Anonymous
Anonymous asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 month ago

A question for climate change skeptics and deniers?

A lot of evidence is put forward that ‘proves’ humans are causing climate change.  We have for example, the rising sea-levels, the melting of the ice-caps, the increase in adverse weather events etc.  

If we assume that all these things have other explanation there still appears to be one piece of evidence that can’t be explained away and I’m wondering how skeptics and deniers get round this.  Please read the following and indicate where the process falls down and / or highlight the errors.

• Greenhouse gases occur naturally

• Humans emit greenhouse gases

• Greenhouse gases from both natural and human sources are found in the atmosphere

• Greenhouse gases have the ability to retain heat

• Natural greenhouse gases create a habitable climate on Earth by retaining heat

• Human emitted greenhouse gases retain heat

If you don’t accept that human emissions of greenhouse gases can contribute to global warming, can you please explain why it is that natural greenhouse gases can but human ones can’t.

On the other hand, if you don’t accept that natural greenhouse gases can cause warming, please provide an explanation as to how Earth has a habitable climate given it’s distance from the Sun.

13 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 month ago
    Favorite Answer

    Most of us (except for the die-hard deniers) agree that the Earth has a natural cycle of cooling and warming. But what many fail to understand is that right now, our Earth is supposed to be in the beginning stages of a cooling period, another ice age if you will.

    But that's not happening.

    Instead the empirical evidence is clear. The Earth is heating up on average overall. The natural cycle has been broken for the first time in geological records (dating back roughly 250,000 years). At the same time, CO2 concentration in the planet's atm is not only higher than ever before, it's rising at an unprecedented rate as well.

    Which is cause and which is effect are debatable. But the evidence, evidence not conjecture, is clear. There is a connection between the Earth's temperature and the CO2 concentration. But given that the natural cycle is towards cooling at this point in time, but the actual state is that the planet is heating, I'd put my money on the abnormally high CO2 as the cause and the heat as the effect.

    I agree with your assessment. CO2 added into the atm by humankind is the cause for the warming rather than the cooling that would naturally occur at this stage of the natural cycle. I arrive at the same conclusion, but using a different line of reasoning.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Horse
      Lv 4
      1 month agoReport

      Darwinist could be a paid troll.  Jury still out on that one.  But he is a liar and defends paid trolls.  There is overwhelming evidence, but Darwin still denies.  He is a denier.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    The devil is in the detail and the alarmists make sure that you never see the detail. Also, the education system these days makes sure that you do not think. You are just told what to think not how to think.

    You can see that in your list of points. Even if the points are valid you are not thinking about the links you are just believing what you have been told.

    Ask yourself, is there a way of measuring global GHG emissions and of separately measuring human GHG emissions? I will give you a clue, the answer is no. If it were true then we might be able to draw the inferences you suggest but if we do not measure them directly then we rely on inferences of some sort that may or may not be valid.

    Often, "science" relies on model outputs. They put all the real data in and see what happens. If the model is biased then all its outputs will be biased and you might never find out how biased they are - or at least not for a long time.

    Any time you see a high correlation between A and B you might be led to believe that A causes B. That could be right but equally it could imply that B causes A, or both A and B are caused by something else or that it is coincidence.

    Spin doctors will tell you their preferred option and justify it by saying 'cos math(s) or 'cos science and many will fall for it.

    • Eric1 month agoReport

      Critical thinking is not valued these days. It is group think, referral to authority, and ad hominem attacks that pass for scientific discourse these days. Certainly not the scientific method. If the scientific method was followed CO2 as a significant climate driver would have been deep sixed.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Some glaciers and ice caps have been melting since the end of the Little Ice Age. Others are growing. In Roman times there were way fewer glaciers in Europe.

    Sea level rise has been pretty constant for 150 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age. It is about 7 inches per century.

    Natural disasters have decreased.

    What needs explaining is how this subterfuge continues in the face of all the facts to the contrary.

    Attachment image
    • oldprof
      Lv 7
      1 month agoReport

      The sea level has been and continues to rise.  Maybe the frequency of natural disasters is decreasing, but their intensities are increasing.  And yes the glaciers have been decreasing since the last ice age.  But they should be increasing now as the natural cycle should be cooling not warming.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Rev 11:18;Rev 21:-5;Matt 6:9,10;Gen 1:27,28 jw.org

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • It is always fun to see liberals try to use logic.

    Let's consider the first paragraph of your body.  

    "A lot of evidence is put forward that ‘proves’ humans are causing climate change. We have for example, the rising sea-levels, the melting of the ice-caps, the increase in adverse weather events etc. "

    You probably don't realize it, but your first sentence says you are going to give proof that "humans are causing climate change".  But, the three points you make do not give that proof.  In fact, the third point is not at all proven.  

    For your version of "logic" to work, you relied on faith.  And when you rely on faith to make your logic work, you are dealing with religion, not logic and not science.

    • ...Show all comments
    • oldprof
      Lv 7
      1 month agoReport

      The bottom line that all you deniers are avoiding is that if the planet were in its natural climate cycle, the planet should be cooling as the natural cycle would be entering into a cooling period now.  But it isn't.  It's warming and the glaciers continue to melt at increasing rates.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    In prehistoric times, when the earth was covered with jungles, the greenhouse gas was fives times higher than it is now. Better a few degrees warmer than a few degrees colder.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Edgar
    Lv 4
    1 month ago

    The ice has been melting and the seas rising since the end of the last ice Age. Put your money where your mouth is green house gas emitter, and end yourself, then we'll think about taking you seriously.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Jeff D
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    We know that climate fluctuates naturally (ice ages, warm periods, etc) and it has done so for millions of years (long before mankind even existed).  Therefore, the null hypothesis is that any climate change we're seeing today is a natural phenomenon--whether or not we can identify the exact causes.  The burden of proof is on the climate alarmists to show that the climate change we're seeing today is, somehow, not natural.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Exactly. Heating from greenhouses gases is simple science, easily observable and verifiable in a laboratory. You may as well deny gravity.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Sea levels have dropped by 2 feet in the last 50 years. Now what?

    • Dirac
      Lv 4
      1 month agoReport

      Now we conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.