I'm writing a paper on how Global Warming isnt humans fault.?

Question

i need sources proving that but also the counter argument. that humans are the cause. any help?

Answer 1

Admiral Weasel,

Contrary to the posters who claim deniers are bigots and believers in intelligent design, the Global Warming Alarmists are the one who are attempting to establish a religion.

The fact remains of some simple truths, global climate changes, it has done so for 4.6 billion years.As a life long geo-sciences student (Geology is the 1st true science). The fossil record shows a LOT of variation,  From a lava ball, to a snowball then moderations in temperature varying from warm, hot to cold, the late Holocene 10000-5000 Years ago was substantially warmer then now.

Solar cycles are not static, nor is the earth orbit a perfect cycle, the earth wobbles on it's axis, and rotational axes, change along with climate. Anthropomorphic influence is minimal. The crux of the supposed argument by the alarmists is specific to rising atmospheric CO2 levels will cause a global catastrophy, and supposely IF we reduce emissions of this "gas" we reduce the potential impact of the anthro-caused warming. The content of atmospheric CO2 is in levels less then 1% of the total atmosphere.

So the Marxists are pushing Biofuels, and deliberately or inadvertently are creating a situation where the use biofuels have caused food prices to rise substantially since the year 2000, THIS FACT is documented.



There are a lot of well researched sources on the net for researching the "subject" of the anthropomorphic  lies being perpetrating on society to the level of mass hysteria.

Junkscience.com has a great deal of reference links,

http://www.junkscience.com/

Steve Milloy's articles can all be found here:

http://junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/

Heartland Institute is a very good site for intelligent discussions about the topic of common sense environmental responses. Not a hysterical sight.

http://www.heartland.org/

OISM has a list of 19000 petitition signatures

calling for open debate and research..

Their statement on the top of the petition declares

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

If I were doing a paper I would look at the political tieds and affiliations these green fascists have to ideological / political organizations, and create and expose' Most of the people who have began inhabiting the environmental groups that were born out of concerns for pollution have now become political actions groups pushing a Marxist world view.

Pure and Simple - Follow the money.(or political control)

http://www.csrwatch.com/index.htm

Answer 2

Here's a list of peer reviewed articles of several possible reason for the current global warming trend(though the temperatures have been stables since 1998....)

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/200...

Best of luck on your paper, the global warming religion is a tough nut to crack.  

I consider it easier to convince a jesus freak that God doesn't exist than it is to an AGW believer to consider that it *gasp* may not be our fault that climates change.

Here's a link that specifically deals with carbon dioxide http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...

Answer 3

It should be easy to prove your point when you look at the facts.

The current period of global  temperature increase began approximately 15,000 years ago with a sudden rise in temperature around 8,000 years ago which is thought to have been the cause of the extinction of the Great Mammoth.

Earth's temperatures have(in general) been slowly increasing up until 8 or so years ago, there seems to be some discrepancy as to whether those temperatures have just stopped increasing for the time being, or have actually shown a slight decline.

During the last decade the population has increased, and the consumption of fossil fuels has increased.

If man were responsible for any increase in temperature, should that not show in the figures?

If anyone could show any scientific proof that there is a so-called 'Greenhouse Gas' with proper experiments to back up that claim, then you would have your counter argument that you need.

I'm sorry that I can not supply you with that information since it appears to me that it does not exist, except in the world of 'academia land'.

The fact that increased levels of CO2 have always happened after previous periods of global temperature increases and never preceded those periods of time, also is something worth considering.

I could go on, but I will just leave you with a very interesting link which explains a lot of what I have been suspecting for years now.

http://www.climatescienceinternational.o...

There is about a 10 minute radio interview which is worth listening to on that site also which explains how the scientists are now beginning to fight back and what the censorship is all about.

Please just listen to it if you can.

http://www.nzclimatescience.org/images/a...

Good luck with your report.

Answer 4

It's easy to see which side of this debate is reasoning and which is only interested in attacking. Like anything, this can be argued either way if you have a brain and name-calling and disinformation won't help.

It's a demonstrable fact that in laboratory conditions adding CO2 will block a certain amount of infrared radiation. In the real world that effect is tenuous at best, there are a lot of factors that don't exist in a lab setting. For one thing, it's clear that generally, CO2 rises after the temp increases, because the oceans store vast amounts of CO2 and as they warm they tend to release some of it. No doubt the CO2 in the atmosphere does cause some warming but it's not clear even to the IPCC how much of a problem this is.

Contrary to what JS says, sea levels can't possibly rise as he indicates unless Greenland and Antarctica suffer massive amounts of melting. Thus far sea levels are not rising any faster than they have been over the last few thousand years.

The IPCC has chosen to act as if the sun is only a weak source of warming which requires ignoring the fact that solar output has been at much higher than average levels for the past few decades. Now that the new cycle is almost totally absent, we may well begin to see dramatic cooling, as the Earth experienced during the Little Ice Age. The Maunder Minimum had very few sunspots and it was the coldest part of that period. The exact mechanism for this effect isn't as important as the fact that it fits observed warming far better than CO2 levels. This despite continual tweaking of the numbers by the IPCC and NASA GISS. Hopefully we won't get that cold or many millions of people will die, far more than any result from global warming but we did just finish a very cold year worldwide.

The only melting taking place in Antarctica is in a small area that is subject to underground volcanic heating. The majority of the continent is getting colder and the ice sheet are getting thicker.

If you look at the IPCC reports it's like watching a magician struggling to perform an act. There is subterfuge in the form of their continuing to use the Mann "hockey stick" chart that managed to delete the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age to prove it's now hotter than it has been for thousands of years. They use smoke and mirrors by having the summaries (the only part most people including the media ever read) written by politicians and their representatives, not by the scientists. They set an arbitrary cut-off date for all research to be included in the 2007 report, I think it was May of 2005. This prevented much of the newer research that would seem to undermine Anthropogenic Global Warming or it's dire predictions from being considered for the reports. A few of their former leading lights have now left and are now calling for the IPCC to be disbanded completely.

The Earth has many cycles, most of which are too complex for us to understand yet. The Sun is complex as well, it's interaction with Jupiter may be part of the sunspot cycle but even after centuries of study we're not sure. We thought we understood the carbon cycle of trees but it turns out they might be even worse for global warming than cars since they emit methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. And your car emits pollutants (aerosols) that cause dimming which has a cooling effect. The more you pollute evidently, the better, which is absurd but now seems to be true.

Before we invest trillions of dollars in fighting global warming it might be wise to be sure we're not headed into a major cooling phase or that there is actually a problem with the Earth getting warmer. The last two times it happened, the Roman Warm period and the Medieval Warm Period, humans flourished and harvests were so great that population increased dramatically. Since we've been recovering from the Little Ice Age since it ended in 1850, it's only natural that it's been getting warmer, but it's foolish to say that's a bad thing on it's own or that it's now hotter than it has been in a million years (James Hansen at NASA GISS).

There are some links below, you won't find many even-handed reports since the debate is far from over and it's getting more contentious every week. You need to read both sides and reach your own conclusion since the fact that someone has a PhD and you don't doesn't mean he's never wrong or that he knows as much as he thinks he does. Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, even Hawking were all rejected by the "consensus" of mainstream science at some point, which shows how little any consensus means sometimes.

Oddly enough, none of this changes the fact that we do need to develop alternative energy sources and stop burning fossil fuels. But there is no need to terrify schoolchildren with Al Gore's movie to accomplish that or to manipulate the data to try to make it fit a theory that is coming apart at the seams.

Answer 5

Environmentalist groups make up stories, but letting a forest of dead trees rott instead of harversting is not good for clean water creeks. rotten wood water is not good for anything. rotting trees does not help global warming at all

Answer 6

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...

Answer 7

Let me know when you find a dinosaur or caveman with an SUV.  Earth has been through several ice ages so its probably the only good way to prove we caused all that warming.

Answer 8

Here's an easy one for you: You can order the entire DVD if you want, but the YouTube site has most of the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" divided into 8 parts (I think). Just use the link included and use the sources listed therein to write what you need to argue.

Very informative (notice I didn't say 'definitive', but it does cast serious doubt on the notion of the THEORY of Global Warming) for you to use.

Hope it helps, brotha!

Just for the sake of adding some entertainment to this discussion, I HIGHLY recommend reading Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" (Same guy who wrote, Jurassic Park and created ER) Oddly enough, ER is on NBC which is one of the biggest liars about global warming and one of the major alarmist groups out there. The reason is because NBC, up until recently was owned by General Electric which has invested BILLIONS of dollars into what are called CO2 tax credits. They're basically worthless unless you can stir up people into believing that the Earth is in imminent danger and that 'alternative energy' is the most rational reasonable solution. Then, the credits' values go up and GE dumps them into the market, reaping BILLIONS more in revenue.

AND FOR THE SAKE OF J S, WHO CLEARLY WANTS TO MAKE THIS FORUM SOME SORT OF RELIGIOUS PEDESTAL, I WOULD COME TO THE DEFENSE OF JAZZFAN AND GIVE J S JUST TWO WORDS. (TO WHICH NO ALARMIST WILL EVER APPROACH, THEY CANNOT ANSWER FOR THEM):

VANUTU LAWSUIT...

For those of you intrigued, look it up, research it and you will understand the lies behind MAN-MADE global warming.

Answer 9

You will need all the help you can get

Humans have been messing with this planet ,for centuries

but nothing like in the last 100 years

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 10

Bigots?

Answer 11

It's either going to be short paper, or one full of faith-based arguments unsupported by science, since the current measured global warming trend is caused by us.

Warming is accellerating with emissions (and mankind's contribution to global carbon levels is easily measured through carbon isotopes), and the current rate of warming is far higher than past natural warmings, illustrating today's disconnect from past natural warmings.

It was determined last year that Greenland is melting much faster than scientists (including last year's IPCC report) predicted:

"Instead of sea levels rising by about 40 centimetres, as the IPCC predicts in one of its computer forecasts, the true rise might be as great as several metres by 2100. That is why, they say, planet Earth today is in 'imminent peril.'"

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserve...

"Ground-based surface temperature data shows that the rate of warming in the Arctic from 1981 to 2001 is eight times larger than the rate of Arctic warming over the last 100 years. There have also been some remarkable seasonal changes. Arctic spring, summer, and autumn have each warmed, lengthening the seasons when sea ice melts from 10 to 17 days per decade."

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/eart...

New Research Confirms Antarctic Thaw Fears - Spiegel Online

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk...

"...the Pine Island Glacier has shrunk by an average of 3.8 centimeters annually over the past 4,700 years. But the Smith and Pope glaciers have only lost 2.3 centimeters of their thickness annually during the past 14,500 years. Satellite measurements taken between 1992 and 1996, though, show a loss of 1.6 meters in thickness per year on the Pine Island Glacier -- a figure that represents 42 times the average melt of the past 4,700 years."

edit -

Do you understand the meaning of bigot?  Look it up.

For a long list of disproven alternate theories offered by the lobbyists who are paid by the oil industry to delay our understanding and response to global warming, here is a detailed list of the denial myths that have been debunked:

http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2...

jazzfan -

You really aren't interested in educating yourself, are you?  Why ignore the scientific links I offered supporting sea level rise?  Why do you also fail to provide offer no support for your claims?  

Here's more:

"Global averaged sea level continued to rise through 2006 and 2007. Modern satellite measurements reveal that since 1993, sea-level has been rising at an average rate of about 3 mm per year, substantially faster than the average for the 20th century of about 1.7 mm per year, estimated from coastal sea-level measurements. These coastal measurements indicate that the 2006/2007 global averaged sea level is about 200 mm higher than in 1870 and that since 1870 there has been a significant increase in the rate of the sea-level rise."

http://wcrp.wmo.int/documents/WCRPnews_2...

"A one-meter sea level rise would wreak particular havoc on the Gulf Coast and eastern seaboard of the United States.

'No one will be free from this,' said Overpeck, whose maps show that every U.S. East Coast city from Boston to Miami would be swamped."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

Evidence that this rate of seal level rise can happen, since it has happened in the past:

Rohling and his colleagues found an average sea level rise of 1.6m (64in) each century during the interglacial period.

Back then, Greenland was 3C to 5C (5.4F to 9F) warmer than now - which is similar to the warming period expected in the next 50 to 100 years, Dr Rohling said.

Current models of ice sheet activity do not predict rates of change this large. However, they also do not include many of the dynamic processes already being observed by glaciologists, the researchers said.

"The average rise of 1.6m per century that we find is roughly twice as high as the maximum estimates in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, and so offers the first potential constraint on the dynamic ice sheet component that was not included in the headline IPCC values," explained Dr Rohling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...

If sea levels weren't rising or if the rate weren't accelerating, many skeptical scientists would have clearly documented that by now.  Yet again, the people in denial are clearly proven to be grossly mistaken in their beliefs, which are unsupported by credible (peer-reviewed) science.

Answer 12

Admiral check out the following link:

It was a program made by the BBC.

Answer 13

If you carefully make sure that the info you use from skeptics hasn't already been disproven or demolished by later studies you should end up with a very short paper.

Answer 14

I can't give you a valid source for your argument, but you could try googling the theory of creationism to see if there are any links or discussions about global warming.  It's usually the same people who don't believe in global warming and evolution.

I'm sure you'll have no problem finding the counter argument, because it's well established in the scientific world that humans are the cause of global warming.   Have you considered making your paper on the opposite hypothesis?  It would be a better paper and easier to find sources for.

Answer 15

It might be worth considering in your paper that whatever the cause of global warming is, it is generally agreed to be happening. One significant question is can changes to human activity do anything to ameliorate the expected results of warming whatever it's cause.