(And this is where the politicians come in) : Carbon Tax.

So the worlds best scientists can agree that we're destroying our planet(Which is obvious), but they can't seem to find out a way(cheaper alternatives) other then to ask for money?

Now I don't know about the rest of you all here, but anytime a solution ends in "We need your money," I instantly become skeptical.

I think the best solution is to put federal money into R&D of renewable resources, which the current administration has done. What's the point in buying solar panels made in China if your goal is helping to reduce climate change?

Agreed 100%. Massive federally-spearheaded R&D program designed to wean us off fossil fuels in 10 years or less. Put the same level of political urgency and resources behind it as we did World War II or even the moon program.

It's a win-win. If global warming is as bad as the scientists say it is, and I believe it is, then we've dodged that bullet. If global warming isn't as bad, then we've weaned ourselves off fossil fuel, achieved substantial energy independence and can say a big "fuck you" to every oil-producing country in the world, especially those we pretend to like but secretly hate, such as Saudi Arabia.

Industry is what will develop the renewable resources needed to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, therefore the anti-industry rhetoric of the far left and most environmental groups* is counter productive.

That's the only real stance I have on this issue.

*This does not apply to NRDC or the Nature Conservancy, both of which I consider to be fairly reasonable organizations and I have financially supported both. But Greenpeace and the Sierra Club suck balls.

How would a global tax even work? The IRS can't stop people from cheating on their income taxes.

Because if a domestic income tax can't even be enforced, why should I think a global carbon tax can?

"But I don't know if its enactment ought to be decided based on its efficacy."

Then what's the point?

Well that's just it, I don't think it is possible to successfully enforce a fair, global carbon tax. A cursory glance at the environmental practices of our commercial competitors seems to support this opinion.

I don't really see why Americans should pay higher taxes just because some island that's going under water is going under water regardless when we have absolutely no reason to think other countries will follow a global tax in good faith.

I don't see that comparison at all. There is a massive cultural difference between provinces in the 1700s in a domestic context and nations today in a global context.

I would go so far as to say a global government is impossible.

Because globalization is guided by trade and profit, not altruism.

What ethical milestones have been achieved in Africa aside from the ending of apartheid? What ethical milestones have been achieved in India or China?