Your best arguement against global warming....?

Question

If you have seen 'An Inconvenient Truth' and still do not believe in global warming...give me your best arguement that global warming does not exist...please use facts to back your arguement and not just opinion...

wow you guys are good! But that's why I come to ask my questions here....in response to one answer: I thought Al Gore was preaching to us because we are the ones who put the policy makers in office. For the rest of the answers: if what you all say is true...then what is happening to the glaciers all over the world? Why are we at a point in our earths history that is so far from the norms of the heating and cooling trends of the past? And if there is no connection between Co2 and temperature, then why do the graphs of each correlate and match so closely?

Answer 1

i do not believe in it for many reasons.. but the best no relgion answer I can give you is this.. back in the 70's they said the same thing.. they had all the answers all the science was in.. noone could question what was happening and if you did you got laughed at... only it wasnt global warming.. it was global cooling... every UN science person from around the world said the same thing.. gases from cars factorys would and are blocking out the suns rays which would cause the earth to cool and make it so we could not grow enough food to feed anyone and we would all die...
you have to be stupid to think the earth will not change.. with or without humans on it...

the earth has had what a few hundren iceages before people exsisted? so ask yourself a few questions like....

if we had no cars or people.. why did the earth go into an ice age... and then.. once it was in an ice age... why.. did it come out of it....

other questions would be... why did the earth ever lose all the air it had.. like 5 to 7 times in its history...

because it did.. the earth is alive.. it will age .. it will change... if you took all the people off of it and let it be.. it would still die one day.. just would.. and then it would come back... it just would.. to say the temp should never change... is... for the weak minded.. mental midgets..

Answer 2

There's no reason to argue about global change. Some places are warming, and some places are cooling. i'm in Wisconsin right now, and we're getting weather colder than it has been in about ten years.
So the argument would be that the term "Global Warming" is innacurate because it's not just warming, it's also cooling.

i think that the biggest thing i got against Global warming is how the experts try to handle it. The EU and Asian nations have all signed the Kyoto plan to reduce emissions, even though scientists are split about how much that would help, if at all. Why is America one of the only countries to not hop on the band wagon? Because if you read it, it puts huge restrictions on how much CO2 the US can put out, while most other countries (China, which burns more coal than we do), are actually alloud to make more CO2 than they are physically capable of doing right now!!!

If these people cared about the enviroment at all, why wouldn't they put restrictions on countries that produce the most CO2? Because the EU can't compete with america economically, and they want to choke us down to a level where they can compete.

The world is changing, that is undeniable. What is deniable is that it started warming during the 1920's with America's industrial revolution. What is deniable is that scientists all agree on the cause of the climate change.
What is undeniable is that Al Gore has made Millions of dollars at conventions and making movies to sell his idea to a public, who can't change policy, and is largely ignoring the political system that could change how we do things. If America changes and goes back to the dark ages with no coal or oil used, he would lose his million dollar industry of warning us of our own doom.

Worse yet, since scientists are still fighting about this, there is a chance he could be wrong, and then he would be a laughing stock, so it's in his best interest to preach to us, rather then the policy makers. He's got enough money to make changes, he chooses not to.

Answer 3

Your question would have more validity if you stated the real issue. Does human activity cause global warming. As a geologist, I know that temperatures and sea levels fluctuate over time. We are now in a period of warming. We have been for thousands of years with a few cold periods. The warming will not continue forever. Unfortunately, we are likely to enter a period of cooling sometime in the future. I notice that the global warming alarmists comically fail to mention anything positive to come from increased CO2 or increase temperatures. This is becuase they are interested in scaring people not in science. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. Water vapor is much more important and much harder to predict. When you hear predictions from these people about CO2, you should take it with a grain of salt. These people are trying to fool you or have simply be caught up in all the hype. Don't be gullible.

Answer 4

I do not understand why every one is so adamantly against the idea of global warming. Look at the geologic record, even without humanities input the earth goes through periodic heating and cooling phases, they are called ice ages. Now with that said, notice the increase in violent storms, they are the earths way of releasing excess energy that is built up in the atmosphere. With the advent of the industrial revolution and man kinds increased assault on the rain forest we are affecting the rate or level of that natural cycle. Do not be an ostrich and bury your head in the sand, allow the possibility that we may be having an effect on this earths climate and contribute something positive towards its onslaught.

Answer 5

there is one important element in the global warming debate that hasn't ever been studied. the nice and cozy temperature from the mantle of Earth is warming the sea a lot yet no human being looks to draw close something about how a lot the sea is warmed by technique of warm temperature from interior of. it is a important element 2d in elementary words to the picture voltaic flux and far more desirable important than the different element and yet no longer something is ever stated about it. the individuals who make comments about global warming say it isn't a lot and not in any respect in any respect important yet i imagine the polar zone is a great deal effected by technique of transformations in the nice and cozy temperature that flows from the mantle into the Arctic Ocean. i'm confident the nice and cozy temperature ebbs and flows in the Arctic from the mantle and it really is that warmth that retains Europe hotter than Alaska. As you recognize Alaska is more desirable effected by technique of the Pacific Ocean the position the nice and cozy temperature flux is particularly different than in the Arrctic Ocean. besides, i wish something the following will be of use to you in writing your paper and that i wish you get a sturdy grade on it.

Answer 6

OK, I'll give some facts as laid out in a couple of recent publications regarding global warming and its anthropogenic cause.

From: Environ Geol (2006) 50: 899–910

"After the Kyoto Protocol had been announced in
1997 (Kyoto Protocol 1997), many researchers around
the world criticized its provisions (that imposed drastic
restrictions on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission in
developed countries) as meaningless and catastrophic.
Logical and quantitative comparison analyses presented
in the publications of Robinson et al. (1998), Soon et al.
(2001), Bluemle et al. (2001), Baliunas (2002), Sorokhtin
(2001), Sorokhtin and Ushakov (2002), Gerhard (2004),
and Khilyuk and Chilingar (2003, 2004) showed that the
theory of currently observed global atmospheric warming
as a result of increasing anthropogenic carbon
dioxide (and the other greenhouse gasses) emission is a
myth. This myth proved to be an enduring one."

"The writers identified and described the global forces of
nature driving the Earth’s climate: solar irradiation as a
dominant energy supplier to the atmosphere (and
hydrosphere); outgassing as a dominant gaseous matter
supplier to the atmosphere (and hydrosphere); and
microbial activities at the interface of the lithosphere
and atmosphere. The scope and extent of these processes
are 4–5 orders of magnitude greater than the corresponding
anthropogenic impacts on the Earth’s climate
(such as heating and emission of the greenhouse gases)."

"Inspection of the global atmospheric temperature
changes during the last 1,000 years (Fig. 11) shows that
the global average temperature dropped about 2C over
the last millennium. This means that we live in the
cooling geologic epoch (which comprises most of the
Holocene), and the global warming observed during the
latest 150 years is just a short episode in the geologic
history. The current global warming is most likely a
combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities
and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic
impact on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible
for less than 0.01C (of approximately 0.56C (1F) total
average atmospheric heating during the last century)
(Khilyuk and Chilingar 2003, 2004)."

From: Pure appl. geophys. 162 (2005) 1557–1586

"In the context of the earth’s climate through the last 500 million years, the recent (1975–2000) increase in the earth’s mean temperature does not appear to be unusual or unprecedented as claimed by IPCC and many supporters of the global warming
hypothesis. According to MANN et al. (1998, 1999), the 20th century is likely the warmest century in the Northern Hemisphere and the 1900s were the warmest decades with 1998 as the warmest year in the last 1000 years."

"11. Summary and Conclusions
During the long geological history of the earth, there was no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. Earth has been warming and cooling at highly irregular intervals and the amplitudes of temperature change were also
irregular. The warming of about 0.3 C in recent years has prompted suggestions about anthropogenic influence on the earth’s climate due to increasing human activity worldwide. However, a close examination of the earth’s temperature change
suggests that the recent warming may be primarily due to urbanization and land-use change impact and not due to increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Besides land-use change, solar variability and the sun’s brightness appear to provide a more significant forcing on earth’s climate than previously believed. Recent studies suggest solar influence as a primary driver of the earth’s climate in geological
times. Even on a shorter time scale, solar irradiance and its variability may have contributed to more than sixty percent of the total warming of the 20th century. The impact of solar activity like cosmic ray flux on the earth’s cloud cover has not been fully explored and may provide an additional forcing to the earth’s mean temperature change. There appears to be no intimate link between global warming and worldwide extreme weather events to date. Increasing economic impact due to extreme weather
events in the conterminous USA appears to be a result of societal change in wealth and population and not due to global warming. Outside of USA, very few studies have been reported thus far which make a meaningful analysis of economic impact of
extreme weather events. There has been no accelerated sea-level rise anywhere during the 20th century.
Our review suggests that the present state of global warming science is at an important cross road. There is a definite need to reassess the science and examine various issues that have been discussed and analyzed here."

From: Meteorol Atmos Phys 95, 115–121 (2007)

"Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration,
the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of
global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO2
concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse
effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural
cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even
though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change
is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated.
It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate
changes."

These are peer-reviewed journal articles. They are long and sometimes a hard read. Read these, look at the references they cite and read some of those. Is it really global warming ro are we at the beginning of a global cooling? Is it man or is it nature? You will see that the science is not settled in any area of the debate.

Sorry this is so long, but you asked for facts and I have given you the means to review these statements and teh facts taht underly the statements.

All of these sources acknowledge climate change, which is not even in question. All of them question the popular cause of climate change (Humans).

Answer 7

Remember all the environmentalists & global warming enthusiasts predictions about the hurricanes we would be having in 2006 ???
Global warming is a tempest in a teacup...
Global climate has been warming & cooling for billions of years..
Man has probably contributed to the current warming trend..
So what...
The sky is not falling..
Mankind will adapt...

Answer 8

the fact against global warming is that there is a constant increase in temperature since ice age...this increase in temperature is invitable according to people who r against global warming... but, the greenhouse gases are just catalysing this increase in temperature...

Answer 9

Mmmm The Argument isn't if its what is the cause. Man or Just a Natural occurrence.

Answer 10

I will answer with a question to you. What will happen to the earth when Yellowstone has it's next super eruption?