These are some very good arguments against global warming, does anyone have more?

Question

http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/GlobalWarmingSteigerwald/main.asp

I have quite a collection going if anyone would like to add more?

Answer 1

Probably the most solid evidence against an enhanced greenhouse causing the warming, is the troposphere in the tropics should have warmed 1.6 times faster than the surface. This is clearly has not even come close. In fact sea surface temperatures and mid tropospheric temperatures have been falling since 2003.

http://www.ssmi.com/rss_research/climate_change_plot.html

When you look at the Tropospheric temperatures for the Southern Hemisphere the AGW theory completely falls apart.

http://www.john-daly.com/nh-sh.htm

.
.

Answer 2

Bob, I really think we should hold out for a video made either by Jello, or a guy wearing a rubber nose (perhaps both).

As someone alluded to yes there is some evidence that the earth has been as warm, or warmer than it is now. The important thing isn't just the temperature, it's the time frame. No event in geologic history compares to what is going on now when looked at in that way (by at least two orders of magnitude).

You might want to use reverse logic, as is often suggested to people promoting conspiracy theories. What would be required for Global Warming to be a hoax?

You would need for every scientist of any significant repute in a number of fields (not just climate) to be a co-conspirator. The Deniers explain this by saying that they are all being paid to lie by the Governments. Getting fabulously wealthy as lying college professors invariably do! Have you thought about what the budget would be like? The Marshall Plan would be pocket change in comparison!

Then of course the governments who in a rare spirit of co-operation are trying to get treaties signed, etc. Who is paying them off? Space Aliens? Al Gore? The ghost of Elvis?

Seriously, I have seen science as a discipline make predictions, and in most cases seen the predictions come true. I don't claim they're infallible, and neither do they. I never met anyone infallible, so I don't see not being infallible as a fatal flaw in anyone's credibility. Do you?


In my lifetime scientists have predicted

famine
mass death
shifting of food production regions
climate change
overpopulation
mass starvation
massive glaciers
uninhabitable places on earth
running out of fossil fuel

All those things came true, for the most part within a few years of the prediction.

I also saw a crackpot Denier predict global cooling. He attacked the consensus of the world's scientists and was wrong, as such people almost always are. It took no time at all for that to become clear.



If you watched Star Trek, you saw predictions like this

pollution physically altering man (through adaptation) by the year 2000

Even as a child I knew that evolution takes more than a generation, but there actually are people who believe in space aliens, or that this was a serious idea, based on the series. So, I guess Gene Roddenberry must have been a conspirator also.

Answer 3

I don't know if anyone has addressed the highly likely possibility that this is a recurring phase of the earth. The earth continuously goes through global climate changes.
Also there has been no real proof that this is a global-wide event. Places on the earth that were once lush grasslands are now deserts which occurred hundreds of years ago. If the cause of gobal warming is what is claimed, cars weren't even invented then, therefore couldn't be the cause of these places turning desert.

My personal theory is that the waters of the Great Flood of Noah are still receding. The earth has been drying ever since that occurrence, soaking up the water, spreading it out, and circulating it.
The weight of the water is also contiunously spreading the land masses. Change is inevitable.

Answer 4

I am really getting fed up with people who push global warming hysteria pretending that all warming is man-made and not acknowledging that we have been on a warming trend for thousands of years and that obviously some if not most or all of the warming may be natural. The human contribution is the only thing in dispute. As a geologist, I know, KNOW!!!!!, that it has been warming for thousands of years. The land in northern US and Canada is still rebounding upward (isostatic rebound) from from the last period of glaciation. There were glaciers thousands of feet thick that pushed the ground down. The proof is as obvious as anything you can imagine. Of course it is warming. That is why we came out of an glacial period. It is in fact, natural warming. It is a FACT!!!! There is no doubt. The only thing in contention is did man really cause any warming. Some suggest that humans may have been responsible for at most 0.5 degrees (F) in the last century of an approximate 1 degree of warming. This is worse case. Man should be responsible for a maximum of a degree of warming in the upcoming century but it is no way a sure thing. The term Global Warming should not be synonymous with man-made global warming but the left uses natural trends to push their agenda by purposely not defining the meaning of terms.

Answer 5

There are no "good arguements" against global warming--it is a proven fact. Opinions and junk science don't change that.

Take, for example, the idiotic comment in this piece that "its only computer models that support global warming?" There's overwhelming empirical evidence--and that is what the scientific consensus is based on.

Not that the "answer" didn't addressthe question--which was why there sould be denial of global warming, given the scientific consensus. Instead, the answer was a completely false--and undocumented--assertation that scientists reached their conclusions without taking any actual measurements, just by looking at computer models.

Don't get me wrong--I'm sure you are sincere. But you are also very gullible. Wake up and go read some of the REAL science that's out there on the Internet,instead of wasting time on this crap.

Answer 6

Global warming is real but even if you dont believe it pollution is real and can be seen everywhere just look at the skies and you will see what poison we are inhaling. The ocean waters are polluted, crop produce is low in many countries, pesticides are in our food , so it helps to keep our environment clean you dont need to believe in global warming for that.

Answer 7

If I remember correctly, they have found villages over 500 years old where the ice is melting in Greenland. I guess you could point to that as proof of global warming. I would point to that as proof the earth goes through phases and it must have been this warm once before to be able to find those villages.

What company made cars 500 years ago?

In about 1100, climatologists have to agree earth was about 6 degrees warmer than now and it is sited as one of the major reasons the Indian city of Cahokia disappeared from drought. Sounds like an earth cycle to me.

Answer 8

my view on global warming is that it doesnt matter if it's true or not.....there's no doubt we are still polluting the earth anyways whether or not it has an effect.....so what's wrong with trying to keep our environment clean? u dont have to go out and buy a hybrid or anything, just take a couple minutes to sort out recycling every time u take out the trash.....isn't better to be safe than sorry?

Answer 9

im willing to admit that global warming might be a figment of gore's imagination but, the air is brown and they close the beach because the water is worse than the air. the sky used to be blue and so did the ocean. they didnt used to close the beach because of contamination. now if global warming is a hoax, fine, that works for me, but there is a problem and it is real and you can see it. call it whatever you want, i dont have kids and im gettin old so..............

Answer 10

There are no good arguments against global warming, everything the denialists have come up with has already been refuted by skeptics.