Answering Anti Global Warming Arguments

[Rye]

After several threads on several boards, I've noticed the same arguments cropping up in multiple places similar to creationist arguments used by Kent Hovind. Hence, I thought it'd be cool if we made another thread similar to that one only addressing the anti GW arguments.

I'll split it into 3 sections:

The IPCC Report

There is no consensus amongst scientists about climate change.

The IPCC report is misleading, biased and ignores contradicting evidence.

Scientists going against the popular pro GW side are dismissed via ad hominem tactics, rather than actual refutation.

IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models.

Science

Climate models are incomplete and therefore do not conclusively show any link between human carbon emissions and climate change.

Climate and weather are too chaotic to model accurately.

Climate models can't predict the past accurately.

Humans only contribute 3% of the carbon in the atmosphere.

Carbon change lags climate change by 800 years according to icecores, therefore it is not responsible.

The whole solar system is undergoing increased warming due to solar activity, solar activity is also linked to Earth-based warming trends in the past.

What about cosmic rays? What models take into account the influence they have on climate?

Between 1940 and 1970, global temperatures went down slightly, even though carbon dioxide levels went up.

The Medieval warming period had above average temperatures for a few centuries with no industrial influence. Perhaps this is just the same?

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small, accounting for 0.0381% of the Earth's atmosphere. The anthropogenic proportion of this is likely to be no more than a third (i.e. no more than the measured increase over the last 350 years). Carbon dioxide itself causes only 9-26% the natural greenhouse effect. These proportions should not be enough to cause significant effects.

Political

This is a ploy so the developed nations can keep da black man down.

Global warming is a politically motivated movement. Liberals want a bigger government and to protect the environment, this is why they believe in global warming.

The UN wants to become a sovereign lawmaking entity with the power to project worldwide force to its own ends. A global issue like global warming is their chosen avenue to that end.

What about the positive aspects of global warming? We may lose some areas, but we'll gain new ones.

Why even bother cutting back on emissions when China won't stop building massive coal power plants?

Those are all I can think of for now, have at them!

[Shroom Man 777]

This is a ploy so the developed nations can keep da black man down.

No. A eugenics program to bring about a final solution to end you filthy untermensch would be such a ploy. Cutting down fuel emissions isn't.

The UN wants to become a sovereign lawmaking entity with the power to project worldwide force to its own ends. A global issue like global warming is their chosen avenue to that end.

So the UN will send an endless army of blue helmets to crush anyone who opposes the Kyoto Protocol?

What about the positive aspects of global warming? We may lose some areas, but we'll gain new ones.

What new ones?

[Lord Zentei]

After several threads on several boards, I've noticed the same arguments cropping up in multiple places similar to creationist arguments used by Kent Hovind. Hence, I thought it'd be cool if we made another thread similar to that one only addressing the anti GW arguments.

We really should compile a list of responses to these arguments in the manner of DW's list of responses to creationist arguments, starting off a reference thread. Then we can point to it as needed.

It needs to be started by someone with editig powers, though.

[Alferd Packer]

What new ones?

If I had to guess, I would wager that this means that areas in the far north(That is, the Yukon, NWT, Nunavut, Alaska, Greenland, Svalbard, Siberia, etc.) would become more hospitable, at least in the summer.

[Wyrm]

There is no consensus amongst scientists about climate change.

True, 100% consensus is hard to aquire even in small groups of maybe thrity people. (Meeting for Business back in Austin was a chore, because everything was by consensus.) 100% consensus isn't required for any theory to be accepted as scientificly well-founded.

The IPCC report is misleading, biased and ignores contradicting evidence.

Any "contradicting evidence" are either unreplicated or otherwise unreliable, anomalous but not compelling evidence to the contrary, or only naively interpreted as contradictory evidence when it is in fact confirming evidence. With well-confirmed theories like climate change, "contradicting evidence" usually falls into one of these catagories.

Scientists going against the popular pro GW side are dismissed via ad hominem tactics, rather than actual refutation.

Such scientists are either talking outside their field, or on the payroll of a company whose interests would be hurt by regulations that would logically follow from accepting climate change as a problem. These are relevant observations and valid criticisms.

IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models.

There was a weakness in terms of cloud physics in the past, but when the physics were better understood, it made global warming an even grimmer phenomenon. As to the effects of glboal warming on climate, we already have a paleoclimatological record of what happens to the earth when it warms up.

Climate models are incomplete and therefore do not conclusively show any link between human carbon emissions and climate change.

Nonsense. The physics of how the absorption spectra of gasses in the atmosphere leads to an insulating effect is rather straightforward. As to the emissions being manmade, I wouldn't put any money it being a coincidence that CO2 levels have risen dramatically in the industrial age, and the derivitive of this curve corrolates with fossil fuel use.

Climate and weather are too chaotic to model accurately.

We don't need very much accuracy to know something bad will happen. All climate models predict major disruption in climate due to global warming, and we're confident enough in our modeling to suspect that it is unlikely that no disruption will occur.

Climate models can't predict the past accurately.

Given that there's a fair amount of uncertainty of what the climate of the past was like in the first place, this shouldn't be too surprising.

Humans only contribute 3% of the carbon in the atmosphere.

And, if you use a physical temperature scale (which sets 0 as the lowest physical temperature, such as the Kelvin scale), the global temperature change over the industrial age is on that order.

Carbon change lags climate change by 800 years according to icecores, therefore it is not responsible.

Climate changes in ice cores are usually caused by other factors, before CO2 levels start to kick in and add their effects. There are positive feedback loops in nature that turn warmer temperatures to increased CO2 levels.

The whole solar system is undergoing increased warming due to solar activity, solar activity is also linked to Earth-based warming trends in the past.

The overall increase in solar input is insufficient to produce the effect we see on earth. Although the entire solar system has heated up on average, we're above that average.

What about cosmic rays? What models take into account the influence they have on climate?

Cosmic rays are utterly insignificant, from any standpoint. The intensity of cosmic rays is on the order of a billionth (or less) that of the solar constant, so in terms of energy input, utterly ignorable. No significant cloud nucleation takes place due to cosmic rays, either. Otherwise, cloud cover would be nearly uniform worldwide, instead of being spotty as it really is.

Between 1940 and 1970, global temperatures went down slightly, even though carbon dioxide levels went up.

Said as if CO2 levels were the only effect at play in the atmosphere. Even with an overall driving force upwards, there will still be brief periods of downward trends.

The Medieval warming period had above average temperatures for a few centuries with no industrial influence. Perhaps this is just the same?

See above.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small, accounting for 0.0381% of the Earth's atmosphere. The anthropogenic proportion of this is likely to be no more than a third (i.e. no more than the measured increase over the last 350 years). Carbon dioxide itself causes only 9-26% the natural greenhouse effect. These proportions should not be enough to cause significant effects.

Let's see your calculations of the efficacy of atmospheric insulation due to CO2 levels.

This is a ploy so the developed nations can keep da black man down.

I cannot improve on Shroom Man's comment for this one.

Global warming is a politically motivated movement. Liberals want a bigger government and to protect the environment, this is why they believe in global warming.

Given that we depend on the environment for our very survival, there is nothing more here at play than naked self-interest. Anyway, you have it backwards: we look at the data and see global warming, and furthermore industry seems too short-sighted to protect the environment on its own, even given repeated chances. This is the biggest environmental emergency ever, and given industry's past performance on environmental matters, I'm not going to trust them again.

The UN wants to become a sovereign lawmaking entity with the power to project worldwide force to its own ends. A global issue like global warming is their chosen avenue to that end.

More like its one of the UN's last chances to be anything other than a big clubhouse for ambassidors. Of course global warming is a global issue. That's why it's called global warming. (DUH!) If the UN can't get it together for global warming, it might as well disband.

What about the positive aspects of global warming? We may lose some areas, but we'll gain new ones.

Then it has escaped you that our agricultural infastructure, which supplies us with our FOOD, will be severely disrupted by climate change and require a lot of retooling to get it back up to today's levels. You have little conception of how much climate affects our lives.

Why even bother cutting back on emissions when China won't stop building massive coal power plants?

China will have to be dealt with. In the meantime, we're still the world's biggest producer of CO2. Naturally, we shoulder most of the responsibility.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I know some good websites like realclimate.org who can help with this. Maybe we can ask them for some good summaries for the most frequently asked questions and oft cited counter-arguments.

[Lord Zentei]

We really should compile a list of responses to these arguments in the manner of DW's list of responses to creationist arguments, starting off a reference thread. Then we can point to it as needed.

It needs to be started by someone with editig powers, though.

Ah, and it has been split now. Good show.

[Rye]

We really should compile a list of responses to these arguments in the manner of DW's list of responses to creationist arguments, starting off a reference thread. Then we can point to it as needed.

It needs to be started by someone with editig powers, though.

Ah, and it has been split now. Good show.

The fuck are you talking about? I started it as a seperate thread, it's not been split.

[Lord Zentei]

The fuck are you talking about? I started it as a seperate thread, it's not been split.

I seem to have gotten it mixed up with another one. Bah.