You don't have to be against it, but any arguments that global warming is NOT real.?

Question

I am writing an essay and I have been researching forever and haven't found any counterattacks I guess you would say. Like statements that is is not real.
Anything against global climate change?
Tell me why global warming is NOT real.
Thanks

Answer 1

Unless the facts can stand up to objective scrutiny, they aren't real.

Once global warming can be explained by math and not a consensus, then it should be accepted as true. Using a consensus is a lazy mans way of not finishing the job.

Answer 2

The main counterargument I've heard is that it is a natural cycle which the earth goes through. Which is partly true, since we are coming to the end of an ice age. However, (yeah, this probably doesn't help you :P) the excessive greenhouse gases we're emitting into the atmosphere accelerate the process.

Ok, arguments AGAINST... totally against...
*thinks*... i'm pretty sure most of what i've read has been rebutted by global warming evidence...

Sorry that's not much help, but i hope you can get something from it.

Just wondering, do you have a choice whether to argue for or against? Or does the essay have to involve both sides?

Good luck with it anyway :)

Answer 3

I like to use the DATA.

The linked chart shows that there has been no warming for the last 10 years. Ignore the red line that stops in 2003 and is still affected by the unprecedented (in the temperature record) el-nino' of 1998. Look at the data points from 2001 to 2006. No trend whatsoever. As a matter of fact, since 1998 the average temperature has been FALLING slightly.

So while the Globe warmed slightly from 1860 to 2000 (almost 1 degree C), it was neither "unprecedented" nor "catastrophic."

Answer 4

OK since when my parents were growing up the government and scientist said there was going to be another ice age. did that happen no it certainly didn't so why should we believe them about this global warming crap you know what , in 2004 it was the hottest year followed by 1998 and if global warming was real it would get hotter every year and actually most scientist DISAGREE about global warning

Answer 5

There can be no argument that global warming is not real. Data do not lie and average global temperatures have been increasing for the past 20,000 years. Now why this is happening, and how much of the recent trend is due to human activities is another matter.

Answer 6

Climate change is most definitely real, the fact about Earths climate is that we are currently in an ice age. During ice ages the glaciers are either retreating or advancing, so fortunately we are in an interglacial period (glaciers retreating). The IPCC has been caught supporting invalid scientific evidence to attempt to convince the world that the climate has been stable for thousands of years and only recently (the last 100 years) have temperatures warmed rapidly. Nothing could be farther from the truth, the climate could take a dramatic dip at anytime, and challenge humanity with great hardship.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

With the human population of over 6.5 billion and energy becoming scarce, the warnings of a cooling climate should not be taken lightly, with the majority of the world convinced that their only concerns, are slowly rising sea levels and mild winters, we are ill prepared to deal with reality of a new little ice age.

http://bourabai.georisk.kz/landscheidt/new-e.htm

.
.

Answer 7

Global warming is real.

Having said that, recent research shows the the hole in the ozone layer is getting smaller, which can and has been used as an argument that global warming isn't a problem or else that wouldn't be happening

See link below to NOAA site.

Answer 8

The founder of the Weather channel is pretty fed up with the hoax:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

And I'd suggest watching National Geographic's Naked Science episodes called "Solar Force", and "Glacier Meltdown", for a reality check on the "facts" you are being deceived with:
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/nakedscience/episodes.html

(To balance things, they also offer "Polar Apolocalypse" to help keep you in fear and utter panic, but that's really about the results of climate change, not the cause.)

Global warming is real. Mankind's responsibility in making it happen is minimal.

Answer 9

1) while co2 is a greenhouse gas, it is a minor one. Water vapour is the most important accounting for 95% of all green house gases. Co2 is just 3.618. Of that portion 95% is natural. So the human portion of all greenhouse gases is just 0.28%.

2) Proponents of the theory then state that the small portion of the co2 will produce more heat, which will in turn produce more water vapour, which will add to the greenhouse effect. But they only concentrate on the positive feedbacks. They avoid any negative feedbacks like the increase in water vapour will produce more clouds. Clouds tend to deflect heat causing cooling.

3) The temperatures have always varied in the past. Two Harvard professors Soon and Baliunas studied over 100 temperature reconstruction studies and concluded:
"Climate proxy research provides an aggregate, broad
perspective on questions regarding the reality of Little
Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century
surface thermometer global warming. The picture
emerges from many localities that both the Little Ice
Age and Medieval Warm epoch are widespread and
near-synchronous phenomena, as conceived by Bryson
et al. (1963), Lamb (1965) and numerous researchers
since. Overall, the 20th century does not contain the
warmest anomaly of the past millennium in most of the
proxy records, which have been sampled world-wide.
Past researchers implied that unusual 20th century
warming means a global human impact. However, the
proxies show that the 20th century is not unusually
warm or extreme."

4) There is good indications that the sun is responsible for most of the current warming see
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/The_Geologic_Record_and_Climate_Change.pdf

5) There is good reason to believe U.N.s IPCC (the main proponent of climate change theroy) is biased and has a political agenda:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/1210.htm
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=157&Itemid=1
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/157%20evt.sci.fraud.pdf

6) Temperatures have not risen during the past eight years, despite increases in co2 of 4%.

Here is a good video lecture you can see:
http://www.fcpp.org/main/media_file_wm.php?StreamID=536
click on the link for the power point representation that accompanies the video.

See also these links:

http://www.nrsp.com/news.html
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/
http://www.globalwarmingisafarce.com/

Answer 10

Global warming to me is real and everyone else needs to believe it too or else we'll have 100 degree weather and have snow all the up the staue of liberty...but thats just my opinion

Answer 11

Plenty of science shows AGW will not be catastrophic. I will give you a few sources.

* The IPCC says the planet warmed by .74C in the last century, but we do not know that is true. The US has one of the better weather station networks in the world. When it was first established 150 years ago, the goal was to warm farmers about coming adverse weather. The theory of global warming has only been around about 25 years. The weather stations were not designed to give the type of precision necessary to determine a long-term trend in climate measured in tenths of a degree. Anthony Watts, a broadcast meteorologist (BTW, you should know that meteorolgists are weathermen and they are the scientists least likely to believe AGW will be catastrophic) , is leading an all volunteer effort to photograph and document the quality of weather stations in the GHCN network. So far, they have photographed and rated 1/3 of US stations and found that 85% of them do not meet the minimum standards of the NOAA because they have a warm bias from being poorly sited. Some of them are located on top of parking lots! So, it could be the Earth has not warmed nearly as much as people think. By they way, if you have a digital camera and can borrow a GPS device, this would be a great science project for you!
http://surfacestations.org
See his PowerPoint presentation to scientists at UCAR here
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/index.html

* Everyone agrees that greenhouse gases will tend to warm the atmosphere. But not everyone agrees on how much warming is created. Atmospheric CO2 has a logarithmic affect, meaning that every new molecule in the air retains less warmth than the last molecule. This is pretty common in nature. A logarithm produces a curved affect that rises quickly at the beginning and more slowly as the concentration rises. The disagreement among scientists is about where we are on the curve or the shape of the curve. Another factor is possible negative or positive feedbacks and that make the warming slow down or speed up. To take these things into account, scientists estimate climate sensitivity to doubled atmospheric CO2. These climate sensitivity estimates used to show significant warming. More recently, a number of studies have come out.

- Roy Spencer found a new negative feedback in the tropics
http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

- Stephen Schwartz estimated climate sensitivity using ocean heat content rather than just surface temps and got a much lower climate sensitivity that indicates the warming will not be catastrophic.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

- A new study came out showing that since 2000, CO2 has risen at a much higher rate than previously thought. Since that is true and since (according to the CRU) 1998 is still the warmest year on record, the climate must not be as sensitive to CO2 as was thought.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304272,00.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2006.gif

- Finally, I would point you to the webpage of Roger Pielke, the most prolific and respected climatologist in the field. He thinks mankind is changing the climate but that land use/ land cover changes create more warming than rising CO2. He also does not see a catastrophe looming.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/09/02/summary-conclusions-of-climate-science/

* Many people are concerned about the recent melting of Arctic Sea ice and the plight of the polar bears. What they do not tell you is that the Arctic Sea has melted before - in 1905 and 1944. The sea ice came back soon after. During those years about 60 ships made the voyage from one ocean to the other.
http://www.allthingsarctic.com/exploration/amundsen.aspx
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,801448,00.html
http://www.allthingsarctic.com/exploration/nwpassage.aspx

Laxon's paper is quite helpful in explaining that arctic sea ice levels are a result of dynamic forcings (wind and ocean) related to regional climate in addition to regional warming
http://www.cpom.org/research/swl-nature.pdf

The polar bear population is currently over 20,000. This is signficantly better than the 5,000 polar bears we had back in the 1950s. Regardless of the global warming hype, the polar bears are not close to going extinct.

You should also know that sea ice around Antarctica is growing and recently set a new record. Seems a little strange that "global warming" would be melting ice in the north and growing ice in the south, doesn't it?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Good luck on your essay!