Can you offer evidence AGAINST man-made global warming?
I've noticed a large amount of what-may-be-called 'deniers' prowling around the 'Global Warming' section. I became a bit interested when one user "A Modest Proposal" posted several links in replies to a question which was constructed more like a rant, and ended up getting 4 'tumbs-down' indicating that these people haven't actually read any of the sources, be they deniers or not.
So I'm giving you to opportunity to present an argument against man-made global warming. I hope "A Modest Proposal" doesn't mind, but I'll quote their answer here so that it'll be easier to find counter-arguments.
In all likelihood, this post will be flooded by people who don't have much else to say other than finger-pointing and calling the experienced scientists who've spent years testing this out "liars". But I'm hoping that at least one person will present a GOOD ARGUMENT with RELIABLE SOURCES. In case these people don't man-up enough to actually fight the evidence for man-made global warming, I wouldn't mind if supporters actually weighed up the arguments for and against (without bias).
I know the futility of asking this question and expecting any reasonable answers, but I thought I'd try nevertheless.
"A MODEST PROPOSAL"'S QUOTE: (note: I have had to remove certain sections to comply with the 10-link rule for question-posting)
Current CO2 levels:
Isotopic evidence that recent CO2 levels are due to man-made emissions
Human Emissions vs. Volcanic Emissions (humans win by two full orders of magnitude)
Stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming - this is due to thermal insulation by greenhouse gases. Thermal radiation form the Earth is trapped within the lower atmosphere due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.<br>
- 10 years agoFavorite Answer
I don't mind, actually. I compiled this list of sources a few days ago to elaborate on the hard data that supports anthropogenic global warming for another user who requested it. Here are the remaining sources, if you would like.
CO2 concentrations over the past several hundreds of thousands of years (currently at all-time high in reference to this time frame):
Oceanic acidification (thus oceans are not the attributor of our current CO2 levels):
Human Emissions vs. Volcanic Emissions (humans win by two full orders of magnitude):
Stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming - this is due to thermal insulation by greenhouse gases. Thermal radiation form the Earth is trapped within the lower atmosphere due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Solar output, and how it has not risen in the past several decades (and thus cannot be the cause of recent warming):
bravozulu, the troposphere may very well be warming faster than the surface, depending on how you interpret the data. This was pointed out in a previous question of mine.
As to your rather absurd claims that there is no evidence at all that CO2 causes warming, I'm not sure if you are arguing against the long-established fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas:
or if you're honestly arguing that there has not been a steady rise in temperature within the past several decades when there most certainly HAS been:
I also think it to be quite a rational conjecture when a model is backed by atmospheric physics. If you would like to deny physics then fine, but you're basically denying the very evidence you're asking for. Of course we cannot "prove" that CO2 has caused recent warming, we can only provide substantial evidence. Proof only exists in the mathematical sense. If you want evidence, stop rejecting it at whim without citing any sources.
Could you also elaborate on the "highly manipulated" data? I understand complaints about the hockey stick graph, but considering how instrumental records have been used since the 1850s, how is data being "manipulated" to force a global warming trend? Much of the hard, RAW as you say, satellite data is available freely, for instance.
- LoriLv 44 years ago
No offense Dana, but where is the proof that the #1 green house gas is not the driving factor? So far no scientist has come out and explained the effects of water vapor on climate change especially since water vapor makes up a grand total of 95% of all green house gases and only 1% of the 95% is man made. Also from my understanding all the charts and statistics show that CO2, methane, and other green house gases lag behind temperature change not drive it. Can the man made crowd come up with any proof that doesn't ignore past climate history, doesn't use computer models that dumb down the Earth into one variable or few variables causing climate change? Finally, how does the fact that man's total contribution to green house gases is at most 3% driving the climate change off of a cliff? For the person bringing up peer reviewed articles again, all that means is that people agree with your work, not that it is accurate or good science. There is a big difference and the scientific community has gone away from doing real research into doing research that brings in the most money. I have family that are into scientific research.
- bravozuluLv 710 years ago
There is no cause and effect in your references. If you want to argue that humans might have warmed the earth much less than a degree, then it doesn't qualify as something worth worrying about. It also isn't established by the evidence. There is no RELATIVE warming in the mid troposphere. It has to warm much more than the surface for the computer models to be valid. We are no warmer than we have been in the recent past. Most of the horrendous warming of the last century, that .6 degrees claimed, happened early before the significant increase in CO2. Even that is almost certainly exaggerated by the Urban Heat Island effect and intentional manipulation of the data.
Alarmist blather states that it will warm 3 degrees from CO2 forcing when CO2 is doubled. Because of Beer's law, we already are most of the way there. I suppose it is going to magically actually start doing what the alarmists say. That isn't how science works. You don't make a theory, test it against the real world and then claim that the real world doesn't matter. That is what alarmists do. They are living in a fantasy where they hope what they FEEL is correct will happen. It relies on ignoring even basic common sense. They have to pretend that they understand the climate even when their logic is pathetic. If CO2 was the driver of temperatures, the RAW data would show it. There would be a steady rise in temperature. Some manipulated data from leftist activists shows it and I am sure that is all that non critical thinkers will need to validate their bogus agenda. There is nothing in the real world that suggests that there is any CO2 caused warming at all. It is entirely in the range of natural warming.
Even the highly manipulated numbers don't translate into anything worth worrying about and they in fact would be a blessing if true. Extra CO2 helps plants grow. It isn't pollution. That is so anti-science that it is beyond pathetic. That is high school level science. It does define alarmist for what they actually are and that is an anti-science doomsday cult. That is all the credibility they deserve, if that. If you can't see that warming of a couple of degrees is probably or even possibly a good thing, then you should seriously question you objectivity. You have been brainwashed by a doomsday cult.
- TrevorLv 710 years ago
One thing that is immediately apparent when you look at the answers from many of the skeptics and deniers is the willingness to dismiss anything that goes against their preconceived notion.
Rather than refuting a fact, statement or paper it is simply rejected. To this end we have claims that the temperature data are manipulated, that the peer-review process is erroneous, that instrumental measurements are biased, that empirical evidence is flawed. There are numerous other similar claims.
These statements are never substantiated, there has been a multitude of requests for the deniers and skeptics to validate such claims, but all to no avail.
When it comes to anything even remotely scientific, the deniers show no interest or ability to engage in debate at this level. I believe this is primarily due to two factors a) they don’t understand the science and b) they can’t refute it.
In science everything should be questioned, this is essential in expanding our understanding of a subject, it opens up new avenues for exploration and enables progress to be made.
As a climate scientist myself I openly welcome all genuine skepticism. Until about 10 years ago there was much healthy criticism and skepticism concerning our work, and this was invaluable. The various alternative theories and hypotheses that were proposed were investigated and many are still being investigated.
If anything, the results of these investigations have substantially reinforced the theory of manmade global warming. The numerous alternative theories have been thoroughly and carefully investigated and their potential influences on the climatic systems have been quantified. This enables us to determine just what role these other factors play in affecting our climates – past, present and future; one area that has particularly benefited is paleoclimatology.
It is absolutely imperative that we continue to investigate each and every rational argument that is put forward. Climatology is something of an infant science, there is a plethora of things just waiting to be discovered and our comprehension of the subject is rapidly evolving.
To answer your specific question – there is evidence against the theory of manmade global warming. In fact, there are many contributory factors that are not attributable to mankind. In determining the proportion of warming (or cooling) that is attributable to anthropogenic causes, it is necessary to evaluate all the factors collectively. When this is done there is one over-riding factor that dwarfs all others – human emissions of greenhouse gases (see A Modest Proposal’s links).
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Ottawa MikeLv 610 years ago
It's not a matter of providing evidence against AGW. It's matter of being convinced.
I am not convinced that CO2 increases have caused most recent warming (even while admitting that man does affect nature including the climate). I am less convinced that further warming will be largely harmful (along with being unconvinced that we know what the future climate will be). I am even less convinced that we can come up with some policy that will actually control warming in a known manner AND provides a greater benefit than it costs.
- Paul's Alias 2Lv 410 years ago
<<Can you offer evidence AGAINST man-made global warming?>>
"Man-made global warming" assumes Man exists. As a "skeptic" I will not accept that Man exists unless it is proven by the scientific method.Source(s): I heard stuff about the scientific method a lot in high school. High schools need to teach more of that kind of stuff instead of liberal garbage like algebra and trigonometry. I don't think Sarah Palin knows much algebra or trigonometry, but everyone I listen to on the radio says she is brilliant.
- Anonymous10 years ago
I offer the past as the only evidence needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Tempera... The global mean average is always in flux. I fail to see why now is so special.
Consider data and instruments for measuring temperatures. Prior to 100 years ago, we had no worldwide coverage, no consistent instruments, and certainly no satellites to give a broad view of global temperatures. The MWP could have risen to maximum temperature in less than a century, but for lack of instrumentation, there is know way of knowing.
As for scientific journals and genuine scientists who concur with me, I don't know. I do not subscribe to any journals. But since the ice age scare of the 70's, I have watched Chicken Little cry about the sky falling...and I'm still waiting.
And as for the scientific consensus:
But what bothers me the most, is the politics of AGW. It is little more than a tool for power and control. Things like Cap and Trade will do nothing to cut emissions. It will only enrich a select few businessmen and politicians.
- 10 years ago
When you get arrested for a crime you did not commit, I hope it is in a coountry where they ask you for evidence you didnt do it.
- 10 years ago
The question is AWFUL!
Instead of innocent until proven guilty, it's the other way around!!!
Guilty until proven innocent!!!
- flossieLv 610 years ago
This will do for me.
More "dis-information" and downright mis-truths have been spouted in the cause of the Commie hoax that is AGW than anything else I can think of.
Long live the Proletariat!