What arguments can you use to refute the claim that the world is facing an enviromental crisis?

Question

Help! Issues such as loss of biodiversity /ozone and resource depletion/global warming/pollution..any environmental crisis.

I can only think that the global warming is a natural process and that the earth has gone through periods of warmer temperatures in the past and that scientific research have proven this to be the case?...help...any other suggestions would be appreciated

For those who aren't aware-- I'm not trying to imply that we shouldn't care about the earth.

Its just a group task Ive been giving to provide an insight on "the other side of the story"on environmental controversy

Answer 1

Here's what's wrong with theories that say the present warming is natural. They don't work.

That is, the results of those theories don't match the observed data about warming. Many people have tried to overcome that, none have succeeded.

Theories that say man made greenhouse gases are the main cause of the present warming do work. The numbers come out right. One example of several, from the Source below, with a nice picture:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

The word quantitative means numerically correct. This is an illustrative quote:

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Science has seen the numbers prove much stranger things than global warming, like quantum mechanics. The numbers are why the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is mostly man made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 2

Earth has undergone thousands of ice ages. They have come and gone long before man started playing with hydrocarbons. Long Island is testament to that fact as it was formed as a glassier receded.

There is a lot of talk today about global warming, and the extent of human effect on this process. The fact is that it depends on who you ask.

Scientists who are paid by companies who support the agenda that global warming is caused by human interaction, do not want to get fired and have to look for another job. So, naturally they say global warming is really really bad and we had better stop using our cars and making plastic.

Scientists who work for companies that support the other side, also do not want to get fired so they say the opposite.

The thing to do, is to look at where the information is coming from, and who is paying the scientists that do the research.

Getting a job is very hard (especially today). People generally like to keep their job once they have it. If you have a scientist working for a company hired by Al Gore and she has research that indicates that the human effect on global warming is negligible. What do you think is going to happen? Need I say? Forget about the report seeing the light of day! The scientist will at least be brought before her boss and told to get her sh*t together. And that if she comes up with any more research that says that human interaction is not drastically effecting global warming, than she will be standing on the unemployment line.

The same goes for scientists working for the other side. Imagine an Exxon scientist uncovering data that the burning of diesel fuel is contributing to global warming. Do you really think that scientist will last long at that job? Think about it. And while you are at it think about the amount of jobs there are doing this type of work in the first place. You better believe people are not busting their buts in college to land one of the few jobs available, only to screw it up with data that does not support the political agenda of the company signing their paychecks.

Answer 3

You need more than arguments to make the case on either side. You need a lot of data plus wise, unbiased interpretation of that data. Funding and political power have strained the objectivity of many scientists, and especially non-scientists like Al Gore. Claims of the future direction of climate change are based on man-made computer models operating on man-made assumptions and data. The outcome varies widely based on your modeling choices.

A cautious approach is to see what reasonable things we can do just in case the problem is real. Dramatically reducing our usage of fossil fuels has lots of benefits. But some people ignore potentially simple solutions if their real objective is to exploit the 'crisis' to impose world government. Dumping a few shiploads of scrap iron in the Arctic Ocean ("The Geritol Solution") would nourish phytoplankton, now limited by the supply of iron. That by itself would probably solve most of the problem.

It's really really hard to find honest, unbiased science in this emotionally and politically charged topic.

Answer 4

First arguement. The earth is ever changing. The fact that species have become extinct before our existance means that they should continue to do so. If species are dying off, that just means that they arent well suited to the environment... too bad for them its called natural selection.
2nd argument - Ozone issues can be related to the fading magnetic field of the earth. It tends to fade before a flip of the magnetic poles and we are long over due. Since we have been able to prove that the field IS truly fading we can say that it offers less protection to critical compounds in our atmosphere, not to mention our skin.
Every attempt to prove that humans are ruining the planet has been refuted. It cannot be proven, theres just too much about the planet that goes on that we simply don't understand.

Answer 5

The fact that global temperatures have been changing for over 4 billion years is rather reassuring.

Something you might not have heard; There's something called a optimum climate, where the statistics are best for life in general. That optimum climate, last experienced around the time of the dinosaurs, is actually several degrees warmer than what we're at right now.

http://www.nerdcouncil.com

Answer 6

Climter change has occured many times throughout geologic history. There have been many catastrophes like earthquakes, asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions, and these events have caused mass extinctions of life. Despite this turbulent history, homo sapiens evolved, and here we stand today. Infact, if it were not for the exact history that happened, we probably would not have evolved. So why should anyone be afraid of climate change?

Answer 7

The arguments exist, but they are rather easily refuted.