If global warming 'skeptics' have science on their side, why do they keep claiming global warming has stopped?

Question

Virtually every global warming 'skeptic' on YA continually claims that global warming has stopped. They rarely provide any evidence from this claim, unless they're linking a data table of the lower 48 USA and saying "trust me, this shows global warming has stopped."

Global warming 'skeptics' also claim the science is on their side. If that's the case, then why can't they support their claim that global warming has stopped? Why can they never dispute these statistical analyses that prove the planet continues to warm?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1998.jpg

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1975.jpg

'Skeptics' - now is your chance to prove science is on your side. Either prove global warming has stopped or admit that it hasn't.

If skeptics cannot meet these simple challenges, how can we be expected to take them seriously?

Answer 1

i got bored of repeating myself  ages ago

Answer 2

Even Bush admitted that global warming is real and that it is serious.  He said this the other day on politico.com.  I'm sure the 'flat-earth people' have conveniently ignored that statement.

Answer 3

hmm to much work. Id sayy like u say leave it to scientist to figure this out.

Answer 4

Hey if it pays the rent

Answer 5

You haven't proven global warming other than the natural warming that has occurred sense the last ice age. The good part about my view is that I don’t have to prove it. You have to prove your view and you can't. You only have consensus of a few scientists (paid for). Consensus means you can’t prove it. It’s just a theory, and a weak one without proper intellectual honesty behind it.

It's not that science is on our side..............

It's that the scientific thought process is not on your side. Consensus of a few scientists means nothing if they have not followed the scientific thought process. Its just a bunch of unemployed guys looking for a hand-out from AlGore Inc.

Answer 6

Global Warming Is Nature... Not US

The following was a 30 minute speech I delivered for school

DON'T BE AFRAID TO EMAIL ME AT [e-mail]

The following was a 30 minute speech I delivered for school

DON'T BE AFRAID TO EMAIL ME AT [e-mail]

I.  For a long time people have been looking through glasses that have foggy lenses of deception regarding global warming.  In the next couple of minutes I intend to show you a more accurate eye chart and update your prescription.

A.  Reasons for listening to my speech are very simple.  One of the main reasons is that Global Warming is nothing to waste your time on.  If it so important to the environment, then we would have done something for it by now.  Another reason that you should listen is that this could be a life changing speech that greatly effects every moment of your life from here on out.

I am 100% accurate in reporting my information.  I have done the research necessary to ensure that you are getting nothing but hard core facts.  For the past several weeks of my life has been dedicated to finding out information for my speech topic.  Nobody knows as much credible information on this topic as I do.

C. My point for this speech is to try and persuade you to see the light at the end of the dirty tunnel of humanities’ lies.

II.  Global Warming is the most debatable topic that was probably ever around.  You need to know this information.  If you don’t educate yourself properly on this topic you will live the rest of your life in fear of something that doesn’t exist.

A.  Global Warming is a natural cycle.  Everything about it is natural.  Carbon dioxide levels vary throughout time.  Humans can make little or no impact on the environment.

1.  Take a look at this chart taken from an online internet poll.  What do you notice from this?  There is a close tie between adults that believe in Global Warming and some that don’t.  As you can see the charts are pretty close.  There is about one person who doesn’t believe in Global Warming to two people who do.  This means that only 60% of the world believes in global warming.  My goal by the end of this speech is to have the 60% be persuaded that they are not believing in the accurate thing.  With the following facts, I am 100% sure that this goal is possible and will be achieved.

2.  Al Gore stated this quote in his movie “…The 10 hottest years ever recorded were within 15 years of today.”  Now this point is valid and true, but we have not been measuring the temperature or anything since the early nineteen hundreds.  Can we go down and see how the polar ice caps were doing in the early 1800’s?  We can not do that  because temperature was not recorded.  You may say that they guessed using carbon dioxide levels,  but whose to say that they are right?  I heard that scientific measures were not always accurate because they took a hundred year old log and did some carbon 14 testing on it.  Scientists thought that it was thousands of years old.  It was later proved to be younger after more tests were ran.  Whose to say that our method of discovering weather is right?   We have been measuring temperature for only a short period of time.  Earth right now is in a heating process.  Thousands of years ago we were cooling which is when we had an Ice Age.  Now we are doing the opposite and are starting to warm up before cooling again. Look at this political cartoon.  What is one thing that you notice?  I notice it being freezing then gradually getting warmer. As my next point is about to prove, we have no effect on the environment no matter what we do.

3.  In 1990 a volcano in the Philippines erupted violently.  It was by far one of the biggest explosions of the century.  We all have read about how volcanoes let off carbon dioxide, but did you know this… When the volcano erupted, it put more carbon dioxide in the air than all of humanity has ever produced…. More than humans have made since the creation of time.  All in just a matter of hours. Look at this picture.  See all of this carbon dioxide being put into the air?  While, with all of this there was no temperature increase or decrease at all… just some carbon dioxide level changes, but nothing major.  If volcanoes put off this much carbon dioxide with no effect, then how could we be doing this?  When all this happened, then how could you be persuaded that humans who produce fractions of that amount could impact the environment in fractions of the time.  Humans if we tried could not severely impact the environment.  It is just too big.  Even if we are letting some off, plants and other natural recyclers of Carbon Dioxide are just transforming them to oxygen.

4.  During World War II,  we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan.  We spilled tons of harmful green house gasses into mother nature.  This includes  radiation, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide.  After all of that happened, again there was no effect to the environment that was found.  Hiroshima has been having radiation problems still, but there is no significant temperature problem.  Nothing humans do can severely change our environment.  We only occupy about 50% of the globe.  The other 50% is the ocean, ice caps, and land that is not suitable for humans.  How could two nuclear bombs not have an impact on the environment, but changing a light bulb in your house to fluorescent can save the environment?  It is just impossible that we could have an impact.    

5.  Another point is that if you look in your text book, I promise you that you will find these words… “When Washington was marching his troops, it was bitterly cold outside”  Bitterly cold means freezing.  I know that they didn’t have supplies but Virginia in the summer (which is when they fought) is warm.  As you can see by these charts, it was 106 degrees outside in the summer.  This is without humidity too.  Now when we look at this chart it shows us that the battle was fought in Yorktown.  There isn‘t much of a distance between Yorktown and Richmond, were this was recorded.  How was it bitterly cold a few hundred years ago when now it is normal?  The conclusion is that it is a natural cycle.  The cycle changes every several hundred years.  It was cold then, and now it is slowly warming up.  We have nothing to do with it.  This is perfectly natural for our environment to do.  We would like to believe that humans are the dominate species.  Have we ever thought to wonder if what we believe in is caused by nature?

6.  One of the most important factual information is still on our planet.  Greenland is one of the most misunderstood places around.  People like to believe that the reason that it got it’s name is because the settlers didn’t want people to move there so they called an icy land Greenland so that settlers would move their instead of Iceland were it really was green..  After I saw a show on the discovery channel,  I concluded that it was actually green.  When the first settlers went there,  they dined on grapes and cows.  I don’t think that I am mistaken, but how could a cow live on an icy land with nobody to feed it.  Grapes grow in warm environments which is not ice.  Greenland fits that exact description.  Also as you can see on this picture, there is still some green left in it.  All of it was green once, which proves that it once was green and now it is ice because of the natural cycle, it is starting to freeze.  Now Greenland is melting to start the process all over again.  In a few hundred years, Greenland will begin to freeze.

NOTE TO READER: FOR POINT 67-8 IT MAKES NO SENCE UNLESS POWERPOINT IS VISIBLE… THANKS!

7.  Ok…  Phoenix is known as a hot dry desert place.  You think that it keeps getting hotter and hotter here each summer.  Take a look at this display on the screens.  As you can see,  during the day the sun is radiating energy to a large city… lets call it Phoenix.  It does this all day until the sun starts to go down.  As you can see now,  the buildings are built up with radiation while the desert area barely got any radiation build up.  Now it is night and as you can see the buildings are radiating heat forming a heat bubble.  Now in Phoenix at night it is around 95 degrees.  That is because of the buildings radiating.  We are made of concrete and steel so we absorb heat.  Take a look over at the desert.  See how the temperature there is lower?  This is because it is not trapped in the heat bubble of radiation.

8.Many people relate global warming with long citywide droughts.  Like in Phoenix, we are in a drought.  There are many reasons why this is not caused by us. Have you ever watched the news and heard the following phrase “… and people of Chandler are getting pelted by rain, many individuals are putting up sand bags to protect their homes…?”  What this is saying is that small little cities are getting poured on.  Look at the power point and see why,  The big glob in the center is called Phoenix, Glendale, and Peoria.  Ok now imagine that we are in the middle of a storm.  The red indicates heavy rain and the yellow indicates moderate rain.  As you can see from this animation that I made,  the storm is going around Phoenix.  We are a giant blob and the storm is just simply avoiding us.  Smaller cities like Chandler and Mesa are being pelted by this continuous down pour.  So in smaller cities they may say, “We got rained on the most we ever have” and the airport were they measure the amount of rain says there were only a few drops of rain.  This proves that we did not cause the drought by carbon dioxide, but we did it by industrializing.  

9.  Global Warming is also just a political trap.  Who are the only ones who want to try and do something about global warming besides tree huggers?  Politicians do.  When somebody is running for office this makes a better point, I am going to save the world!  Who  

Answer 7

Apparently Global Warming isn't true at all. Infact, the earth is actually growing, this explains the fact that the landmasses of earth have expanded and "ripped apart"

heres the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICo...

Answer 8

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly _time_series/rss_monthly_msu_ amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_  land_and_ocean_v03_1.txt

(copy and paste and get rid of the spaces)

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2l...

You can do the analysis yourself. 0 trend since 98 and negative trend since 2001.

I don't remember "continually" claiming that global warming has stopped. I don't even remember the last time I made that claim. What I have claimed is that surface temperatures aren't the best metric of *global* warming--SSTs are better. And we all know what is happening with sea surface temperatures.

Answer 9

well i think that they pay scientist a lot of money to study global warming.

and if your paying money, i'm going to keep telling you it's real so that it can keep going on.

i think changes in in climate are normal.

Answer 10

You cannot even provide details that global warming is even happening

Answer 11

By 2010 something up in The Swiss Alps is going to melt a glacier so the answer to this is you are right.

There is also something those who complain about gas prices could consider a Non Proliferation Agreement on Oil Based Cars. If Global Warming does not grab you then how about it is good from a security point of view. No carbombs. Also  no road accidents. No car bombs anywhere in the world at least in oil powered cars or at least the potential goes down.

Answer 12

Being a 'skeptic' means being wary of something.  I don't support global warming, but I'm no skeptic.  I'm educated.

The whole idea behind this great hoax is to stop people from using fossil fuels.  This can be done by scaring people into believing that their use of fossil fuels is causing immediate, severe and permanent damage.  Because if it was true, really, who wouldn't want to react?  Anybody would.

The false science upon which global warming is based is beginning to show some very severe cracks.  Under scrutiny of how this theory came to be are several factors.  I could go into detail but won't, except to say that for the most part the main problem with the whole thing since the beginning has been honesty.  It's turning out that the deception of global warming, because of it's cost to global economies, is likely the biggest lie ever plunked onto mankind in all of history.  If global warming was real, we'd absorb the costs and fight the demon fiercely.  But open minds are already aware of the lies and flaws upon which it is based.  And it all boils down to two things, the chief one being mans use of fossil fuel.  

Al Gore's movie on global warming was alarming.  It certainly made us sit up and think.  But some of us did more, and delved into the problems he told us about. And the fact is that many of these problems are lies.  They're not mistakes, they're deliberate attempts to mislead us.  For example, his portrayal of the polar bear situation and how they are dying off.  Judging polar bear populations is extremely difficult because some bears are so remote it is all but impossible to get to those areas.  This is a job that satellites can't do.  But in all but a few populations the bears aren't just doing well, they're actually thriving.  The scientific estimate on polar bears is that their populations (polar bear areas are called populations) are at record high levels.  Gore scored points by using one population on the west coast of Hudson Bay where factors other than global warming have caused a reduction in numbers.  It was the only population he could use to knowingly lie to us, because the rest were doing as well or better than normal.

The European Union, sucked badly into this whole scam way before there was any true evidence, developed the 'carbon credit' system.  The EU has already lost sixty billion dollars by sending this money to China so that they can combat the problem.  China is a first rate polluter, but so far has no interest in lowering it's use of fossil fuels.  Coal burning powerplants open there on an almost daily basis, paid for by the EU who are trying to encourage the exact opposite.  The whole thing is a big mess, and is getting worse.  The US government last week put the polar bear on it's list of threatened species.  It made certain greenies and environmentalists and anti-hunters happy, but certainly was the wrong move when judged against science.

Al Gore and his junk-scientists are akin to eco-terrorists.  Their deliberate lies and refusal to debate this topic with true scientists are one of the greatest shames ever.  Certainly the most costly.  Global warming never started...so any time he wants he and his cast of pirates can tell us they've solved the problem and that it's over.  There are millions of gullible people out there who will THANK them,  Disgusting!

Answer 13

I guess you would call me a 'skeptic' of global warming, not because I believe it has stopped but because I believe the increase of the earths global temperature to be the result of the natural process that has been on going since the formation of the material that would later be our home. The earth started out as an extremely hot ball of molten rock, gasses and dust, and between then and now, the earth has fluctuated in temperature constantly with each fluctuation being less and less extreme. This is the reason for what we know as ice ages. I believe that we just so happen to be at a point in time where the earth is once again heating up. The globe is getting hotter so in a way, it could be labelled as global warming but that label is more commonly associated with the warming of the globe due to the 'green house effect'. The science behind this effect is matched by the combination of science, archeology, history and geography that jointly discovered the facts that form the idea of the earths natural fluctiation in temperature. So, 'globl warming skeptics' do not all think global warming has stopped, but some believe that it isn't the fault of man. Man may have made the global temperature rise slightly, but in relation to the natural fluctuation in heat of the earth, this temperature will eventually be over taken anyway.

Edit: The kind of people who listen to the emotive green policies of certain campaigns (charity, news or political) that highlight global warming as a man made problem and believe it at face value without challenging it or thinking 'can't this just be a coincidence' are the kind of people who pick up a tabloid newspaper on April 1st and believe everyword of it. Just because such campaigns claim to have scientific backing does not mean a scientist is on their side, quotes, statistics and ideas can be manipulated to get money out of people for the charity, to get more viewers for the news programmes or more voters for the political party, but when we have given money, time or a vote, so called 'global warming' will be just one item on a big list of issues.

Also, I think you should hold you ignorance, 'how can we be expected to take them seriously?', surely you give people a chance before the childish nature of your personality shines through. If you are so big on using science to back up your argument, then how does resorting to blatant bad rhetoric reflect that?

The second and third graphs are just awful, and the first one isn't exactly reliable, since only some dates are given, and I know that is just to give us a sense of the time scale but the other years are not listed which means it is possible that the person creating the graph has left them out to make the graph reflect what they want people to believe. And without knowing who actually created it we have no way of knowing if it is reliable. Just because it is on a 'proper' website and looks slightly fancy does not mean it is the 'gospel truth'. The graphs also do not clearly state if that temperature is due to human interaction with the earth or a natural process that would happen regardless. The frist few dates on the first graph pre-date many of tha factors that some people attribute to global warming, such as cars, yet the increase in temprerature is evident throughout the time scale shown.

Answer 14

I read through the comments up to SBJohns, and her comments made me stop and think.  She wrote:

"What is wrong with just having a nice debate instead of this "quote" name calling and automatically shutting down their credibility?"

To which my first response is kind of a 'they did it first' kind of thing, that the deniers and skeptics sling it out far more and far worse than those that endorse the theory of global climate change.

My 2nd response is to think that your question comes off as a dare, literally a 'prove it!' challenge, which is counterproductive to winning someone over to your side.

That said, I'm not seeing the proof, the links or sources of what some feel gives them the ability to make their claim that humans haven't influenced the climate, that GW doesn't exist or isn't as serious as is claimed.

SBJohns also felt you shouldn't be "lumping us together."  I agree, there are levels of skeptics.  Different kinds, if you will.  I think most true skeptics don't make the claims you indicate.  Those are the deniers, for whom I hold little hope of ever swaying on this site or elsewhere.

I'd like to see someone answer your question by offering a good site for inspection.  A site that allow me to investigate the way I have so many other sites.  I've collected so many, even categorized them, so that when a question is asked, I don't have to go onto the Internet blind and pick out a site that might provide an answer, but not as well as specific sites I've culled for research and for specific information provide.  

I almost always check out the sites the deniers and skeptics provide.  (YouTube and Wikipedia aside as I feel there are more credible sources out there).  I would love for such a site as you ask for to materialize here.  I would love to check it out, weight it, and weigh in on the merit of the site offered.

So ultimately I endorse your challenge.  If someone -- denier or skeptic -- wants to step back from what many feel is a crisis of unprecedented proportions -- they should be able to offer something more substantive than most offer here on this site.

Answer 15

People aren't necessarily skeptical about global warming, but  just that humans have very little to do with it.

Answer 16

You can be a skeptic and not claim that it's stopped--like me. But that doesn't mean I fully reject it. I have researched it thoroughly and find that I don't think we have enough information to base a consensus upon. During the Holocene, we had temperature fluctuations, which could be a similar explanation as now--but that's not to say that our increased pollution isn't having an effect on the earth.

We ALL don't feel the same, so why are you lumping us together? Heaven knows you probably won't pick a best answer, so whats the incentive for these folks to answer? Whether or not you believe it's science doesn't mean that everyone else is required to subscribe to your theories, and something tells me that even if you got some sort of the kind of "proof" you're asking for, you'd try to dispute that anyway. What is wrong with just having a nice debate instead of this "quote" name calling and automatically shutting down their credibility?

Answer 17

According to this article the 11 hottest years occurred in the last 13 years.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

Unless it is a complete lie, and it should be easy to prove then I'd say these guys are into misinformation either for financial, political, or simply not want to be responsible reasons.

Thanks for exposing the madness.

You've got a friend : )

Answer 18

http://www.ijtr.org/Vol3No1/Tsuchida_IJT...

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/NASA_Cl...

Whats the question?

Answer 19

Good point..

Scientists / skeptics or people who believe in Global Warming are not able to prove or disprove the phenomenon. So, the debate is on.

Any change on a global level will take hundred of years, thus difficult to pin-point the cause and effect.

Of course majority believe that there is a Global Warming, but I guess what is happening is the change in climate across the Globe. The cold regions are getting warmer say New York City, where as the warm places say Mumbai (Bombay) is getting cooler. Both brings good news for productivity.

So, really not very sure if Global Warming is good or bad. Depends where you are staying. Coastal cities may have problem for sure in coming times, if glaciers are melting faster than expected.

Cheers!

MKJ

Answer 20

Not sure, maybe they think Ice melts when it gets colder.

http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/loop/ak-1...