Wanted: Top Anti-Global Warming Arguments Debunked

I am on the fence re global warming. I've heard arguments from both sides and I'm skeptical of the different claims so-called "experts" make.

So here is where I'm at now. I've heard a lot of global warming debunking, but I haven't heard much "debunking" of the debunkers. I.e., what are the arguments that counter some of the most common global warming skeptics?

How about these arguments? How are these countered?

1. All the planets are warming.
2. The sun is what causes global warming.
3. CO2 is only 400 ppm in the atmosphere and can't have a big impact.
4. Water vapor is 100 times more responsible for GW than CO2.
5. More CO2 is released when the earth heats; CO2 is effect, not cause.
6. Volcanoes can release more GW gases in one day than humans produce.
7. Insects, like termites, release more greenhouse gases than humans produce.
8. Even if humans contribute to GW, the % is so small in the overall picture.
9. The earth has gone through huge climate changes in the past; what we're going through now is nothing.
10. The earth warmed from past ice ages; so how can we say that the warming now isn't part of the same natural warming that's happened before?

Haven't you heard? It's climate change now, global warming was too specific and problematic. Climate change allows you to be taxed for a gas emission without actually having to justify it's effects, as it goes either way.

Originally posted by Zepherian
Haven't you heard? It's climate change now, global warming was too specific and problematic. Climate change allows you to be taxed for a gas emission without actually having to justify it's effects, as it goes either way.

Oops... sorry, I must have missed that memo.

I did wonder about this. If we go into a major global cooling phase are we going to get paid to emit CO2???

Nah, we'll probably be hit with a refrigerator tax or something equally moronic. Anything to make us poorer.

Originally posted by jamie83

How about these arguments? How are these countered?

Its easy.

Originally posted by jamie83
1. All the planets are warming.

The study is being paid for by big oil.

Originally posted by jamie83
2. The sun is what causes global warming.

Big oil is paying for the study

Originally posted by jamie83
3. CO2 is only 400 ppm in the atmosphere and can't have a big impact.

The researchers are big oil employees.

Originally posted by jamie83
4. Water vapor is 100 times more responsible for GW than CO2.

The facts are being skewed by big oil stockholders.

Originally posted by jamie83
5. More CO2 is released when the earth heats; CO2 is effect, not cause.

Big oil scientist aren't really scientists.

Originally posted by jamie83
6. Volcanoes can release more GW gases in one day than humans produce.

Scientists funded by big oil say such things.

Originally posted by jamie83
7. Insects, like termites, release more greenhouse gases than humans produce.

Entomology is just another branch of science that is being funded by big oil.

Originally posted by jamie83
8. Even if humans contribute to GW, the % is so small in the overall picture.

Big oil owns the picture.

Originally posted by jamie83
9. The earth has gone through huge climate changes in the past; what we're going through now is nothing.

Big oil has used its massive resources to change historical climate data.

Originally posted by jamie83
10. The earth warmed from past ice ages; so how can we say that the warming now isn't part of the same natural warming that's happened before?

Big oil is such a huge reason for climate change that big oil caused climate change even before humans were around.



As you can see, any counter argument to global warming is usually responded to by an accusation that big oil is behind such research.

In all seriousness, its the sun, not the gas we humans exhale. Here is a good video on the subject...global warming swindle

Actually I've observed my own skeptic arguments trumped a couple times, but I simply don't use those arguments any more. There have been no debunkings of my current arguments (see some of my earlier posts), and things have actually gotten kind of stale regarding GW debates on ATS.

Originally posted by jamie83
How about these arguments? How are these countered?

Easily? I'm not interested in getting into a to-and-fro, but here goes...

1. All the planets are warming.

No, they're not. Uranus is actually cooling (Young et al., 2001). And there is only evidence for a few solar system bodies warming. Out of dozens.

Planets and moons can do one of three things. Warm, cool, stay constant. Not surprising to see a handful warming. Some, such as mars, have reasonable explanations. And the answer to the next question should finsih off this line of thought...

2. The sun is what causes global warming.

Whilst it is obvious that the sun is a major source of energy for climate, the evidence actually shows minimal increases in solar activity for a few decades (e.g., Solanki et al., 2004; Ammann et al., 2007; Foukal et al., 2006), and possibly falling levels since the 1980s (Lockwood & Frolich, 2007).

3. CO2 is only 400 ppm in the atmosphere and can't have a big impact.

Silly argument. A salt-grain sized bit of polonium also appears insignificant, bet you wouldn't eat it though? Unless you had a deathwish.

4. Water vapor is 100 times more responsible for GW than CO2.

Water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing. That is, it just doesn't hang around in the atmosphere and quickly settles to the appropriate equilibrium (i.e., precipitation) - water vapour has a very short half-life, CO2's half-life is much longer and can therefore easily accumulate.

Essentially, the levels of water vapour are controlled by other variables, particularly temperature. So it is an obvious feedback from GHG-induced warming.

5. More CO2 is released when the earth heats; CO2 is effect, not cause.

This is a really retarded argument. Whilst it is true that CO2 is produced during the warming phase of an ice-age cycle, surely all the billions of tonnes of CO2 we release every year have to go somewhere?

As CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it does what greenhouse gases do.

6. Volcanoes can release more GW gases in one day than humans produce.

Nowhere near. Did have a better academic source for the difference (about 150 times more from human activity), but this will have to do.

7. Insects, like termites, release more greenhouse gases than humans produce.

Laughable. Even though the carbon cycle sees billions of tonnes of carbon released and absorbed in the biosphere, it is (or was) a fair balance. What was released was absorbed elsewhere. Which is why it took puny humans spewing out billions of tonnes of the stuff from carbon locked out of the biosphere for millions of years (i.e., fossil fuels) to produce the scenario we are in now.

8. Even if humans contribute to GW, the % is so small in the overall picture.

The overall picture of what? CO2 levels have increased something like 40% since pre-industrial, never mind the other human-induced impacts (black carbon etc). CO2 can account for between 9-26% of the greenhouse effect that ensures we don't freeze.

9. The earth has gone through huge climate changes in the past; what we're going through now is nothing.

Possibly. But we're not too worried about right now, it's 100 years in the future we might want to think about. Given, it will have minimal effect on me personally

But like a good citizen, I like to leave stuff how I found it. Rather than leave a trial of crap and trash for others to worry about.

10. The earth warmed from past ice ages; so how can we say that the warming now isn't part of the same natural warming that's happened before?

If you want 100% certainty, you won't get it. However, it is 100% certain that we are releasing billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year which has most likely led to levels of CO2 not seen for at least 650,000 years, and probably much longer than that.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases do alter radiative balance. As noted, we are releasing billions of tonnes of the stuff every year. It will have an effect, and the evidence suggests it is not something we can just ignore.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by melatonin]

The official Global Warning story is just to put fear into the heart of the people. With this, you can blame yourself again for something what you didn't do at all. It's psychology, nothing more. This sort of psychology was already used dozens of times.

The climate is changing, but the officials also doesn't have the slightest clue what is going on. But to keep their own positions, they simply put fear into the heart of the people. It's always the easiest way.

For those, whose are believing in great the official global warming stuff, answer me one thing... do the CO2 global warming is causing massive 6+ earthquakes? Of course not. CO2 never caused earthquakes. And why do I bringing up earthquakes? It's simple. There were a dozen of 6+ earthquakes, just in this year, tornadoes in big cities, or in countries where there were not a single one before. Something is changing, yes, but not the CO2 is causing it and it never did. The officials in the White House, in the Pentagon and at other places has not a single clue what for they need to look at all. But it's easier to make a bluff and blame the people again for something what they never did.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Dark Crystalline]

When dinosaurs were around most of the oil was on the surface of the earth in the form of CO2, hydrogen ,water and carbon and life exploded at this time. It poses no threat only a benefit to our increasing population which requires more food from plants growing faster on more co2

The real issue is deforestation

Aerosols are also emmited from combustion of fossil fuels which cause global dimming or cooling
besides nothing gives off more energy then fossil fuels except for nuclear and maybe hydro power other forms are not practical in meeting are energy demands
all the chemicals used in supposed clean fuels are far more deadly to the environment then co2

so what is it you suggest we do?

reply to post by evolutionz


All the following quotes are from the article:

"How Enriched Carbon Dioxide Environments May Alter Biotic Systems Even in the Absence of Climatic Changes"

By Eric D. Fajer of Harvard University, Printed in Conservation Biology, Vol. 3, No. 3 (September 1989) pp 318-320.

In elevated C02 environments, growth is enhanced for many plant species. However, some plant species respond more positively to these new conditions than other species.

This seems arbitrary to those unfamiliar with the nuances of Biotic Systems and the basic Principles of Ecology. When most people look at a peice of natural landscape they see a big bunch of plants with some animals and insects in it. It really seems pretty straight forward on the surface. However, to those who study natural systems there is an understanding of a finer level of complexity. There is an understanding that there is a hierarchy within that system, that there is a interconnection and interdependence across a wide range of scales and that is comprised of all the organisms that exist within that system that allow that piece of natural landscape to exist.

For example, plants that utilize different photosynthetic machinery to initially fix carbon dioxide will respond differentlyly to enhanced C02 conditions.

This is where the simple idea that increased C02 simply ='s increased plant growth begins to break down.

C3 plants, those that fix C02 to ribulose-bisphosphate (RUBP) to form two 3-carbon products and this directly enter the Calvin cycle are expected to benefit more in enhanced C02 environments than C4 plant, those that fix C02 to phophoenolpyruvate (PEP) to form 4-carbon acids. This is because the fixation efficiency of C3 plants is more enhanced by additional atmospheric C02 (i.e. resulting in less energy loss due to photorespiration) than it is for C4 plants. Hence in plant communities that contain C3 and C4 species, such as those with old-field annual and perennial plants, competitive advantages may shift to C3 species under enriched C02 conditions.

Shifting competitive advantage often has dramatic effects on the health of an ecosystem, or biotic community. As I noted in my previous paragraph biotic communities such systems exist with the aid of a fundamental interconnection and interdependence across a wide range of scales. Allowing this to shift disrupts this equilibrium and negatively impacts the systems health and vitality, even its survivability.

Refer to , Keystone Species and Foundation Species, as examples

Even within C03 plants, the magnitude of the growth response induced by enriched C02 atmospheres appears to be species-specific. Differential growth responses to enriched C02 atmospheres can result in changes in the competitive hierarchies in both herbaceous and woody plant communities. For example, under enriched C02 atmospheres, different plant species may dominate, while others may become less common. Conceivably, some plant species, and potentially other organism that depend on these species, could become extremely rare in an enriched C02 world.

Translation: like I have already said twice natural systems exist with the aid of a fundamental interconnection and interdependence across a wide range of scales. When this changes the system tends to break down. As different plants become dominant other fade away all those dependent on the natural equilibrium become endangered.

In elevated C02 environments, many plants also change quantitatively in terms of the proportions of carbon and nitrogen resources allocated to different plant parts. Plants grown under enriched C02 conditions have reduced foliar nitrogen concentrations; this, in turn has a substantial impact on the insect herbivore feeding behavior and fitness.

Once again we see that the effects of increased C02 will cause change within a biotic system that slowly but inevitably spreads across the scale of said systems interdependence and interconnection leading to failure.

For example, studies using the buckeye butterfly, Junonia coenia, and plantain Plantago lanceolata, one of its primary host plants in the southeast United States and California, have demonstrated a reduction in fitness of individuals fed enriched C02 grown rather than ambient C02 grown plants. During the early vulnerable instars, buckeye mortality increased and larval development was retarded for individuals reared on enriched C02 grown leaves, which are low in nitrogen compared to leaves grown under ambient C02 conditions. Reduced larval growth may further reduce herbivore fitness in natural ecosystems because slower growth rates may lead to increased exposure to predictors and parasitoids.

The impacts of increase C02 are plaint o see. While it is true that this increase in atmospheric C02 can and will increase the growth of some plants this change, like all changes in nature, trigger a host of changes in the biotic community in question. In the case of the buckeye butterfly we see another important factor and that is the impacts of plants that actually do grow more vigorously in an enriched C02 environment are negativity impacting those dependent on said plant for their survival.

Thus the argument that increased C02 is a boon to the planet is willful ignorance when it comes right down to it. Biology and ecology are both ripe with warnings and supporting evidence to argue against such changes in natural systems. Many here on ATS, though intelligent people, do not have the education to properly evaluate some of the information and opinions they bring to the table. I guess that is what makes this site great. That information such as that presented in the OP can be presented and then other members such as myself can offer deeper insight into the issue.

If this one study is not enough to convince members here that the point I am trying to make is valid I would suggest you do some research on your own. Finding these articles and reading them is not a difficult task and there is a vast amount of knowledge out there just waiting to be discovered by you.

In closing I would just like to reiterate my point. The premise that increased C02 simply equals increased plant growth and it therefore a good thing is overly simplistic, and quite honestly dangerous and disingenuous. The planet Earth is comprised of a long list of ecozones and / or biotic communities. Each of these is in itself a system that functions because of the presence and function of each individual part. As I have mentioned the concept of scale linking and the interdependence and interconnection of each piece of a natural system. Well this is true on the micro as well as on the macro. Each system is the sum result of each of its parts and this truth moves upward across the scale as well leading to the entire Earth being the result of each of the biotic communities / ecozone being interdependent and interconnected pieces of the whole.

Some have said we will simply reach equilibrium but that too is willfully ignorant of the truth of the matter. Yes eventually equilibrium will be achieved but there is NO good reason for that to be a reassurance to humans. Our interventions in the natural world are quickly leading to catastrophic failure of our planetary system. Failure that will make this planet uninhabitable, by far more than just humans, for a long long time.

To quote Frank Zappa, "It won't blow up, or disappear, it will just look ugly for 1000 years".
originally posted here: original post

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Animal]



[edit on 10-6-2008 by Animal]

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Animal]

I'll give my view on why we have a localised warming phenomenon on the earth, but this is just a personal opinion, not science, so take it for what it's worth.

1) Deflorestation means there is less humidity being generated on landmasses and more desertification. Deserts produce more heat. Deflorestation is partly local population pressure, but a lot of it, and people should realise this by now, is corporate. I have talked to people from brazil, and they blame companies, not local populations. Nobody is hungry in brazil, the country produces food for everyone and then some, yet amazonia is still coming down. If this dosen't throw up a warning sign then I can't do better.

2) Our urban environments have the same effect as desertification, we basically create a desert everytime we build a house or pave a road, and it all adds up to more heat being put into the atmosphere instead of being used by plants in the natural fashion.

3) Natural events don't help, our climate is not megalithic and stable, it is a complex fractal phenomenon with cycles within cycles and its silly to expect that it will be the same at the end of ones lifetime as it was in the begining.

4) Pollution just adds to the problem of course, but people are not to blame, poor technological choices by corporations, who have more power than individuals, are the cause. Hydrogen, electricity would solve the pollution part in an instant.

5) If there is a global chemtrail phenomenon it is probably adding to warming, because by dimming the planet it will make it cooler which will reduce evaporation which will further reduce cloud cover, and turn our atmosphere into some sterile soup like brown heavy metal crap. As usual what we are sold is not what we get.

Yes, the problem is mostly us, but not quite the simplistic CO2 emission taxation con Gore is pushing for the global elites. If anything the elites of this planet caused this problem with the oil economy and above all with corporate deflorestation, especially in brazil and central africa. Ocean pollution might eventually have an impact too, if it has not already. However, if there are hydrogen and electric alternatives and conversion kits on the market I would be ok with taxation on fossil fuels to push change. But I do see that the plan is to tax us while suppressing alternatives and keep our standard of life down. However I think it will backfire on them this time.

And to add a more hopefull note: Wan't to have a good climate? Develop a relationship with plants, take care of them, plant them, water them, and get your friends to do so too. Keep them inside the house, plant trees on public land, not just a tent for a couple of days. Study them. You will be surprised what they will start giving back, if you choose the right ones. It's perfectly possible to turn an apartment into the healthiest of mini ecosystems and it's something I plan to do with my own home.

reply to post by melatonin


Wow! Awesome post and answers. I really appreciate your input and opinions.

Thanks!!

reply to post by Zepherian


Very much in accord with my own views

Whilst all the media attention has been on the impact of carbon emissions, there are many other ways in which human activity is causing climate change, producing an overall warming effect. These areas cannot be 'debunked' by the sceptics so they too tend to ignore them.

Fortunately, much of the current scientific research into climate change does concentrate on other impacts - from deforestation and albedo change to pollution and contrails

www.independent.co.uk...

www.sciencedaily.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.sciencedaily.com...

I have never yet seen from an AGW proponent, an adequate explanation for the roman warm period, and the medieval warm period, both of which were warmer than this alleged warm period we are allegedly in at the moment.

If the cause of the alleged current warming is due to humans and industrialisation, how are the previous warming periods explained?

During previous warm periods, there were vineyards in RUSSIA.

I still await an explanation after asking many times....

reply to post by budski


Budski, your questions are valid,but I am no sure, in fact I am highly doubtful that pointing out other warm periods in human history discredits the concept that what we are doing to our atmosphere today is one of the causes climate change.

Still I do think it is an incredibly valid example of how the Earth undergoes natural fluctuations on its own.

Whats more, you have sparked my interest and I would like to do some research on the topic to see what is known about these periods. Not that I necessarily need them, but do you happen to have dates for these periods?

Thanks for keeping it real.

Edit to ad:

reply to post by Zepherian


Zepherian, I really enjoyed your post and I agree, there is a lot that needs to be reevaluated in how humans operate to avoid causing large scale changes to our planet. In fact my decsion to study Landscape Architecture was largly driven by a desire to do just that.

Now in the design field we have practices such as LEED and now the SSI that help guide design and development down a path that helps 'harmonize' the built human environment with the natural.



[edit on 11-6-2008 by Animal]

Originally posted by budski
I have never yet seen from an AGW proponent, an adequate explanation for the roman warm period, and the medieval warm period, both of which were warmer than this alleged warm period we are allegedly in at the moment.

Well firstly, what evidence is there that such periods were global in extent But anyway, we all know that the global climate varies in accordance with milankovitch cycles and solar output. It was even warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. And somewhat colder during the Last Glacial Optimum.

However, there is no evidence of any change in orbital parameters in the past few decades nor of any increase in solar activity during the same period. There is however a vast amount of evidence for albedo change, cloud cover change, urbanisation, pollution, and other changes to the atmosphere - all of which should cause climate change.

reply to post by Essan


Essan, I was wondering if this period was around the same time as the volcano in the Mediterranean, I don't know the name of it, but it is / was part of the Island of Thera, also known as Santorini? Any clue?

Crap I just realized he is talking about multiple events...


[edit on 11-6-2008 by Animal]

reply to post by Animal


I'll give you one such period so that you may begin your research. The Maunder Minimum may or may not spark your interest.

Animal - just do a search with the names "Roman warm period" and "medieval warm period"

I had links from when I did it, but I've deleted them.

There's a host of information, but as usual, it takes a little time to sort the wheat from the chaff.

As well as those, it may be worth looking at the little ice age.

It has been suggested that it occurred at the far end of the medieval warm period, but I don't know about the reliability as I am writing this from memory.

Essan

There is no evidence that todays alleged warming is global in nature.

The term global warming is one of the more unfortunate mistakes and pieces of propaganda put forth by gore and his supporters.

And besides - it's now called Climate Change in order that it can cover a multitude of scenario's.

For those who are not sure Climate Change = Weather

So we've all got to be scared of the weather - and things like the jet stream which can have huge localised and global effects, much the same as el nino and la nina.

This really gets my goat, because it detracts from real environmental issues like pollution and deforestation - the things we SHOULD be doing something about.

[edit on 11/6/2008 by budski]