What are some good reasons to be ant-global warming(people who dont believe in it)?

Question

iam doing an essay on why global warming is unprecedented and theres no solid evidence to prove its existence.my thesis is: In my opinion, global warming is nothing but an unprecedented man-made theory which can easily be disproved and does not have solid evidence to prove its existence.

how can i start off my body paragraph(im writing only 1) and what should i write or include in it.

plus how should i write my conclusion.please help.

thanks!

(do u happen to know the first man to propose global warming,i know he was french,but dont know his name.he then later denied the idea of glabal warming.)

Answer 1

So you don't believe in global warming, but you don't know why. It can easely be disproven, but you don't know how. And it was a French guy who started this, but you don't know who.

Well I don't know how to disproof global warming, most ppl don't.

Answer 2

There are no GOOD reasons.  Glocal warming has been scientifically proven.

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

The first person to propose this was a Swedish physicist around 1900.  He's in no position to deny (good word) it today.  Here's the history for you:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summa...

Answer 3

"reasons to be ant-global warming"

We are like ants that look up to the sky and say "make it rain"   Like the ant, we aren't as influential as some suppose or at least it is highly doubtful and not supported by available  evidence

Answer 4

Here's a sorta, kinda good reason:

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pa...

May God bless you and your search for Truth.

Edit: Bob..Bob..Bob..Shame on you.

Answer 5

If you want your paper to have any credibility, avoid personal web-pages and political advocacy web-sites like swampy linked too.  Instead you should use legitimate scientific research organizations as your sources.

Here's a few to help you get educated on the topic:

NASA Global Warming Q&A:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/G...

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Global Warming FAQs

http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climat...



Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale Global Warming FAQ

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/...



NOAA Global Warming FAQ

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...

The Discovery of Global Warming (the best history site for GW)

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Answer 6

Here are some good references including history of global warming theory. In your conclusion you could mention the over 30,000 scientists who believe global warming is a scam.Information in petition project website. Good luck

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Answer 7

You have a serious uphill battle.  The scientific consensus is summarized as 928 to 0 or 900+ to 1 depending upon who you believe:

http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

The consensus was quantified in a Science study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes (Dec. 2004) in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

Benny Peiser attempted to replicate the study, and found 34 articles that "reject or doubt" the consensus view--that is, 3% rather than the 0% that Oreskes found in her sample. Note that Peiser has altered Oreskes' original category from "reject" to "reject or doubt" so it is logically possible that both are correct. Also, there were several other differences between the studies: Peiser included "all documents" in the database rather than just scientific articles, and he included Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities as well as Sciences. Peiser was kind enough to share the 34 articles that he says reject or doubt. A discussion of the 34 argues that probably two to five of them should count, and the two best examples are editorials, not scientific publications (which is probably why they were not included in Oreskes' study).

When faced with a controversy like this, the great thing is that you can do your own research. If you suspect Oreskes or Peiser (or both) might be biased, you can look at the data yourself.

So that's what I did. Of the 34 articles, I would say that #10 and #27 clearly reject the consensus, but they are editorials, not scientific papers (and #27 is from an oil industry trade association). #1 and #6 doubt, but again are not scientific papers. #7, #17, #31 and maybe #22 doubt, and #15 says that both greenhouse gases and solar activity are roughly equal contributers to warming; so I counted it as "doubt." So overall I would say that Oreskes is correct; that Peiser has not shown a peer-reviewed scientific paper that clearly rejects the consensus. I would also say that Peiser is correct in that he found at least 4 papers that place some doubt on some of the premises of the consensus, but he is widely wrong in claiming 34. Update (June 2007): Peiser has backed off his claims, and now says there is actually only one out of the 34 papers that rejects the consensus, and that one is an editorial, not a scientific paper (and therefore was not included in the Oreskes study).

---

So given those facts I'd summarze the best reasons to not beleive in global warming to be:

1. Possessing an extraordinarily low IQ and being unable to make a rational decision on the topic.

2. Being far too lazy to actually look past the oil industry denial propaganda.

3. Being too self-absorbed to be bothered with the fact that people worldwide will be seriously and irreversably threatened by your decisions and actions.

Answer 8

There are several good reasons:  

First, you don't need to worry about having to change your lifestyle, since you don't think man has any effect on climate anyway.  

Second, if you're in the fossil fuel business you don't need to feel guilty about making those multi-billion dollar profits.

Third, you don't really have to think at all, you can just go blithely along not worrying about things.

Fourth, you don't need to worry about being called some tree-hugging, socialist pinko.

Answer 9

do you want us to tell you how to right a paper, it like making an argument

Answer 10

Global carbon tax,  is enough to be skeptic.  If the problem is real then get a real solution.  If it is not real, make it seem real to the people and then tax them.

Answer 11

This is the text of a speech by Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK.

He discusses the more obvious points.

http://www.grumpyoldsod.com/lawson%20spe...

Answer 12

The earth has been here longer than any of us have. It will be here longer than any of us will. It has been through things we don't even know about. It is extremely old. We can guess it has an age of blah blah billion years old, but we could easily be billions of years off.  The world has gone through changes it has been going through changes the whole time its been here.  It will adapt just like everything else on earth does.  That is how I say global warming is bogus.

Hope this helps. It gives you a lot to talk about.  If you just think about how we assume "global warming" has never happened before now then you can see that there are contradictions.