what are some disagreeing facts on global warming?

Question

have some scientist disagree with global warming, or other individuals

Answer 1

Top 10 'Global-Warming' Myths


Compiled by Christopher Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" (Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

10. The U.S. is going it alone on Kyoto and global warming.

Nonsense. The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol’s energy-rationing scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the world’s population, economic activity and projected future growth. Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom is in fact presently reducing its emissions. Similarly, claims that Bush refused to sign Kyoto, and/or he withdrew, not only are mutually exclusive but also false. We signed it, Nov. 11, 1998. The Senate won’t vote on it. Ergo, the (Democratic) Senate is blocking Kyoto. Gosh.

Don’t demand they behave otherwise, however. Since Kyoto was agreed, Europe’s CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the climate-criminal United States, a gap that is widening in more recent years. So we should jump on a sinking ship?

Given Al Gore’s proclivity for invoking Winston Churchill in this drama, it is only appropriate to summarize his claims as such: Never in the field of political conflict has so much been asked by so few of so many ... for so little.

9. Global-warming proposals are about the environment.

Only if this means that they would make things worse, given that “wealthier is healthier and cleaner.” Even accepting every underlying economic and alarmist environmentalist assumption, no one dares say that the expensive Kyoto Protocol would detectably affect climate. Imagine how expensive a pact must be -- in both financial and human costs -- to so severely ration energy use as the greens demand. Instead, proponents candidly admit desires to control others’ lifestyles, and supportive industries all hope to make millions off the deal. Europe’s former environment commissioner admitted that Kyoto is “about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide” (in other words, bailing them out).

8. Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor.

Climate -- or more accurately, weather -- remains one of the greatest challenges facing the poor. Climate change adds nothing to that calculus, however. Climate and weather patterns have always changed, as they always will. Man has always best dealt with this through wealth creation and technological advance -- a.k.a. adaptation -- and most poorly through superstitious casting of blame, such as burning “witches.” The wealthiest societies have always adapted best. One would prefer to face a similar storm in Florida than Bangladesh. Institutions, infrastructure and affordable energy are key to dealing with an ever-changing climate, not rationing energy.

7. Global warming means more frequent, more severe storms.

Here again the alarmists cannot even turn to the wildly distorted and politicized “Summary for Policy Makers” of the UN’s IPCC to support this favorite chestnut of the press.

6. Global warming has doomed the polar bears!

For some reason, Al Gore’s computerized polar bear can’t swim, unlike the real kind, as one might expect of an animal named Ursa Maritimus. On the whole, these bears are thriving, if a little less well in those areas of the Arctic that are cooling (yes, cooling). Their biggest threat seems to be computer models that air-brush them from the future, the same models that tell us it is much warmer now than it is. As usual in this context, you must answer the question: Who are you going to believe -- me or your lying eyes?

5. Climate change is raising the sea levels.

Sea levels rise during interglacial periods such as that in which we (happily) find ourselves. Even the distorted United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports refute the hysteria, finding no statistically significant change in the rate of increase over the past century of man’s greatest influence, despite green claims of massive melting already occurring. Small island nations seeking welfare and asylum for their citizens such as in socially generous New Zealand and Australia have no sea-level rise at all and in some cases see instead a drop. These societies’ real problem is typically that they have made a mess of their own situation. One archipelago nation is even spending lavishly to lobby the European Union for development money to build beachfront hotel resorts, at the same time it shrieks about a watery and imminent grave. So, which time are they lying?

4. The glaciers are melting!

As good fortune has it, frozen things do in fact melt or at least recede after cooling periods mercifully end. The glacial retreat we read about is selective, however. Glaciers are also advancing all over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating neighbors. If retreating glaciers were proof of global warming, then advancing glaciers are evidence of global cooling. They cannot both be true, and in fact, neither is. Also, retreat often seems to be unrelated to warming. For example, the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro is receding -- despite decades of cooling in Kenya -- due to regional land use and atmospheric moisture.

3. Climate was stable until man came along.

Swallowing this whopper requires burning every basic history and science text, just as “witches” were burned in retaliation for changing climates in ages (we had thought) long past. The “hockey stick” chart -- poster child for this concept -- has been disgraced and airbrushed from the UN’s alarmist repertoire.

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

Al Gore shows his audience a slide of CO2 concentrations, and a slide of historical temperatures. But for very good reason he does not combine them in one overlaid slide: Historically, atmospheric CO2, as often as not, increases after warming. This is typical in the campaign of claiming “consensus” to avoid debate (consensus about what being left unspoken or distorted).

What scientists do agree on is little and says nothing about man-made global warming, to wit: (1) that global average temperature is probably about 0.6 degree Celsius -- or 1 degree Fahrenheit -- higher than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen by about 30% over the past 200 years; and (3) that CO2 is one greenhouse gas, some level of an increase of which presumably would warm the Earth’s atmosphere were all else equal, which it demonstrably is not.

Until scientists are willing to save the U.S. taxpayer more than $5 billion per year thrown at researching climate, it is fair to presume the science is not settled.

1. It’s hot in here!

In fact, “It’s the baseline, stupid.” Claiming that present temperatures are warm requires a starting point at, say, the 1970s, or around the Little Ice Age (approximately 1200 A.D to the end of the 19th Century), or thousands of years ago. Select many other baselines, for example, compared o the 1930s, or 1000 A.D. -- or 1998 -- and it is presently cool. Cooling does paint a far more frightening picture, given that another ice age would be truly catastrophic, while throughout history, warming periods have always ushered in prosperity. Maybe that’s why the greens tried “global cooling” first.

The claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record specifically targets the intellectually lazy and easily frightened, ignoring numerous obvious factors. “On record” obviously means a very short period, typically the past 100+ years, or since the end of the Little Ice Age. The National Academies of Science debunked this claim in 2006. Previously rural measuring stations register warmer temps after decades of “sprawl” (growth), cement being warmer than a pasture.

Answer 2

A great movie for you would be:

"The Great Global Warming Swindle"
its a documentary put together by many scientists that disagree that man is causing global warming

you can find this movie on youtube or google video

Answer 3

Anthropogenic Warming (A.W.)is not established to the extent many think. A consensus is not a substitute for a proven event. The probabilistic modeling used to predict climate changes are scenarios and only as good as the parameters & defined variables in the model. Case in point: The Sun, pro A.W. camp claims to have accounted for Sun's effect by measuring Radiant Output. They totally exclude on these models, the strength of the Sun's Magnetic Field which impacts on the ability of cosmic rays interacting with the Earth's atmosphere & the resulting generation of clouds in the atmosphere. Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years

a) The ice core record shows that temperature leads CO2 by 800 years on avg. therefore CO2 is affected by temperature not the other way around.
b) Observations by satelite and weather balloons do not provide validation of the theory of AGW.
c) There is a strong correlation between sun spot numbers and temperature.
d) Water vapor not CO2 is the dominant green house gas driving heating (AW) and the CO2 contribution to AW is insignificant in comparison.

Answer 4

Think what you will, but I believe global warming is a global problem. We can hope that it's not too late, but hoping doesn't help. We have to do something... now. It's the responsibility of every man woman and child as well as every government and industry to do what we can, to clean up our only planet.
As far as "scientists" who disagree goes, I wonder who is paying their salaries, big industry? Smoking is also deadly, but some bought-off scientists will say different.

Answer 5

i am pretty sure that thier are plenty of scientists that are disagreeing on the affects and consequences of global warming, cuz if they were agreeing we would be doing something constructive to prevent it! i am not sure what are they actual arguments but we need to figure it out and fast!!!

Answer 6

There are no 'facts' disagreeing with anthropogenic climate change theory. If there were there wouldn't be a theory any more. I would love to go through this thread and debunk every single contrarian argument in it, but as I haven't got the time I'll just have to link to some sites doing it for me. I won't bother giving you very many, as one dude up above me has given you so much anti-science propaganda (from the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, which was written by someone who obviously has no clue what he's talking about) you likely won't even notice my post, but here goes anyway.

An excellent site which refutes most of the arguments given by the deniers is RealClimate.org, a Blog run by fifteen highly qualified climate scientists. Even if reading through the site doesn't make you realize that anthropogenic climate change is real, it will at least give you some idea of the arguments against the theory to ignore, as they have been refuted.

Another good source of information is illconsidered.blogspot.com, a site run by an interested layman which has short refutations for virtually every single contrarian argument ever presented against the theory.

And of course, last but not least, the best source of information regarding global climate change out there is the IPCC report, which can be found here:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

If you're going to try and refute the theory it is absolutely essential that you read and comprehend every single thing in the report, since it has virtually every scrap of information available on climate change in it.

And finally, good luck in going against the entire scientific community here, you'll need it. I'm only sorry I didn't get a chance to post before all the contrarians came in and started spewing junk science and propaganda all over the place.

P.S. And before I forget, you should simply ignore any of the arguments found in The Great Global Warming Swindle. The whole thing has been discredited and refuted by scientists so many times now people should be embarrassed for even mentioning it. In fact, one of the scientists involved in the film (Carl Wunsch) is now demanding that he be removed from the show entirely, saying that he was mislead and deceived into thinking the show would be a scientific, unbiased look at the theory. Further saying that had he been informed as to the true nature and content of the film, would never have agreed to appear in it at all, calling a piece of 'outright propaganda'.

You can read Mr. Wunsch's letter to Channel 4 here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

and a short article debunking the whole film here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

Edit: And on the off chance you actually would like to learn about the science behind the theory, here are two excellent sites that discuss it in great detail. Even if you don't agree with them they'll at least give you some insight into the science and history of climate change.

The first is a whirlwind tour of Earth's climate history, and demonstrates several fallacies the cdontrarians use when trying to refute the theory. Namely cherry picking data and misreading graphs.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/

And the second (my favorite) is a fairly comprehensive history of the theory itself. It was written by a physicist and science historian, and has loads of links to more articles supporting the theory. If you look at only one link I've given, make sure it's this one.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Answer 7

See the video in the source for lots of disagreeing facts and scientists.

Answer 8

i think its just differening opinions with folks trying to predict the earths future. I remember in grade school, 30 years ago they were shouting about global warming then as well. Back then, they were saying how in 30 yrs the ozone would be gone and we would be toast etc.....Everyone stopped using aerosol cans and stuff to help prevent it. I dunno if it helped or not, but we are not toast as predicted.
I think the earth goes in different cycles and constantly repairs its self. I am sure that in another 30 years, they will still be arguing about it.

Answer 9

One, there is no scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. The link below proves that.

Two, the earth has warmed in the recent past. As glaciers recede, they reveal human artifacts which indicate human activity. This proves that the glaciers have receded before.

Answer 10

It's not so much that the scientists disagree with global warming - on this issue there's almost complete unanimity. There is some disagreement about what may happen in the future and in how future predictions have been arrived at.

If you trace back the arguments that are used to refute global warming you'll find more often than not that they have no scientific basis to them. Some have originated from individuals with no scientific credentials at all and others have taken scientific evidence and manipulated it to suit thier objectives.

What did happen in the past is that some of the big oil companies employed 'scientists' to refute global warming and to discredit the science as much as possible. This was the same tactic employed by the tobacco companies until a few years ago. The consequence of this is that much of the discrediting of the science was done for political or financial reasons.

All major oil companies now admit that global warming is a serious problem and have, it would seem, stopped the underhand policies. They are now more open in their attempts to refute global warming - ExxonMobil for example, publicly offering $10,000 rewards to anyone who can come up with anything to refute global warming.

---------------

Here are some of the arguments put forward in the case against global warming, none of which are accurate but are still used all the same...

> Mars is experiencing global warming, the Martian ice caps are melting. Global warming isn't a problem confined to Earth but is something affecting other planets as a result of solar activity.

> The world is cooling not warming and in recent years temperatures have fallen globally by as much as 2°C.

> It's been much warmer in the past, in the Middle Ages vines were grown further north than they currently grow and Greenland was so named because, unlike now, it was a green land free of ice. Fossils of plants and trees have been found deep in what is now Antarctica.

> The world has always warmed and cooled of it's own accord and we're currently in a warming period, something which is entirely natural.

> Global warming is caused by volcanoes spewing out huge quantities of dust and ash, this is what's trapping heat in our atmosphere.

> The whole concept of global warming is a government conspiracy designed to subjugate people and as an excuse to impose taxes and other penalties.

> There is no scientific consensus on global warming, a lot of scientists don't believe it and many have signed petitions against global warming.

> In the larger scheme of things, humans are so insignificant that there's no way they could have an effect on natural events.

> The earth is now nearer to the sun than it used to be so it's bound to be warmer. There have also been changes in Earth's orbit which contribute to global warming.

Answer 11

the main disagreements are as to who or what is responsible

some flatt earthers still believe that nothing is wrong ,but they are becoming less,they will also be convinced when the price of food and beer hit the roof because of third world problems in food production and Global potable water shortage

as for the rest of us ,can we do somethin about it
,I dont think so but we can behave more responsibly in out behaviour towards the Environment ,maybe we can buy some time

are We responsible ?
or is it God who wants to punish?
or is it Gaia who wants to clean some parasitic infestation?
who cares ? that is not important any more

WHAT IS -is that we are gonna be in trouble

The Earth has many problems because of man
this is undeniable ,how much we are responsible for Global warming is debateble ,But there is a definate change in Global temperatures that is affecting nature in a bad way.

this text only covers some aspects of Climate change ,mainly agriculture i.e.effects of deforestation and subsequent man made desertification

water and air polution such as caused by
industrial contamination ,the contaminating effects of the cities(the internal combustion engine) ,are other stories,

and all of these are also man made ,such as the high industrial chimneys pumping contamination into the clouds and the burning of tires,some of this polution has been found in the ice in the polar regions

there are natural cycles in the planets life
but a lot is influenced by mans existance ,and this is increasing with overpopulation,putting strains on Natural resources and increasing contaminations as well as destructions of essential componants the ensure living conditions for all life forms

climate change is caused in great parts by desertification ,and most desertification is caused by man
the thinner ozone layer helps to speed this up.and this is caused mainly by air polution ,also as a result of mans actions

in North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss and desertification and some have died as a result,

And now many animals are becoming sick because of changes in temperature ,
vital links in the food chains are disapearing affecting other species further along in the chain

90% of the feral (wild) bee population in the United States has died out.

In the Netherlands bee diversity is down 80 percent in the sites researched, and "bee species are declining or have become extinct in Britain."

wildflowers that depend on pollination have dropped by 70 percent

we are witness to a mass exstinction ,for the first time since the dinosaurs, of the earth's estimated 10 million species, 300,000 have vanished in the past 50 years. each years, 3,000 to 30,000 species become extinct.

everything is happening so fast it is not possible to monitor things any more.

,the Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year
and most of the desserts we know are a results of mans actions ,and they are increasing ,not getting less ,in the dinosaurs days ,there were few desserts.

collectively this planet is drying up ,

each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss

and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate this production ,
and there are less and less farmers to do it..
Arable lands and their farms are lost all over the globe. Many farmers sons abandon farming and head for the cities.

Northern China is drying up, what once were millions of food producing people, are now hungry refugees ,running for their lives from the all consuming dust storms.
This will have a great effect on world food prices when they start buying at what ever cost, to feed their people.

The farmers that are left have to feed some 70 million more people than the year before but with less topsoil.

Over the last half century,
Population growth & rising incomes have tripled world grain demand from 640 million tons to 1,855 million

In the near future the global farming community will not be able to feed every body ,food prices will continue to rise. .

RISING SEAS
The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.
this does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,are another matter

Global warming could be slowed down to some extent,but it will mean global co operation between all countries ,and taking into account human nature and the world politics ,it is unlikely that this will happen,

At least not untill we are all in the middle of planetary disastres and it becomes a battle for the survival of humanity every where,instead of just some third world countries Source(s) here are a 100 ways to help
http://www.eco-gaia.net/forum-pt/index.p...

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...