A Skeptic's Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

This on LIA from the site "The Latest Myths and Facts on Global Warming" I had posted above.

Code:

MYTH #7:
The warming of the past century has been caused by natural factors, such as solar variability, a recovery from the Little Ice Age, cosmic rays, etc.; the warming was not caused by the increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs).This is shown by the fact that the warming has not followed the trend of GHG concentrations.

....

FACT:

Recovery from the Little Ice Age:

Skeptics have claimed that the warming over the 20th century is simply a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age (roughly A.D. 1600–1850), a cool period caused by changes in natural forces. The facts are similar to what we have discussed above: Climate studies have taken into account all the major forces that can change the climate, and have shown that the warming over the second half of the 20th century can be explained only if GHGs are included. While changes in sunlight and volcanic activity can possibly explain the transition into the Little Ice Age, they cannot fully explain the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.

Code:

MYTH #12:
Just a few decades ago, scientists warned that a new ice age was
approaching or that pollutant dust would cool the climate. What makes scientists think
they are right this time?

FACT: Climate science has come a long way since those early studies. Advances have
been made in theory, modeling and paleoclimate (climate in the distant past)
analysis. Even when the idea of a globally cooling climate was being considered,
many scientists warned about the consequences of GHG emissions; they just weren’t
sure which effect would win out—warming due to GHGs or cooling due to
particulates that reflect sunlight. Although particulates do have a significant effect on
climate in many regions, we now know that overall, the effect of human-produced
GHGs is dominant.

The site has references as well. The PDF file also has many charts and grafts which corroborate what it is being discussed as fact.

The acceptance of the fact of global warming has gone along the same lines as it took to eventually accept evolution as a fact as well.

Confident Learner Joined: Nov 18, 2006 Posts: 67

Global warming isn't a concern. Where there is global warming, there is always an ice age right around the corner Wink

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Tormentor wrote:

Global warming isn't a concern. Where there is global warming, there is always an ice age right around the corner Wink

With some that ice age is more like a brain freeze. Rolling Eyes

Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:50 am

From SJC's post:

Quote:

Climate studies have taken into account all the major forces that can change the climate, and have shown that the warming over the second half of the 20th century can be explained only if GHGs are included.

This sentence is nonsensical. GHGs are the primary reason the earth has a temperature at all. It appears to be saying something meaningful but isn't.

Quote:

While changes in sunlight and volcanic activity can possibly explain the transition into the Little Ice Age, they cannot fully explain the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.

More nonsense. They aren't supposed to fully explain the warming.

Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:11 am

Notice that the site Merely Asserts about the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (that it must be all human caused), much like creationists Merely Assert that speciation cannot happen.

If sjc wants to play the game....

Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:06 am

I don't think the question "have we caused a problem with global warming?" is even the right question.

There are 2 basic sides, we have caused a problem and we better start fixing it pronto, or we have not caused a problem.

The have-not-caused-a-problem camp can further be divided into 2 parts: we cannot cause a problem or we can but haven't yet.

The only one of these for which there is no hope is the we-cannot-cause-a-problem camp. Unless I miss my guess, no one here is in this camp.

For everyone else, I would think there would be little debate about minimizng our impact on the atmosphere. Either we have caused a problem or we can cause a problem if we do certain things, some of which we are doing. In both cases it behooves us to take protective steps.

Another syllogism: If we do nothing we are sure to fail or we are casting our lot with chance. If we do something we may succeed or fail, but at least we might succeed.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Saitou wrote:

This sentence is nonsensical. GHGs are the primary reason the earth has a temperature at all. It appears to be saying something meaningful but isn't.

More nonsense. They aren't supposed to fully explain the warming.

It is irrelevant if you want to accept the truth or not. Like it or not its a proven fact. There is no longer ANY real doubt in the scientific community about global warming.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Notice that the site Merely Asserts about the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (that it must be all human caused), much like creationists Merely Assert that speciation cannot happen.

If sjc wants to play the game....

We all know your game, hypocrite. The PDF file of the site has references and charts to go along with everything. I only had Google convert the site into HTML to make it easy to read. BTW, you and Saitou are the creationists in this trying to deny the facts of global warming just as they are denying evolution.

Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:12 am

SJC, I do not deny the facts of global warming as much as I provide them. Laughing

I grant that human CO2 emissions from automobiles and industry make a contribution to the atmosphere and probably effect the atmosphere's temperature.

What I dispute is not facts and science but the alarmists propaganda.

Graduate Thinker Joined: May 18, 2006 Posts: 777

Yay I'm a necrothreader!

Due to a recent topic here: http://www.refrigeration-engineer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=67929#post67929

I figured I'd bounce all threads dealing with climate change, hope fully get some thing stirred as this place is deader then a strip club in Kansas as of late

Disclaimer: My attempt at a joke I really have no idea what life is like in Kansas

The Learned Joined: Nov 30, 2004 Posts: 103

Quote:

Oddly, I don't understand why anyone would disagree with the basic facts about what CO2 does to atmospheres.

I go round and around with a friend all the time about that. He's compartmentalized that global warming isn't true and that there's enough oil until the rapture facts be damned. It's a faith (read irrational) issue is why they can deny it.

The Learned Joined: Nov 30, 2004 Posts: 103

Saitou wrote:

SJC, I do not deny the facts of global warming as much as I provide them. Laughing

I grant that human CO2 emissions from automobiles and industry make a contribution to the atmosphere and probably effect the atmosphere's temperature.

What I dispute is not facts and science but the alarmists propaganda.

So in other words you dispute people that try to educate the public about global warming then?

Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:15 am

Robocoastie wrote:

Saitou wrote:

SJC, I do not deny the facts of global warming as much as I provide them. Laughing

I grant that human CO2 emissions from automobiles and industry make a contribution to the atmosphere and probably effect the atmosphere's temperature.

What I dispute is not facts and science but the alarmists propaganda.

So in other words you dispute people that try to educate the public about global warming then?

I've often wondered what exactly the "alarmist’s propaganda" is.

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:55 pm

Hi,

but companies are dragging their feet, why would they rush to provide enough (note the word enough) when they can charge what they like for what is a limited resource. It would be much more difficult to charge for something that can't be defined as "limited".

Companies have put pressure on govenments. Their power to influence(the companies) shouldn't be underestimated. People like me have no money to keep campaigning, I do what little I can (as many millions also do). Sadly, money is worth more to politicians than the general public's views. Sad

Roxy641

Quote:

As for the greedy corporations looking at short term profits... you realise they are among the biggest investors in alternative energy sources research?


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore