Is human-produced global warming a myth?

Question

I've seen a documentary stating things like:

-Gores graph linking Co2 to Earth's temperature is misleading, seeing as the Co2 had an 800 year lag behind Earth's temperature. They argued that it's BECAUSE of the change in Earth's temperature that the gas' abundance will change.

-The Earth's temperature has been fluctuating since we can remember, and that this is just another high and nothing to be worried about.

-The levels of Co2 in the atmosphere have been steadily increasing since long before the industrialization of nations was even starting (long before 1940).

-Theres such a small fraction of a percent of co2 in the atmosphere, and an even smaller fraction of that fraction is produced by humans (rotting vegetation produces more co2 than do factories).

I would like to hear supporters of this argument providing more examples of why this theory should remain just that, a theory, and not a fact.

PLEASE no supporters of the apposing arguments, you hippies have had your chance.

Answer 1

Every one of your arguments is unfounded.  If you took the time to study global warming instead of simply beleiving what you choose to believe you'd be only too aware of the futility of your arguments.

Discuss global warming, contribute to the debate, question the science, suggest alternatives.  But please, learn something about it before doing so; until such times, leave it to those who know what they're talking about.

Answer 2

Yes! If you live in a cave!

Answer 3

Its good to be worried about the planet.  Using global warming as an excuse to get people all scared and misuse science is not.  The fact is that the things that supposedly cause global warming DEFINITLY cause pollution.  I think we should all be alot more concerned about pollution than global warming.  The Earth has its cycles just like anything.  But poisoning the world you live in and all the food you eat is just plain stupid.  You wouldnt pour poison onto your food before you eat it or intentionally breathe poison gas would you?  And yet we do everyday.

Answer 4

Ah, you saw the Great Global Warming Swindle. But don't worry, the only swindle here is the film itself. that piece of rubbish has been so thoroughly debunked I'm surprised to find it still floating around out there. (And in case you're wondering- you aren't, yes, I've watched the whole thing through twice now.)

In fact, one of the scientists involved in the film (Carl Wunsch) is now demanding that he be removed form the project entirely. Saying that he was lied to and mislead as to the nature and content of the film, calling it a piece of outright propaganda.

You can read Mr. Wunsch's letter and a short rebuttal of the film here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

And here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

Edit: Ands since I just know you'll never click either of those links I gave you, I thought I give a quick rebuttal of several of the main arguments here.

First, the claim that CO2 has always lagged behind temperatures is true but misleading. CO2 acts as both a forcing and a feedback. This means that rising temperatures cause more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, driving up temperatures even farther. So past changes were triggered by something like a variation in Earth's orbit (which is not occurring now), and after about 800 years or so (most past warmings lasted for about ten to twelve thousand years), when enough CO2 had been released to affect the climate, it 'took over' and drove the change from there. This is a very simple and well understood feedback, and says very little about the current trend.

Second, it is true that Earth's temperature has been fluctuating all throughout its, and humanity's, history. What scientists are worried about is not that the climate is changing, it's the speed at which it's doing so.

And I know that carbon dioxide has been increasing since before 1940. I have no idea why you think this is relevant. The current warming started approximately a century ago. Not seventy years.

And finally, while CO2 may not be a very major component of the atmosphere, it is mot certainly a very important component of the greenhouse effect, causing between 9-26% of the greenhouse warming (the range is due to spectral overlaps with the other absorbers).

And I know you don't like the idea of hearing opposing view points, but that's the way science works. After all, you wouldn't want to be trotting about, using arguments you knew were false now, would you?

If you have any more objections ot the theory, or feel that my explanations were inadequate, feel free to message me and I'll try to clear things up for you.

Answer 5

Let's have a thought experiment (Gedanken).  If you have a body of water which is 15,000 gallons and you pour in 5 gallons of boiling water what will the overall change of the temperature in the 15,000 gallons pool be?  Those numbers represent the total volume of carbon dioxide relative to the atmosphere on the Earth and by using boiling water to simulate this absurd notion of global warming it should be obvious that the overall temperature of the system will not change measurably.

Answer 6

Global Warming is a trojan horse for Socialism, wake up Americans. Global warming is at the fore front because politicians found how to use a new platform to get re-elected. The world leaders use it because they found ways to make money at it. This is a made up problem just like Global Cooling in the 1970's. Wake up people. I agree we need to be more efficient with our resources, and we should fine and jail companies who are dumping into our rivers maliciously. I want to stop the raiforest destruction, but to say that global warming is a serious man made issue and we need to destroy the American economy and bow down to the rest of the world certainly does not float my boat. Follow the money on this one and you will see that it is all for political gain and grant money for those scientists who profit off of the government if global warming stays at the front of the issues. Look deep into the Keoto (sp?) Treaty, first of all they took jets to a non-central resort location. Not very environmentally concious. THen in the parameters of the treaty they have a clause that makes it so you can buy or sell polution credits. This is all about shifting wealth and breaking down the United States. This is painfully obvious, just look at peoples agenda. The earth's mean temperature has risen .6 degrees C in the past 125 years. Greenland's icecaps have gotten colder in the past 10 years. The Scientists who do not gain anything on their posisition will tell you that the earth has a natural progression and this is what we are seeing. The UN report is made up of POLITICIANS not a good spread of scientists. THere are as many or more scientists who believe that man in NOT the reason and it is over hyped, but their voice is not heard in the LIberal Mainstream Media. This issue is 99% political, and an attempt to make the USA a socialist nation, and eventually communisim. WAKE UP AMERICA, IT IS TIME TO BE AMERICANS. FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE. STOP THE LIES

Answer 7

hippies, indeed! i know that when i was a kid in the 1970's we got 6 inches of snow every 2 weeks thru out jan -march in nashville tennessee. now its a slight dusting of flurries once and maybe a sleet storm once. i call that global warming friend! i see it in my lifetime, so its not something that happens over eons, its happening in just 2 or 3 decades. how hot is winter going to be in another 20 years? it also makes summers have much higher heat indices. just check the weather reports going back the past 30 years. any child could understand the data about the change in climate. now i don't know if the warming is because of man-made pollutants, but it doesn't hurt to recycle, use alternative fuels, plants trees, clean the air and water.

Answer 8

the San Fransisco tree hugers!

Answer 9

Sorry.  But people need to know.

The "swindle" movie is wrong.  It is simply a political statement which distorts science.  The director has a history of putting out misleading stuff.  In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with n***s. Channel 4 had to apologise for the misleading stuff in that one.  The present movie is also a distortion of the science. More here:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environmen...

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313p...

"Pure Propaganda"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

Explanations of why the science is wrong.

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

History of the director.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climat...

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."  

Gore's movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right.  This movie does not.

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way.  If you go to their website on the movie (the website you cite) you find links to real global warming information.  They also have a way to "Ask the Expert" about global warming.  The questions go to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.

Answer 10

We need to ask ourselves, why the policy makers are focusing on CO2? It has been shown that water vapor and methane are the two MOST important potential green house gasses. Methane is up to 12x as effective in creating a "greenhouse" effect in experiments. Water vapor is something like 7-15X worse than CO2.

The reason the policy makers concentrate on CO2 is because they can profit from it. By passing legislation where it is legal to buy and sell emissions credits, by creating global legislation and funds which can be "skimmed" legitimately.

Scientists (I am one) who believe humans do not cause global warming are being relagated to the status of "people who deny the holocaust happened" --Nancy Pelosi

Answer 11

Try the amount of heat being generated is roughly 1% of the solar input, (That is Big) and that is as an addition, so we are Heating it up that way too, by radiant heating from burning fuels, not just the CO2 problem which BTW is and has been increasing in concentration for a while now.

BTW The industrial revolution started waaaaay before 1940