What are the top 5 reasons against global warming?

Question

I know most believe it is true, but for the people that don't believe it is accurate, please list the top 5 reasons why it's not a true. Serious answers please.

Answer 1

5. Earth naturally goes through warm/cold cycles
4. If it is real, we'll find a way to address it when needed
3. Money
2. Money
1. Money

Answer 2

First you must distinguish it as human caused global warming. The global warming alarmists would not care a wit if it wasn't something they could blame on industry. Second to correct an earlier post, the atmosphere only contains 0.0004 (about 400 parts per million) of CO2. Water vapor a much more important greenhouse gas is more like 0.01 or 25 times as much. Since the alarmist cannot blame water vapor on industry, they ignore it. CO2 levels have been rising with increasing temperature generally for 6000 years however there have been episodes of cold. It is difficult to account for the cold period between 1940 and 1970 using the global warming alarmists arguments and logic. It should have warmed in that period. In fact the same alarmists crying that petroleum is causing global warming were warning against it causing an ice age in the 1970s. These gloom and doom predictions are part of human nature and the nature of the media. People must take that into account and take their predictions with the appropriate grain of salt.

Answer 3

Well maybe we're not heading for meltdown but wouldn't it be nice if future generations could go and look at rainforests? Don't you think we have a resposibilty to keep the planet in a certain state of repair for future generations? Don't you think we have a responsibilty not to use up all the resources? Do you not think that is greedy? Wouldn't it be good if less of our children developed asthma because we stopped using our cars so much?

Maybe we are in the middle of a natural state of flux regarding temperatures but the fact remains that humans are by far the most intelligent species on the planet and have the ability to manipulate whatever they want. Surely it is our responsibilty to look after the planet that we share with so many other species? Our a lot of our society is very ignorant and selfish to this fact it seems. So even if you don't believe in global warming, stop being so damn selfish to everything else you share this world with and to everything in the future and do your bit to conserve it.

Answer 4

Ecolink got it right, but there is a SIXTH reason against global warming:

LIFE THRIVES, NOT DIES, IN MILDER AND WARMER CLIMATES. That is a proven fact of biology and botany.

And seven: This year alone, the East Coast of the United States had a few warm days, while the west coast had its second coldest winter on record. If Global warming is true, then how is it global? The law of averages reigns supreme here negating the effects found in one spot of the globe with offsetting temperatures in another.

And EIGHT: Threats of violence against the many members of the scientific community who say Al Gore is wrong. Alarmists cannot prove they are right through empirical science, so they resort to name calling and life-threatening other thug tactics to beat people into submission.

Answer 5

properly, that's a organic technique. it truly is properly documented that the earth does circulate via colling and heating cycles. that may not in question. The question that looks to get absolutely everyone in an uproar is how lots of an result do people certainly make in the scheme of issues. no person is conscious and no person would recognize for some years down the line. the full CO2 element is fantasy. The ice cores teach that carbon follows temp not any opposite direction around. the full carbon credit element is a shame. With all that stated, we as a species, do replace our environments. maximum generally not in a organic or effective way for the plant or perhaps something of it truly is inhabitants. to disclaim that we've result is in basic terms as silly as to have self belief in spite of we do to hold off climate replace. will opposite it truly is direction. We in basic terms don't have that potential. To do not something to cut back pollution fees and our footprint is likewise self defeating. To make people go through on an identical time as we attempt to parent it out is likewise self serving for the few.

Answer 6

Good question! I'm glad you have an open mind.
My top five would be,
1: the earth is billions of year's old, accurate weather records are a few centuries old at best.
2: You will have noticed recently all the new tax & fee proposals for "green" projects, coincidence? there's money to made off fear.
3: 10,000 years ago there was a sheet of ice from the North Pole to Texas, What exactly melted that?
4: Remeber the fear over cancer because of ozone hole? What happened there, we didn't stop using fossil fuel, but it seems to have gone away!
5: Scientists need $ like everyone else. & if governments were willing to give grants for research in there favor, wouldn't you jump on board. This may seem far fetched, but look at the money involved for Cold War R & D.

To finish, it is the height of human arrogance to think the burning of fossil fuel is dramatically changing our climate, there are numerous factors, some of which we don't understand. Remove the politics from this issue & I will consider listening to the science.

Answer 7

Water levels have risen and gone down every 500 years anyway

The Seasons are no different now than they have ever been We have always had climate changes.

The Sun is no hotter than it ever was in fact its a tad cooler.

The moving ice mountains have slipped and fallen for hundreds and thousands of years. So no change there then.

As for Co2 Emmisions well if you take the world population about 1000 years ago the population was not that far from todays figures and yet the emmisions of Co2 even then would have been high because of human and wildlife emmisions through their body functions

Now I am not saying that the loss of rain forest and the use of aeroplanes and oil burning things has not helped pollute but we need to know this simple and clear fact that when politicians get hold of something that they can churn votes out on they will blow anything out of all proportion.
They all shout listen to me,me,me,me, Vote, vote ,vote for me not them. I and my party will save the planet RUBBISH

Answer 8

These are the arguments in material I have read:

1. It's a natural warming cycle.
2. Scientists do not agree on the interpretations of the data.
3. Volcanoes and natural phenomena put more greenhouse gases into the air than people do.
4. I like it warm; what's another degree or two?
5. It's alarmist propaganda from scientists who want grants.

Personally, I believe that global warming is an imminent danger and that we are the cause.

Answer 9

I’m assuming your question is really…

What are your top five reasons why you don’t believe we should spend billions of pounds trying to stop anthropogenic global warming?

OK, in no particular order…

1. The climate of planet Earth has changed constantly, throughout its history. Why do we suddenly believe we need to stop this natural process now?

2. There is actually no conclusive proof that manmade CO2 is causing global warming.

3. We will probably be net better off if the planet warms a little.

4. If the “proof” and the “consensus” are so solid, then why do the global warming alarmists feel the need to lie to us to try to get us to jump onto their bandwagon? Oh, and why do they feel the need to attempt to gag anyone who disagrees with them?

5. Every single.. I’ll say that again, because it’s important. Every single computer climate model that the global warming alarmists have used to predict future rises in temperature has proved to be completely wrong – proof positive that they do not know how the climate works.



To elaborate on the above, in case you’d like some more information…

1. This is important because you have to remember that the climate of the planet changes all the time. The global warming alarmists (GWAs) would like us to believe that, if it wasn’t for us humans, the climate would remain stable. This simply *isn’t* true. The climate would be warming or cooling, even if human weren’t even here. So, the issue here, is not that the planet is warming – everybody agrees with that – this issue is: are we contributing to it? This is where we come to point 2…

2. Despite what the GWAs would have us believe, there is actually no conclusive proof that manmade CO2 is having any significant effect on the planet’s climate. Remember, man contributes less than 5% of the total CO2 produced by the planet. Proxy data from ice core and other samples show that in the past, increases in CO2 lagged behind increases in temperature by 800 – 5000 years – a fact that GWA websites (realclimate.org, etc) have problems explaining – they usually claim that, while something else may have started the warming, once CO2 *did* start rising, it *was* that CO2 that caused further rises in temperature. Mmmm… thin! But a better question, and one they *never* explain, is why temperatures begin to fall again, while CO2 continues to rise for 800+ years. For this to happen, the fundamental premise upon which the whole GWA case is based – that rising CO2 levels cause rising temperatures – is shown to be false.

We can add to this, evidence from our own recent past. The Post War Economic Boom of the late 1940s caused a marked increase in the burning of fossil fuels and, therefore, in production of CO2, yet temperatures suddenly started falling, and continued to fall for around 30 years! The usual GWA explanation for this is something about sulphate particulates (effectively soot) being pumped into the atmosphere by the burning of these fossil fuels which caused “global dimming”. But hang on, we were burning the same fossil fuels before the 1940s and after the end of the cooling period. Where were these sulphate particulates then? Thus, once again we are left with the same problem. Between the 1940s and the 1970s CO2 production went up, while temperatures went down. The opposite of what the GWAs say should happen.

Recently, of course, China and India, etc. are becoming more and more industrialised , and the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere is higher than ever, and yet we have seen no increase in temperatures for the last 8 years.

::edit::

I just came across this webpage… http://www.heartland.org/pdf/20861.pdf It’s an anonymous survey of 530 climate scientists. One of the questions asked was “We can assess the effects of greenhouse gasses?” The result? 76% either disagree or are uncertain. (In fact 46% strongly disagree, while only 11% strongly agree.) So only 24% of scientists surveyed felt that we know what the effects of greenhouse gasses will be.

::back to original post::

3. Ask yourself a simple question; where is there more life, the Amazon, or Antarctica? Generally speaking, as far as life is concerned, warmer is better. Of course there will be some people who may be worse off, but the only way to prevent people being worse off due to climate change, would be to stop it altogether. This would be a) spectacularly UN-green, and b) probably impossible anyway. The thing to remember is that, despite what you constantly hear, some people will be better off due to global warming. Warmth and CO2 are good for plants, so crop yields will be higher. Higher temperatures mean more water vapour in the atmosphere which will alter rainfall patterns which may turn some deserts back into farmable land again.

On the other hand, global cooling really would be something to worry about. Try living under a mile-thick sheet of ice!

4. We are constantly being lied to by the GWAs. Al Gore is a prime example; An Inconvenient Truth is chock full of lies and inaccuracies. Have a look here http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf (page 5) for a list of the errors he made.

‘eric c’ above has talked about the dodgy ‘hockey-stick’ graph used in the IPCC’s 2001 report, so I won’t go over it again here other than to post this link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=DWDOROSSN2P0PQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0 Have a look at the graphic on page 9. It shows 8 graphs created using the climate model used to produce the ‘hockey-stick’ graph. 1 is using the ‘real’ climate data, the other 7 are just the result of feeding in random data. Can you spot the ‘real’ one?

My sources point out many other lies and errors that have been made by the IPCC and others; even changing the very laws of physics to suit their needs.

Also, don’t be fooled by this constant talk about what “the consensus” believes. Have a look at my answer to this question, to see how wrong the consensus can be… http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aqoltt4TziwEmIVWi_75ew4hBgx.?qid=20070316084708AA1yLXh&show=7#profile-info-GMt4zY4Jaa (I’m just over half way down.)

5. As you can imagine, every GWA computer climate model predicts warming. However, there has been no warming for the past 8 years. None of the GWA predicted this and are now having to come up with all sorts of theories on why they got it so wrong. Hence we are now hearing about “global dimming” and the “ocean notion” to explain the recent lack of warming.

A scientific theory is considered valid when the predictions of that theory consistently match observed data. Currently the GWAs’ predictions have been wrong, every single time. Proof positive that their theories are wrong. Q.E.D.

Sorry about the length of this, but you did say you wanted a serious answer! :)

Answer 10

C02 (carbon dioxide) only makes up 0.02% of the gases in the atmosphere - So how can it make a difference?

They polar ice caps melt every year and freeze again in the winter

They are only keeping it going for the peoples jobs that the whole surade has caused (So U have to pay tax for them to keep those jobs that have no purpose)

One Volcano going off emitts 20 times the amount of Co2 that we pump a year and the sea pumps out 50 times more than a volacno- lol at you if u still belive it

Heres the rally sick part that kills millions of childern every year through lack of food and water........
The only reason the Government started it in the first place was to keep Africa from industrailising SO THAT WE COULD START A FIGHT OCCUPY THE FOOKING PLACE
AND LOOT EVERY BIT OFF OIL AND COAL IN THE FOOKIN PLACE!!!!!!!! GRRRRRRRR
makes me sick

Answer 11

Totally agree with Frankie (answer N1). Who you can blame for an Ice Age? If it was an Ice Age it should be something opposite like Global Warming. it just for smart people to make a very BIG money out of it