Can anybody refute this statement about the problem known as "Global Warming"?

Question

Nobody says AGW means humans are the sole cause of complex GW trends:but, our carbon-based energy consumptions have deinitely reached the point of affecting the thermal characteristics of the atmosphere in ways that are adverse to the diversity of life, & possibly human life, on the only planet that we know can sustain life(us included). Pls be specific in your refutation so we understand which parts you refute!

Answer 1

You have only one correct point in your diatribe. That is that we have increased CO2 levels (and there is some debate on this, but I will let you have this).

There is no evidence that our contributions have effected temps in a measurable way. There is also no evidence that the effects would be adverse to the majority of life on the planet. I would go so far as to say a majority of life would benefit.

Sorry, you did have 2 correct points. This is the only planet we know we live on.

Your points are very general and have no evidence to back up your statements.

There is currently no evidence that man has made any significant contribution to climate change.

Some interesting facts.

1. During most of the past 2,000 years, the temp has been about the same or higher. Currently, we are barely over the average for the last 2,000 years.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index....

2. During the medieval warm period (820 – 1040 AD), Greenland supported farming. Those areas previously farmed are now covered in glaciers. Obviously the melting and reformation of glaciers is a cyclical occurrence.

3. The earth experienced a little ice age which ended around the late 1860's or so. This is about the time man started recording temperatures. This would be like measuring a lake depth after a severe drought, then worrying about it flooding as it rose to normal levels.

4. The earth has been warming for the last 18,000 years, since the last major glacier time period. During this time frame, the glaciers have been melting at a fairly consistent rate. Also, for most of the last 1 billion years, the earth had NO glaciers or ice coverage.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/i...

5. The AGW theory states that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature. They arrived at this idea because they did not know of anything else which could cause it. But during the 70's and during the current decade, temperatures dropped while CO2 continued to rise. This means that natural occurrences are driving temp, not CO2.

6. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and sun spots provides a much better correlation to earths' temperature than CO2 levels ever have.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...

http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunspo...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_r...

7. Polar Bears are experiencing a population boom. Coke sales in the arctics are through the roof. Polar Bears have been around for thousands of years, and remember, we are only at the average for the last 2,000 years. They lived through all the previously warmer climates.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/...

8. Many glaciers are expanding. Even Antarctica is growing on 98% of is land mass. Only 2% is melting.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1...

9. There is no consensus on AGW. This was a lie that has been propagated by the media.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...

10. Yes we emit CO2 into the atmosphere and it is a greenhouse gas, but, we only contribute about .28% of all the greenhouse effect. Water vapor makes up about 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases round out the greenhouse gases at about 5% for all of them. Of that 5%, only 3% is CO2, and most of that is natural. Again, our contribution to the greenhouse effect is a paltry .28%

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenh...

11. The spread of disease is not attributed mainly to temperature. If this were the case, Florida would be a giant festering disease ridden cesspool. Economic standing is the primary determining factor in the spread of disease. Poor cultures can not fight the disease or eradicate the pests like more successful nations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12077886...

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.h...

12. Natural climate disasters (hurricanes, cyclones, etc) have never been scientifically linked to global warming (whether natural or man made).

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?i...

Answer 2

Problem with your question in all phases is that it assumes something that even the climate change promoters have finally admitted is false. Even Hanson and Gore have admitted publicly that we are entering a 20 to 50 year cool period that commenced in 1998. So it could be 2018 or 2048 before things start warming up again. Better check out the latest news because you just might want to invest in some snowshoes instead of a swimming pool!

Answer 3

Your question starts off right. "nobody says humans are the sole cause.............", but the rest of your statement says that our actions are  going to kill us all.

I refute this statement by observing earths meteorological history.

We started as a molten ball of fire, went through several ice ages.  Volcanoes, other geothermal activity, meteors and forest fires have been releasing c**p into the atmosphere for Billions of years before man was here. (10,000 yrs  ago?)

I'll put my money on mother nature as the cause of mans demise. In the meantime stop polluting my air and water with your excessive use of fuel and chemicals.

Answer 4

When you say this:

"carbon-based energy consumptions have deinitely reached the point of affecting the thermal characteristics of the atmosphere..."

it's not a question, it's a statement.  Can you support it with some facts?  This is what Al Gore, his scientists, lobbyists and their leftist supporters have been saying for years.  But all without adequate evidence to show that it's real.  Heck, people have been saying the same kinds of things about UFO's, bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster and asking us to believe them.  All we want is some acceptable evidence that is convincing enough for us to change our minds!  

So I refute the statement, as you asked.  It's unbelievable.

Answer 5

The statement assumes---

1. That something is affecting the temperatures-- maybe humans -- or maybe other things? So it says that GW advocates may be on the wrong track.

2. It also assumes DIRE consequences for the planet-- none of which has yet been seen-- only projected "modeled" problems.

3. It assumes that CO2 atmospheric concentration has a direct affect (and LINEAR affect) on temperatures.

Other than that I guess it is OK.

Answer 6

I will refute: “our carbon-based energy consumptions have deinitely reached the point of affecting the thermal characteristics of the atmosphere in ways that are adverse to the diversity of life, & possibly human life”

There is no evidence that a warming atmosphere will adversely affect the bio-diversity of life on Earth, and specifically no evidence that it is right now.  The most bio-diverse region on the surface of the earth is between the tropics, with the least bio-diverse region being the polar regions.  Global warming theory holds that the polar regions will warm faster than equatorial regions, which should in fact increase the bio-diversity on Earth, not reduce it.

Further, Al Gore’s claim that species extinctions are happening at 1000 times the natural background rate is simply made up.  We do not, and cannot know what the “natural background rate” is, much less calculate what the current rate of extinctions is.  To know what the extinction rate is, we must know how many species there are, how many are becoming extinct, and how many are evolving.  We do not have the answer to any of those questions, only guesses.