Proof that global warming ISNT man-made?

Question

Ok. I personally believe global warming is man made. But a lot of people have conradicted me. I have my facts - www.climatecrisis.com is a good site - but I want to hear the other side of the argument. Does anyone who says that this global warming is totally natural have proof? I'd really honestly like to see it.

Answer 1

A better question is:

"based on the data, how much of Global Warming is caused by human activity and how much Global Warming is a result of natural processes over which we have no control?"

For example, is it 90% from human activity and 10% from natural processes or is it the opposite? Or is it some other number such as 50% from human activity and 50% from natural processeses.

You really do not know the answer to your question until you can put an accurate number on the percentage of Global Warming caused by human activity and the percentage caused by natural processes.

If you can get the extreme right and left to stay out of the discussion, and instead focus on the actual scientific data and make a serious attempt to develop an accurate answer, you can have a very good discussion, particularly if you look at all of the data, and not just the data that supports your preconceived opinions.

You will find that the data is conflicting and the actual amount of the contributions from human activity and from natural processes is not at all clear.

You will find that it is not all that easy to come up with an accurate answer for the percentage of Global Warming caused by human activity and the percentage of Global Warming caused by natural processes.

You will, however learn a great deal in the process of answering this question.

Answer 2

Do you really believe that it is possible that man can know all the possible facts that affect nature and be able to say that this, that, or the other thing TOTALLY caused any kind of climate change? There are way too many variables ... it just is not possible. And yes, while I think it's very clear that man has impacted climate and is certainly responsible for global warming to a very large degree, you should keep an open mind because admitting that other factors may ALSO be a play here does not begate the fact that we all need to live cleaner and greener if we want to help our planet remain habitable. There may be something else we can help fix also, if we keep our minds open enough to discover it!

Answer 3

Bah,websites.

Globawarmingart, climatecrisis, realclimate, prometheus, etc. Try the journals. Not ScienceMag or Nature that have editorial dispositions towards a belief in AGW.

I have found dozens of journal articles that provide ample reason to be skeptical of the AGW theory.

Addendum:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602, 2007

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2006) 364, 1627–1635

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L11707, 2006

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L05708, 2006

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

Environ Geol (2006) 50: 899–910

Meteorol Atmos Phys 95, 115–121 (2007)

Space Science Reviews (2006) 127: 327–465

Multi-Wavelength Investigations of Solar Activity Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 223 (2004)

Journal of Climatology 16, 2067-2077 (2003)

J Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics 32, 1-27 (2007)

Int. J. Climatol. 24: 329–339 (2004)

Earth and Planetary Science Letters 235 (2005) 741–751

Ambio Vol. 30 No. 6, Sept. 2001

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L16712, 2005

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L18604, 2006

Physical Review Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007

Ambio, Vol. 30 (2001)p. 349-350

Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677

Annals of Glaciology Vol. 41 (2005) p. 147-154

J of Atmosphere and solar-terrestrial physics Vol. 67 (2005) p. 793-805

Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L05708

Climatic Change (2004) 63 p. 201-221

and on and on and on.

There is alot of good science in these papers. They cover multiple climate forcing variables. Many of them cast doubt on CO2 as the primary driver of the current warming phase that we are in.

Do the research, lots and lots of it. I have spent a lot of time getting the info I use, you should do the same.

Answer 4

I am glad you have decided to consider both sides of the issue. Considering both sides of this issue and thinking for yourself is the only way to approach these types of issues. Too many people on both sides refuse to do this.

Having said that most people who are skeptical don't hold the position that global warming isn't man-made. We hold the position that "we don't know if man is contributing to global warming on a significant basis or not."

This is a very important distinction because generally everyone agrees the temperature has warmed by about .7 degrees over the last 100 years, but not everyone agrees to the actual causes of what exactly caused that warming trend.

@trevor

We don't have to prove it isn't man-made. The burden of proof of this scientific hypothesis is on your side to prove that it is in fact man-made.

Taking the position that we don't know is OK. There is nothing wrong with looking at the scientific data and saying it is inconclusive. Which is what I happen to believe.

Answer 5

If either side had irrefutable scientific proof, we wouldn't be debating the question.

You apparently believe in global warming because of what other people have written about it, not as the result of your own experiments and research.

I am sceptical of both sides due to the outrageous allegations made by both sides.

But, the things that are believed to contribute to global warming make common and economic sense to remedy whether man-made global warming is real or just theory.

For example, reducing gasolione and fossil fuel comsumption will reduce CO2. But that can simply come from getting better fuel economy because CO2 emissions are in direct relation to gasoline consumption -- cut consumption 25% and you reduce CO2 emitted by 25% (assuming the same mileage driven). Plus you save 25% on your fuel bill.

Use CFL bulbs and you will save more than the cost of the bulb several times over plus you reduce CO2 emissions.

Get an air conditioner wtih a higher SEER rating, and you can cut your colin gbill by 40%, again saving money and cutting CO2 emissions.

Finding a way to cut dependence on decadent regimes that control oil resources is not just sensible in global warming terms, but critical in terrms of national security. Terrorists would have a lot less money to spend on their activities is the oil barons didn't have so much cash to pass around.

To me this is rather like the philosopher-mathematician Pascal's view about whether or not there is a God. He thought believing in God and being wrong (no life after death) had less downside than not believing in God and being wrong (damnation).

Actually, believing in global warming and being wrong has an upside. Acting as though global warming is real, we can get cleaner air, reduce our extravagent waste of natural resources and save money. Even if we are wrong, we still win.

So I don't ultimately care who is right or wrong. I am encouraged by the fact that we are starting ot move away from some of our more frivoulous behavior to fix a perceived problem. And not only is there no downside to taking the action, but lots of upside.

Answer 6

The scientist who actually did the research and created the chart the Al Gore used to drive his point home about the connection between CO2 and Global Warming is on record stating that Gore's interpretation of his chart was completely wrong.

Answer 7

If you look at some of my previous questions you'll see that I've asked the same thing on several occasions and not once has anything been forthcoming that proves global warming isn't man-made.

A few years ago the large oil companies tried and failed to place the blame on anything other than humans, they now concede that the current global warming is predominantly caused by human activities.

If the oil companies with thier massive resources were unable to come up with anything then I can't imagine for one minute that the 'average Joe' will find anything either.

This is my area of work - I look at all possible explanations and contributory factors to global warming and climate change, even the most bizarre and extreme reasons that are put forward. In 23 years I've not come across any credible evidence to refute anthropogenic global warming.

There will be many people who come up with 'evidence' and I wouldn't be surprised if the answers you receive include references to the fact the world has always warmed and cooled, Mars is warming, volcanoes are to blame etc. These things have been studied in minute detail and where they do contribute to global warming (it's not all man-made) they have been taken into account.

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

To nickolassc. If you use the argument that the onus is on the proponents of global warming to prove thier case then there is an equal onus on those who refute it to prove their case - you can't have it just one way. And this returns us right back to where we started from with the original question - where is the proof that it's totally natural?

Answer 8

Proving that global warming isn't man-made should be just as easy as proving that it is. I've heard several people claim that 'the burden of proof is not upon the skeptics -there is no way to prove a negative', etc. Since temperatures Has risen, there has to be a cause of it. So the burden to provide proof is upon anyone that makes statements claiming be true whether it is in support for, or rejecting the idea that global warming is man-made. If you skeptics don't have any proof that support your claims then don't ask others to supply proof to support theirs.

Answer 9

Who cares if it is totally natural. What is important is whether man's impact is significant and even measureable. Noone can say that man has not had an impact. There is a cost for everything. The question is what are the costs versus what are the benefits. Do you go to the market and pay 500 dollars for T-shirt? Then why are you so eager to buy into the hype of global warming because believe it or not, those pushing the agenda, intend to extract a very high price.

Answer 10

The fact is that the earth was warmed and cooled repeatedly over history for no agreed-upon reason (see the "medieval warming" and "little ice age" as recent examples). Since that the natural state of the earths climate is always changing, it is impossible to know what it would be like without human impact. For all we know, we could be heading into an ice age, and man-made global warming is slowing that.