Is it reasonable to be a global warming skeptic?


I think its just as unreasonable as believing we never went to the moon. This conspiracy theory that Scientists are lying about global warming for political reasons just doesn’t make sense to me. However i can imagine that the cost of taking climate change seriously does not serve everybody’s economic agenda.



I said: First, the earth is warming and this warming is unusual both in terms of magnitude and rate. and you replied:

No, they also are concerned about the magnitude. See the Summary for Policymakers from AR5: “Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years in the Northern Hemisphere, where such assessment is possible (medium confidence).”

The narrative promoted by the IPCC is that CO2 levels were low and steady until the Industrial Revolution. From then on CO2 levels have been increasing steadily. But there are good reasons to doubt this is true. First, CO2 measurements from the 1800’s through the 1950’s are variable, ranging from 250 to 550 ppm. But the venerable Guy Calendar, patron saint of global warming, cherry-picked measurements which fit his narrative and tossed the rest. Second, measurements of CO2 for earlier times largely come from ice-cores, and there are good reasons to believe that ice cores measurements suppress variability of CO2. Third, the Siple curve, which has been invaluable in supporting the IPCC CO2 narrative, turns out to be bogus. As explained by Zbigniew Jaworski, researchers wanted ice core measurements from Siple Antartica to link up with the rising atmospheric CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa Hawaii. The problem was that the Siple measurements rose too soon. Their solution was to move the Siple measurements 89 years ahead so they could hook up with Mauna Loa measurements!! To this day proponents of the CO2 theory use this bogus graph. See for example Kerry Emanuel, who calls the result “nicely congruent.” [ - see around 28:30]


That CO2 has greenhouse properties is undeniable. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere should cause some warming, and once can even calculate how much warming assuming all other factors are held constant. But all other factors are never constant. So the issue is how sensitive the climate system is to added CO2, and the verdict so far is not very much.


I am simply asserting that it is part of a bigger problem.

There are consequences to the emission of gases that result from industrial practices, into the atmosphere. And, they are compounded by deforestation. It is unreasonable to think there would not be.

But, we can fix this. The car companies are dealing with it. The NFL ultimately had to admit to Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy and seems to be doing something about it. The tobacco industry learned their lesson the hard way.

The denial that a problem exists will ultimately mean government intervention. Like a child acting up, maybe that’s what some people want. I don’t.


Contemporary CO2 concentration measurements are not the only source of our overall estimate of CO2 in the past. There are also ice cores (as you mentioned below) and proxies such as ocean sediments and micro fossils. There is no serious doubt about the fact that CO2 levels have been below 300 ppm until the industrial revolution. If you have a scholarly article that says otherwise, please cite it. Of course CO2 was much higher in prehistoric times, but that was when the climate was vastly different too, so no conclusions can be drawn from that.

Please cite a scholarly article that says that ice-core data is not good enough to conclude that CO2 was below 300.

I had not heard this claim before, and was unable to confirm it by searching. Please tell me where you got this info so I can see what this is about, if anything. I looked at 28:30 into the youtube video you cited and it confirmed that there is no dispute the CO2 has risen suddenly and dramatically during the industrial revolution. So I don’t know what sort of fraudulent results you are claiming has happened.


so, what have the scientists determined is the optimum earth’s temperature for human life?


how did the scientists determine that the earth’s climatology does not allow for the earth becoming too warm to support human life?


at what temperature is the earth’s climate too hot for human life, per scientists?


why could the earth’s climate warming not be a natural and desirable consequence of its human population, per the scientists?



I refer you to Chapter 7 of Lawrence Solomon’s The Deniers, which features Zbigniew Jaworrowski. Most of the cites refer to personal communications with Jaworowski. It also cites Senate testimony Zbig gave:


Regarding the third element of the GW hypothesis I said:

Third, human CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are the primary cause of rising CO2.

You replied:

Nope. Tis a controverted issue.

Robert Carter–may he rest in peace–disagrees with your and the IPCC’s conclusion. See his book Climate–The Counter Consensus. First, because soil and forest carbon, like fossil fuel carbon are strongly depleted in Carbon 13, and therefore feasible sources that may be partly driving the C13/C12 decline. And, second, because the IPCC uses residence times (50-200 years and even higher, depending on the model) of CO2 in the atmosphere which are wildly at odds with most studies. Carter cites Harvey Lamb, Tom Segalstad, and Roy Spencer.


Fourth, the warming caused by our CO2 emissions will be dangerous.

Not good enough.

All the scary scenarios come from the IPCC’s computer models, which, in the final analysis, are evidence of nothing. See the definitive takedown of the climate models here:


In reading the testimony given by Jaworrowski, it became apparent to me that his argument turned on highly technical details of instrumentation techniques that only an expert in the field can rightly confirm or deny. Therefore it is important for me, as one who is not an expert in CO2 reconstructions from ice cores, to see whether or not his argument stands up to scrutiny by his peers. If you could please cite where this has happened I would then know whether to give his opinion real consideration, or to temporarily discard it pending such review. I also ask you why exact portion of the youtube video you cited earlier tells exactly the opposite story.


I would be more convinced if you cited actual peer-reviewed publications, not books of someone’s agenda. Ditto for your “definitive takedown” that you cited in the subsequent posting. Please do not cite youtube videos. They are a cop-out from actual written arguments that can be read at my own pace.

Irma and Harvey should kill any doubt that Climate Change is Real | Opinion


Books are a helpful point of entry into the topic for the layman such as myself. Bob Carter was a partisan in the climate debate but an honorable and honest one. If you are at all interested in the skeptic mindset, check him out. The book I cited is a good source. He has more than few lectures on youtube.

On the issue of residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, see Lam here:

On the issue of carbon isotope evidence, see Segalstad, T.V., 1996, CO2 and climate–are we fumbling with the Earth’s thermostat? Norwegian Oil Review, 22 (10), p. 297
and Segalstad T. V. , 1992, The amount of non-fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. American Geophysical Union, Chapman conference on Climate, Volcanism, and Global Change, 23-27 March, 1992, Hilo, Hawaii

See also Spencer, R.W., 2009 (21 Jan) Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Manmande…Or Natural?…or-natural/

My youtube videos are not a cop-out but an honest attempt by someone whose life has been impacted by the Obama administration’s global warming policy and its lingering effects to assess the credibility of the evidence for such policy. Its personal.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, and I hope you are having a wonderful weekend.

Here in NoDak Fall is well underway. I harvested my tomatoes today as it will freeze soon. I have also been squeezing apples into juice like a madman. I love the changing of the seasons.

God bless you and your clan.





Will have to get back to you. RE the Kerry Emanuel Video, he is a CO2 theory advocate from MIT. I cited his video because he cites the Siple curve as evidence that the Siple curve is still being used to justify the “nice tidy story” that CO2 has rising steadily since the Industrial Revolution, even though they had to move the data 89 years to match up with the mauna lo measurements.


“Is it reasonable to be a global warming skeptic?”

Sure. Ever heard of Climategate? Ever read The Hockey Stick Illusion?


Personally I am a little suspicious of a book unless I can check out the claims it makes myself. Otherwise I am afraid that my non-expert intuition can be too easily misled by convincing sounding arguments that make no scientific sense. That is, they might not make any scientific sense but I would have no way of knowing that unless I was myself active in that field of science. Deciding between authors would come down to who is the best BSer. That is why I rely on the wisdom of the those who have the knowledge and skill to evaluate those claims. On those rare occasions when my own knowledge is sufficient to evaluate a claim, I do so.

I do not question the sincerity of skeptics, only their scientific accuracy. So there does not appear to be any reason to inquire into their “mindset.”

The fact that he has more than a few lectures on youtube in itself is no guarantee of authority.

Since I do not fully understand the role of residence time of CO2 in the application of isotope analysis and fossil fuels, I don’t know if an incorrect assumption here says anything against the theory that modern CO2 comes mostly from fossil fuels. Also, it seems the question can be answered approximately by calculating the amount of CO2 that would come from the fossil fuels that we know about. We have a pretty solid estimate of that, don’t we? If it isn’t going into the air, where is it going?

I could not find a reference to that on Google. Guess I have to have a hard copy. Is it a peer-reviewed journal?

I have the same problem. Spencer’s claims are too technical for me to evaluate on my own.

I do not question your honesty nor am I supporting all of Obama’s policies on global warming. I separate the scientific question of climate change from the political question of what to do about it. Even though they are closely related, they do require different approaches.

The same to you!


The dodgy science is aided and abetted by the ever-dodgy mainstream media, who long ago jumped on the climate-change band-wagon. They like to report anything that might support global warming but ignore stuff that doesn’t.

And I just love the way they sometimes claim that such and such a climate event is “unprecedented”. Quite an amazing claim considering climate records only go back about 150 years.


It’s stupid to be a skeptic

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit