Global warming skeptics - put up or shut up. Where is evidence that global warming is not caused by humans?

Question

Bob asked a question today saying "Why do skeptics think a few scientists (who disagree with each other) and blogs more believeable than thousands of climatologists and EVERY major scientific organization?"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Au_U0eiaQmL_BmgSJ1mr.NYFxgt.;_ylv=3?qid=20080129124435AA4ekBW

And the deniers are going nuts. "You think anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed or lazy or not legitimate or unserious", "there is no consensus", "consensus doesn't prove anything", etc. etc.

So let's see you back up your position with some scientific evidence. The AGW theory explains the data very accurately, so what alternative theory is better?

If the current warming is caused mostly by the Sun, show me a scientific paper with that conclusion. Nobody could last time I asked.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgS2qOApqjAAlFJiUIa8Hyfty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080124124728AAqNR8n

If it's a natural cycle, show me a study concluding such, etc.

Answer 1

Um... the Ice Age that we are coming out of. Plus the temp has only risen .23 degrees in the last HUNDRED years. Get a life.

You are probably the same person who throws garbage out of the car window, so look at yourself and see what YOU can do so that we (who are "ruining the world") don't have to keep hearing about how bad WE are for the environment.

Also, so what if its getting hotter. There are children dying everyday in the Sudan because of child slavery and soldiery. Pick something to moan about that matters.

AND FOR GODS SAKE, quit moaning about the car I drive (side note: a single moose's farts cause more CO2 problems per year for the ozone than a single car, so buying that expensive hybrid was a mistake).

So, next time the temperature goes up .23 degrees in the room your sitting in, plug you nose because a moose just farted.

Answer 2

Lighten up. Convincing somebody to change their opinion is not the same as winning a debate. Think Gandhi and simply, calmly keep making your point. I changed my opinion about global warming but that was in spite of, not because of argumentative people.

Answer 3

Ok you got me...I did it.

Edit: Oh yeah by the way they gave me back the points that you reported. You know the one with the 100-300% margin of error.

Answer 4

I agree that Global Warming is probably caused by humans,

but your question is flawed.  That is like asking "where is the proof that big foot  doen't excist?".  It is up to you to the scietific comunity to prove that it is our fault.  

If the general populations and goverments want to just ignore science (like they so often do) when they finaly get their c**p together and declare this fact  then their is not much we can do about it.

Answer 5

If are so sure, why don't you do some research yourself.  

Records show that the earth has gone thru warming and cooling periods just during recorded history.  For example during the time of the Roman Empire, Europe was warmer.  There was the little Ice Age in the 1600's when the Thames River in England reguaarly froze during the winter.  These swings in temperature happened well before the industrial revolution created all this EVIL CO2.

There was just 400 prominent world scientists who put out a press realease with their conuntries of orgin, expertise and names stated.  These scientists voiced their opinion that "man made global warming." is not occuring.

The sun also goes thru cycles of activity.  We just finished a period in which the sun produced more energy than typical.  In fact, Mars has also warmed up during this same period.  I don't think we have exported CO2 to Mars have we?

Then there is the infamous graph called the "hockey stick graph" that showed how the earth was warming dramaitcally in the 90's.  The creator was reluctant to release the alogrithm he used to create the graph to a sceptic.  The creator had to realease the information by court order beacuse his "research" was paid for by the US taxpayer making it public property.  It turned out if one would put randomly generated numbers into the algorithm it would more often than not return an "hockey stick" graph.  Which means, that algorithm is faulty.  This graph was used in the UN report.

Finally, the UN body that voices their support of man made global warming is not made up of sceintists.  It is made up of government bureucrats with an agenda.

This information is from articles I have read recently.  If you have any real desire to test the "ironclad theory of man made global warming, and you are not afraid of being challenged do some checking on the internet yourself.  The Wall Street Journal has had many articles citing speicific scientific reprots disputing man made global warming.

Answer 6

You are tilting at windmills. Global warming "skeptics" can't be convinced because they already know that they are posting false information.

"A spokesman for the Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific academy, said: "At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change.

"They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day.

"We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous." "

Answer 7

What caused us to warm up before surly we did not why would it be our fault this time?

Answer 8

the main thing people bring up when they are talking about man cause global worming is that the sun goes in cycles (of sun spotes) what cause the earth to warm or cool, source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot).  Another main fact is that the earth does not have a constent orbet it has cycles also when it is more eliptical the temp is more extrem. source  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitc...

Answer 9

The Earth is flat ... the earth is flat.  No wait. But it is the center of the unuiverse..... ok well the science folks told me so

Answer 10

After perusing through the answers to your question,  I would agree with Karen Star and Lmurray and as they have already said all that I wanted to say it would be inappropriate to plagiarize their views on this question.

Answer 11

Look at all your answers. Essentially they can be broken down to a more simple form:

-Deny with already debunked evidence

-attack the asker

-lead me to the data because I am too lazy to do some real research for myself answer.

-demand that the person asking for evidence supplies evidence that opposed to what is being asked.

I'm sorry, but burden of proof is on the accuser, not the person requesting data. So you make a statement like..."GW is a Hoax", the burden of proof is on you.

-act like the possible absence of man made global warming justifies lack of accountability of humans to be good custodians of our only planet, clean up our act, and create more sustainable living methods and habits.

Unbelievable that these people consider themselves logical thinkers.

Answer 12

Let's see...

You can't prove that humans cause global warming, so you've resorted to insisting that others disprove it?

Answer 13

I think the best evidence against man-made GW is that other planets in our solar system (Mars, for example) have been warming at the same rate as the Earth.

Answer 14

As Carl Sagan once said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” The claim that humans are causing a climate change that will lead to cataclysmic global events and human extinction sounds pretty extraordinary to me.

I believe the burden of proof rests on you.

Answer 15

You have no evidence that says it is caused by humans. You have become a religious fanatic, i'm sorry

Answer 16

Dana I just gave you a break, but it turns out your bogus! You make this sound like a certainty! Your not a good scientist. You over exaggerate the truth. Your sites are either environmentalist sites, or they state right in them that these scientists aren't sure. That large discrepancies exist in their findings.You really need to be more honest when you do research! In fact maybe you are just pulling our leg, and your a writer of Gore speeches. Your very tricky and can't be trusted

Answer 17

Here read this article.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/...

Edit:  Typical responce.

Do not discuss the science.

Attack the man.

.

So in your words "put up or shut up" and answer his questions.

You wanted science, you got it.

Pre industrial levels of co2 is faulty.

According to weather balloons, troposphere has not heated up as much, as ground temperatures. Greenhouse warming should produce the opposite.

Sulphates can not explain global dimming starting in 1940 "This does not make overall sense

because such burning did not suddenly begin in 1940 or diminish in 1970.

Others point to volcanic activity, the dust ejections of which also cool the

troposphere by reflecting sunlight (Robock, 2000). The effect of an extremely

large eruption normally lasts 1–3 years, not 30 years."

etc. etc. etc.

Answer 18

I know the question isn't addressed to me, but what I've seen in the debate that seems troublesome is "it isn't conclusive that...."  The implication is that since one can not see a rise in the temperature every time a car engine turns over, then the car engine does not have an effect.

I can not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt IN ADVANCE that staying out all night naked in a blizzard will result in my death, but I do not intend to test my ability to stand the local climate variations without a good coat, just in case.

It's a problem of both perspective and measurement.  IF the effect is delayed it is more difficult to "prove" the relationship, but not always impossible.   Sometimes the proof is simply DELAYED.

The problem here is that people who feel threatened somehow become recalcitrant.  Whether  the perceived "threat"  is because of a lifestyle they feel is under fire, the politicization of the debate with Al Gore's very public efforts to promote awareness, actual financial interests in the status quo or simply an "us vs. them" mentality is impossible for me to decipher.  The argument becomes so shrill that reason gets tossed.

From my view, what difference does it make if AGW turns out to be wrong?  How is reducing, reusing, and recycling going to hurt me?  How will it hurt my neighbors?  How will reducing the dependence on foreign oil and the funding to foreign powers, both friendly and unfriendly, going to hurt me or my community?  How will stopping the flow of funds to unfriendlies hurt the nation?

I just don't get the rancor.

Answer 19

So why did the last Ice Age end?  Did the mammoths f**t too much, causing a greenhouse effect that got the ball rolling?

You can shove all the nice articles you want around and proclaim them as the truth, but until they can definitively predict what will happen in the future, which I'm pretty sure they don't, they're just nice things to show to your friends to impress them.

Answer 20

Dana, I'm not jumping to any conclusions but I did find this scientific paper with a conclusion that climate variations are due to solar activity.  This is the type of paper I hope you were asking for.  

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/l...

I also found this image which unfortunately is form Wikipedia.  Trust it if you can.  

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:...

Basically it shows that the number of sun spots has increased and decreased in correlation with other temperature measurements.  One major one is the near zero number of sun spots during the "little Ice age"  then the number of sun spots rises as well as the temperature.  This I do not think is a coincidence.

Now, do I think that this is proven fact?  No, but it is definitely another viable theory.

Additional Comment:

Dana you're saying it is not okay for sun-spot data to diverge from temperature data but it is okay for CO2 emission data to diverge from temperature data?  

Check out this link and look at the average global temperature data for the past century.  Then take a look at the CO2 emissions.  You'll notice a steady temperature throughout the globe during the 1940's to '70's.  The Northern Hemisphere's temperature even fell throughout this time.  WHAT CREATED THIS?  If we stick to your theory and your assumption that either sun spots or CO2 emissions must always "align" on a graph then you would expect a decrease in CO2 emissions or at least a steady output to maintain the steady temperatures of the 1940's through '70's.  Not the case; in another graph, you can see an INCREASE in CO2 emissions.  That means that CO2 diverged from temperature in the graph just like you said sun spots diverged.  So your point proves nothing against solar caused "Global Warming."  In-fact, it may poke an "inconvenient hole" in the AGW theory.  

http://processtrends.com/pg_global_warmi...

Another Update:  

WOW!!!!!  CO2 did indeed diverge from the average global temperature because it's concentration levels were climbing at the same steady rate as before.  BUT the average temperature did not climb for THREE entire decades.  You say that aerosols were the cause of this stable temperature of the 1940's through 70's?  Let us assume that is the cause.  We should then expect more aerosol output as the world industrializes.  Makes sense right?  The more people, the more burning of fuel and more smoke, dust, and sulfates.  This would indeed reflect more sunlight  and thus make the world a cooler place.  But wouldn't the world cool more as we produced greater amounts of aerosols?  Then what caused the Earth to warm back up after the '70's?  Did CO2 suddenly become more effective and somehow overpower aerosols?  You can see that you can't have it both ways.  Humans, even though increasing both aerosol and CO2 concentrations, seem to have cooled the planet during the '40's but then warmed it back up after the '70's.  THIS IS COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL!!!!  

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Aerosols.h...

The only constant on Earth is Humans, we output at a steady rate.  So you should expect a steady change in climate if we're the primary influence.  As you can see, climate is anything but steady with or without humans.  The main driver of climate, the sun, isn't even as steady as people think.  So logically an unsteady regulator will yield an unsteady climate.  

Lastly, you shouldn't look at one hundred years of data and then think you know "the big picture" of climate.  I know you hear this argument a lot but I ask you to listen to it this time.  How can we possibly know what the Earth is going to do if we've only been around for a split second of it's aged history?  

All of the theories put forth on climate are inconclusive. We don't know enough to base entire economies on policies only proven to do one thing, destroy the human economic and social structure as we know it.  That, sir is a known outcome no matter which path of action we choose.  

It makes more sense that natural factors known and unknown have more to do with climate than anything humans can do.  So you can spend you entire life thinking you can compete with the sun.  You can try to change the climate back to "normal" whatever that is.  Or you can worry about real PROVEN environmental threats like mercury contamination or toxic waste spills.

Personally, I think we should fix proven threats and problems.  Dealing with those WILL have an absolutely positive outcome.

Answer 21

The real problem is we are taking the measurements and then making up models of what is going to happen. The evidence is not out there, just the readings. But we are the ones that made some of the problems and like cleaning up Lake Michigan, we have to clean up the atmosphere. We do not have a choice but to make electricity from solar, wind Geo thermal, small hydro-electric, wave-and use it to make cars, trains and our stuff run.

Today here is what we know:  many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more destruction.  Blacktop (roads and parking lots), buildings, air pollution (causes lung and other diseases), deforestation, duststorms (which increase hurricanes and cyclones and cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's), solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels) are human problems we need to fix to keep life on earth sustainable! The federal government needs to adopt a pollution surcharge to balance the field and advance new technologies. We must pay the real price of oil (petrochemicals) including global warming, cleanup and for health effects. But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with little evidence! The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes. But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and they form clouds cooling earth but causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). But humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain forest, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms. The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and has not even started).

President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected.

That is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface.

Answer 22

"yes dana, you are bad. ergo. global warming is wrong."

you have to love this creative logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

i would just like to remind those that have already posted that ice ages are mainly due to cycles in the orbit of the earth and that currently they do not explain why the earth is warming.

Answer 23

You still don't get it do you.  The burden of proof for any scientific theory is on the proponents of the theory.  It is not up to the skeptics to disprove a theory.  This is not how science works.  Politics, yes, science no.  Are you and Bob scientists or politicians?