What are the most frequently used arguments used to prove that Global Warming is completely natural?

Question

And who do they come from? Currently, I think that Global Warming (or more accurately, Global Climate Change) is mostly due to humanity, ie that it would have happened anyway, but we're making it much worse. But there's not a lot better in the scientific community than a well informed, unbiased viewpoint, right? I mean, I'd be willing to admit that there have always been some hypocrites and liars that have supported what is in fact the truth, as there have been honest people supporting what is false. And vice versa. I just want to know what arguments have been made to prove that Global Warming is completely natural and who made said arguments so that I can be better informed.

Answer 1

The best summary of such arguments, along with their refutations, can be found here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Answer 2

Well "Greenhouse" is natural because it's made by the cycling process.."Global Warming" is really different many people are confused about it, they say that global warming is natural but it is not, Global Warming is caused by the chemicals that human releases in the air and it cannot be fixed and remains in the atmosphere that causes a hole on the ozone layer..... and through that hole the UV from the sun comes goes directly to the earth making it warm.
Actually the ice from the north blocks it, and when it melts it stops blocking it causing the UV rays to concentrate only on one place making warmer and warmer..until it expands worldwide making the temperature to change quick that the normal.....other problems that are caused by the globar warming are the natural problems such as hurricanes, typhoons, and tornados, etc..

Answer 3

Very few argue that it is completely natural, and most scientists agree it is mostly natural. The earth warms and cools naturally. All the data shows that to be true and factual. The primary question is will the natural warming cycle this time be faster and higher due to mans activity.

It is a very difficult thing to prove one way or the other because there is no way to prove what the actual temp. was hundreds of years ago. The theories being put forth are based on estimates using samples from ice cores, tree ring analysis, etc. The most accepted theory is based on CO2 pollution because the level of this gas seems to track along with temperature, but it is a theory.

Many scientists do not agree that the levels are higher than in the past, and are not sufficient to alter the natural cycle much. This does not mean there is no global warming and it may destroy mankind, it just means it is nature at work. After all, we know the polar caps have come and gone before. Many thousands of species have come and gone as well.

Answer 4

Among the scientific community, here are the few alternative explanations for the current global warming (the vast majority agreeing that humans are the primary cause):

Henrik Svensmark's theory is that galactic cosmic rays are mostly to blame.

The theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth. During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun's more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
http://www.dsri.dk/~ndm/PDF/manuscripts/PRL_1998_PDF.pdf

However, this theory was refuted by Mike Lockwood, who showed that all effects on the Earth's climate from the Sun over the past 25 years have been in the direction of cooling, not warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Fred Singer believes that sunspots are primarily to blame for global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

However, examining the data clearly disproves that sunspots are responsible for the acceleration in global warming over the past 30 years:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

I've never heard a scientist claim that the current warming is due to natural (Milankovich) cycles. This is because according to these cycles, we should be in the middle of a cooling period.

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovich_cycle

Some non-scientists will make uninformed arguments by saying things like 'Mars is warming and there are no SUVs there' or 'more scientists think global warming is due to the Sun/natural cycles than humans' or things like that. The above mentioned 2 theories are the only scientific alternative explanations I've heard of, Svensmark's galactic cosmic ray theory being the only slightly plausible theory (though I think Lockwood disproved it quite effectively).

The most frequently used argument among laymen is simply that global warming and climate change have happened historically without human influence. They believe that the existence of natural cycles is sufficient to disprove the anthropogenic global warming theory, as though the fact that humans didn't cause warming in the past means we can't be causing it now. It's a common logical fallacy because it's an extremely simple argument. It's happened before!

Answer 5

It is an issue that cannot be proved either way, as controlled experiments are impossible. It is pretty clear that warming is occurring; it is a done deal that CO2 levels are increasing, but it is purely conjecture whether one of these is a cause of the other -- or even which of the two is the cause. Most of the inferences that have been drawn are based on computer simulations. But, as anyone who has tried to use a computer to make weather predictions is all too well aware, such simulations are fraught with uncertainty. My own view of the matter: CO2 may be a cause, but the cost of trying to do something about it is so stupendous that it is pointless to do anything significant. The UN has proposed a program to deal with it; the price tag is $557,000,000,000,000 -- far more than the total value of every asset on the planet.

Answer 6

This is an article by a leading Scottish scientist which might answer your question:


BUT IS IT TRUE?

My reaction to Al Gore’s much lauded film was to think, “But is it true?” This is the title of a famous book by the late Aaron Wildavsky of UC Berkeley. It is a guided tour of celebrated global environmental scares. Across the centuries we have been subjected to an endless series of claims of imminent catastrophe which have turned out to be empty threats. The Global Warming obsession is only the latest example though it has been hyped into an article of religious faith.

Humanity has always faced a changing climate driven mainly by the activity of the sun and the pitch of the axis of the earth. These solar effects are modulated by cloud formation - the ‘Iris Effect’- where upper level cirrus clouds contract with increased temperature providing a very strong negative reaction to further increases. Recently it has been postulated that certain gases in the atmosphere may also be part of the equation. Be that as it may, we know that solar activity has increased in the later decades of the 20th century and that the temperature on the surface of Mars has also risen. Ominously, the solar scientists of NASA and the Russian Academy have predicted that such activity is likely to decrease during this century. Thus the benign global warming we have experienced in the last sixty years is likely to peak at less than one degree and from then on we may experience global cooling.

Climatologists try to chart the future using computer models, but there is a problem. We are dealing with an ‘open’ system. Rather like stock exchange predictions, there are just too many variables and we do not know what weight to give to each. In particular it has proved impossible to adequately factor in the cloud effect. Thus we cannot even predict the weather for next winter far less say for certain what the climate will be in 100 years. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that, as it involves a coupled non-linear system, computer modelling in this field is unreliable, though that has not stopped the BBC or any other film maker from concocting disaster scenarios.

This would normally be a matter of indifference since science fiction is always with us and computer modelled natural catastrophes make great television. However, the Environmental lobbies have succeeded in capturing some of the international political class. Thus we have European leaders, not usually known for their great scientific understanding, busy dreaming up new taxes, undermining power production, and imposing their views on the world community. For example, our new Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, in a moment of breathtaking hubris, has vowed to lead the governments of China and India in the paths of true environmental righteousness.

The hypothesis that climate change is almost entirely driven by industrial carbon is one of the most astonishing claims I have ever heard in a scientific debate. The use of such an unlikely idea as the factual basis for economic policy is particularly disturbing. It makes the Stern Report, commissioned by Gordon Brown, a dangerous document for it contains such seemingly innocuous ideas as the precautionary principle. In practice, this will have the effect of preserving the dominant position of the West and will be seen as economic imperialism in the developing world. This may suit those who dislike globalisation but it will keep Africa in thrall for the indefinite future.

There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels and we will do so in this century without legislation, carbon conservation programmes, or the micromanaging of our lifestyles by the state. Whatever the Global Warming Industry might like to claim, there is no overwhelming consensus that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are the main cause of variation in world temperatures. Moreover, to state that any climate change must be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which have no place in empirical or theoretical science. The resulting hysteria makes it difficult to form rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms, and partly in rapid episodic shifts the causes of which remain unknown. We were fortunate that modern societies developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. For 90% of the last two million years the climate has been colder, generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming. We should, in fact, be much more concerned with the Russian warning of decreased solar activity in years to come.

Answer 7

Are you asking a question or making a statement? I think you on the right track but for me there is only a short time in which I will have to deal with it...its the younger generations that suffer what the older generations leave them with..and global warming is what killed dinosaurs.

Answer 8

I think, that the entire discussion should be about the non sustainability of our environmental abuse and burning of fossil fuel (which is one day finished). It really doesn't matter, if our climate changes by nature or by man, 6 Degrees more and this planet is going to be in bad shape. You can't prove global warming ether way, because its caused by the summary of Man's and Natures output of CO2. Same way, you can't prove, why a marriage brakes down, whos fault is it? But we should start reducing green house gases, instead of waiting, who was right.

Answer 9

Scientists can look back in time using proxy data and give rough estimates as to how the climate behaved. They can even come up with logical very likely theories as to why changes occured in the past.

But there is no better data than that collocted in real time. The scientists see changes and have determined that the current change is due to enhanced greenhouse effect.

It is illogical to say that scientists can look back in time and figure out what happened, but lack the ability to figure out what is going on right now.

edit
vcxzz, that page is complete propaganda.

Answer 10

I am looking at the real numbers, namely money, Algore has told the EU that after next election we will be forced into Carbon trading here in the US so they should go ahead and get there systems in place. Algore has put his money where his mouth is and is neck deep on the ground floor of the fledgling bussiness along with big oil, big banking, coal and other big power generators getting set to either profit or cut losses with Carbon trading

Answer 11

One of the biggest arguments is that there have been larger, more drastic climate changes in the past, even before mankind. Look at the Midwest states of the US. There have been times when it has been covered with glaciers and other times when it was a tropical swamp.