Why are no two Anti-Global Warming Arguements alike?

Question

maybe its because they are getting such ludicrous information from so many ridiculous sources? Some say its because of Al Gore. Some say the sun is cooling. Some say the Sun is warming. Some say its natural. Some say there isn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere to compare with the other gases. Some say that CO2 isn't a Greenhouse Gas. Some say we are going in an ice age. And it goes on and on and on...

It seems that scientists can agree on what causes global warming, so why isn't there a consistent and solid arguement against it?

Answer 1

How about yet another theory?

The "Global Warming" scare is the fall-out of a news fabrication by the oil producers to drive the price of oil to all time high for the best profits.  It all started with "peek oil" and the documentaries / conspiracy stories released to the public, most likely produced by the oil companies for a short term goal of driving up prices.  If you scare the general public from a source they trust (the news) then you have a medium to control the general public.

How'd you like that?

Answer 2

The strategy is not to use scientific reasoning and logic to provide an alternate idea.  They only intend to muddy the water with off the wall "theories."  Theory is a scientific term that suggest that much research has been done, hypothesis tested, results published, reviewed, debated, reproduced, improved, and formulated to give us some insights into how the world works so that we can predict the consequences of an action. Denialist never have theories - they simple don't exists.  They rely on misleading propaganda to confuse people.  This is best accomplished by throwing everything out there and seeing what "sticks."

Answer 3

Or maybe because there are SO MANY reasons to disprove it.

Answer 4

   there are sooo many ways to make fun of the village idiot. And even more of pompous, lying, hypocrites.  

Answer 5

Because the "skeptics" arguments keep changing as, one by one, they get shot down.

Believing in any one "skeptic" requires not only that most all of the scientists in the world are wrong but that OTHER SKEPTICS are equally wrong.

Wow.

Answer 6

I would love to see where a scientist said that global warming sparked a fire.  However, some scientists have suggested that global warming may be the cause of droughts that would make any fire more intense and spread faster.

The reason why no two arguments are alike is that they do not understand cause and effect.

Answer 7

It's the 'ol "throw enough horse manure at the barn and hope some of it sticks" approach.

I can respect a person who presents one of two viable alternative hypothesis, so long as they're willing to drop them once they're shown the data which counters it.  But the ideologues around here that will throw out each and every half-****** idea they can find through google or fabricate in their own minds don't deserve respect.  They are obviously grasping for a reason to believe anything-but the consensus of climate scientist. That's not skepticism, that's dogmatism.

Answer 8

Global Warming MEANS "World Wide Warming!" It is ONLY A Political Term = NOT based in Real Science!

The EARTH is covered by "Three Quarters WATER!" Basic Science, it takes ONE-Btu to raise One Cubic Centimeter ONE Degree Centigrade!

HOW many "Gazillion Cubic Centimeters are there ONLY on the Surface of Planet Earth COVERED by 3/4 Water?"

HOW many Btu's would it take TO RAISE THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE ONE DEGREE?

DO THE MATH!

And, were are the Million TEMPERATURE MEASURING SITES on the Many Oceans THAT TELL US THAT THE OCEAN TEMPERATURES ARE RISING? Not!

Oh yes, POLAR temperatures have varied LESS Than one degree in the past 100-Years. Noticed I said VARIED, = NOT RISEN!

Thanks, RR

So what is causing our current warming, it is the sun.

http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/spac...

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/s...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/06...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/...

The fact that only the earth’s surface is warming points to direct heating from the sun rather than heating due to greenhouse gasses. Also other planets in our solar system are warming pointing to a common cause of warming, that common cause being the sun.

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

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

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola...

The global warming crowd says our glaciers are melting and animals will suffer this is another false claim.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/co2sci...

Answer 9

I do not know of anybody who says that co2 in not a greenhouse gas.  

As for the it being natural, saying it is the sun and we are all headed for an ice age, it is all connected.  Variation in sun activity is a natural phenomena.  Many are predicting that we are heading for a period of low sun activity, which will cause a small ice age.

Answer 10

I think that is because there are so many reasons that GW is occurring and there are many effects of it. So someone creating an arguement either way cannot possibly know all there is to know about GW.  Therefore, the specific points used in the arguement will reflect what areas the person has done the most research in.

Scientists understand the causes and effects. They are almost all in agreement that is not a good thing. The real arguement is if  and what the governments of our dear planet and us laypeople should do about it.

To stop the current trend would require vast changes in how we use energy and goods--mostly using a lot less of everything. That affects theECONOMY and frankly, folks are afraid of the kind of changes we know we must make.

EDIT: Magnus, the California wildfires this year are incredibly worse. There are several causes, the main one being a rare lighting storm, and also car fires, cigarette butts, the ususal. The air quality was horrible in the Central Valley for weeks! The weather we get each year seems to be hotter and drier. So, global warming does not start the fires, but it makes our local environment more suseptible to fire damange and that damage is harder to get under control.

Answer 11

Because they're wrong.  They're using the core dump strategy.

A core dump is when you're taking a science test and reach a question that you can't answer, but you see a key term in the question.  So you dump out all the information you know about that key term, hoping you'll have some useful information there and get a few points.

Global warming 'skeptics' dump out every argument they can find against man-made global warming, hoping they'll either hit on a valid point or simply create enough confusion that people will be unconvinced by the theory.  They're not really expecting to disprove the theory, they're just trying to score a few points and delay action.

So you ask them 'okay why don't you believe the theory?' and they don't have a valid reason, so they dump out 'Al Gore/sunspots/Mars/water vapor/cow farts/soda pop/Roy Spencer/consensus isn't science/conspiracy theories/Galileo/etc.'  Just whatever they can find on the internet in the hopes of convincing people that the science isn't settled.

Answer 12

.... We have so many reasons! They're not different arguments, but rather different points to one.

Also, there are basically three different views on global warming:

1)It's happening, mankind is the cause, and it's bad.

2)It's happening, mankind isn't the cause, and it's natural and ok.

3)It isn't happening.

Of course, there could be combinations of the three views, but those are the main ones.

Back to your question: AGW believers seem to think that global warming is caused by 1) OIL, 2)Bush, 3)Republicans 4)People who don't recycle, and so on. If AGW existed, they wouldn't have to put the Green Agenda into the fashion world. If it was a serious issue, people wouldn't be wearing shirts that say "green is the new black".

We have many different points to support our logical argument, as you have many different points to support you ILLOGICAL one.

*Down with Big Brother*

Answer 13

How is that any different than blaming anything and everything on global warming?  I seem to recall the California wild fires a year or so ago being blamed on global warming.  The media in all their glory were interviewing supposed expert scientists to determine the cause and reasons behind the severity of the wild fires, and of course they spew out the typical "blame global warming" reason.  And then a few days later the true cause came out, ARSON!  How about that!  Inaccuracies and fear-mongering alarmism in Camp AGW!  Who woulda thought?

EDIT:  Don't misunderstand, that is not my reasoning for not accepting the theory.  My reason for not buying into it is the boatload of evidence that shoots holes in it.  And yes, there are some admittedly on both sides of the table that can't get their facts straight therefore making for a weak argument.  However, my point here is, there are plenty of people on here more than willing to point the finger calling out a person for their flawed reasoning, and I'm simply pointing out that many of those people don't adhere to their own argument therefore making them hypocrites.  Even some of the top contributors on here don't make a valid argument.  One of the regulars states 'if they're not a climate scientist or related field, their opinion is worthless".  Ok, well, that's fine if you choose to be close-minded to other opnions if they're not in that field, but you better stick to your guns.  That very same guys regularly quotes non-climate scientists and people outside of the field to prop up his argument.  That's hypocrisy.  So to calling out one side for debating a certain way is fine, but you must be prepared to take the heat for the problems with your's as well.

Answer 14

Simply put, there are a lot of weaknesses in the AGW theory, a LOT.

So the number of anomalies, inconsistencies, uncertainties, and unsubstantiated wild-assed predictions that folks make are all fair game.

Actually no theory explains everything perfectly, there are always things that don't quite fit.  So what is especially suspicious about the AGW crowd is their intense interest in beating everyone down on the issue and claiming there is no evidence whatsoever that is in conflict with AGW.

But then again your question isn't about science, it is about religion, and how dare anyone question your firmly held beliefs.

Answer 15

They are not alike because there are so many different reasons why global warming may not be synthetic.

And another point I'd say that believers are the ones who manipulate data to fit their needs.  When you already think you have the answer its fairly easy to make up the question

Answer 16

None are just alike because those that believe in global warming cannot agree on what (if it's happening) is causing it.  So in order to debate it, those that do not believe it have to debate on a case by case basis according to the views of those that do believe it.  This give the appearance of differing arguments on the anti's side when actually it's differing opinions on the side of those that believe it.

Example of believes of those that believe in global warming.

1)  It's real but humans are not causing it, it's just a natural cycle.

2)  Humans are causing it.

3)  Combination of the above.

4)  Caused by cow burps, and flatulence (sp) of farm animals.

5)  Conspiracy of G. Bush and the rest of the Aluminaty (sp).

So you mean if we cannot disprove the "entire overall issue" then we don't have the right to point out any errors?

Let the "anti-global warmers" have the benefit of that arguement.  Now you prove to me that the overal theory of anti-global warming is wrong.  Remember, you cannot use specifics, or details of any singular argument.  

Here is the general argument pro-global warmers use in math form.  

A (increase in human activity thru time) + B (the earth is warming) =  man is causing global warming, and it's real.

The truth is this (and any second grader can explain this) that just because C may follow A and B, doesn't mean that A and B cause C.  

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU SMELLY FOOT.  Lets all buy carbon credits and the problem will be solved...lol  It's just coicidence that A. Gore owns/partners in the company where he wants you to buy your carbon credit from too.  lol  The fact that he pushes man made G/W is just an accident...lol  

d**n!!!!  he has a good racket going.  Wish I'd thought of it.

Answer 17

Clearly, the science contradicts itself. Whether it exists, and what the cause is are not cut and dry concrete answers....except for in Al Gore's world - where its all doom and gloom, people caused it, and the government can fix it through taxation and the redistribution of carbon credits....

Anti-global warming arguments want to make sure that the door is not closed on the debate. Pro-Gore alarmists seem to refuse any other explanation.

Answer 18

"Why are no two Anti-Global Warming Arguements alike?"

1) You are starting with a false premise--that no two "anti-global warming" arguments are alike. This is is untrue, as noted later in your question.

2) Anti-global warming? As in anti-AGW? You really must be more specific.

3) Most of the arguments you present, while they may be incorrect, are not necessarily in disagreement with each other.

"It seems that scientists can agree on what causes global warming, so why isn't there a consistent and solid arguement against it?"

Most legitimate skeptical arguments don't argue "against AGW", but rather argue that CO2 isn't the main driver of warming over the last 30 years, and that the likelihood of catastrophe is small. Most of these truly skeptical arguments are closely related (if not exactly the same). If you are asking why all skeptical arguments are not exactly the same, it is because most skeptical scientists agree that the climate system is sufficiently complex as to not allow any major conclusions to be formed.

If this question was aimed at the "deniers", the question really has no point--the "deniers" do not really matter.

--------

Edit:

"Eric: Then why is it that the Milankovitch climatic cycles are saying we should be entering a cool period. Doesn't that make ANY warming a cause for concern? I think so"

This comes from a misunderstanding of the Milankovitch cycles. There is some good reading on the subject out there, so I suggest you do a quick google search and get to it.

Answer 19

Actually, I don't have a problem in multiple counter-arguments when dealing with such a complex and diverse subject as AGW. In fact, I would expect to see different arguments in a true debate.

For example, suggesting that the AGW is false because solar radiation is responsible is a valid counter-argument. So valid, of course, that AGW proponents looked at it seriously, evaluated the data and have been able to say, 'nope, it ain't that!'

Fact is, you want a lot of different arguments made against any hypothesis: It is by surviving that questioning that a hypothesis becomes a robust theory and more complete as the advocates are forced to fine tune and adjust the theory to answer the questions.

I would love to believe that the sceptics are putting up objections in the spirit of pure science and of furthering the pursuit of truth but unfortunately, the motive for the variety of counter arguments is, in most cases (but not all - there are a few good thinkers out there in scepticland!) - closer to what Dana says.

The support for that is the lack of clear thinking, lack of counter research or facts and the plain weirdness of the counter claims.

Edit to idoni...

This is another case of putting incorrect words into my mouth - I do wish you sceptics would stop doing that!

For the record:

I am an AGW "believer" but:

- I do NOT think AGW is caused by oil companies

- I do NOT think AGW is caused by Bush

- I do NOT think AGW is caused by Republicans

- I do NOT think AGW is caused by people who don't recycle

Although I DO think that these people - in general - there are some generalisations here - are not doing all they could to help alleviate the problem.

And I do NOT wear a shirt saying "green is the new black" but even if I did, does wearing a shirt with a slogan trivialise an issue? Can we say that breast cancer is not 'serious' because some women wear "I am a survivor" t-shirts or that war is a casual thing not to be worried about because people wore "make love not war" t-shirts or that Nelson Mandela is irrelevant because people wore "Free Nelson Mandela" shirts, etc, etc...

Please, if you want to refute an argument, use a less petty example.

And to WYSIWYG

None of your links work - looks impressive but, like most sceptic responses, it is all style, no substance!

As for the rest of your rant, it's just that - a rant, unsubstantiated, unexplained and false. For example, people have "done the math" which is where we get the forecasts for global temperature rise, sea level rise, etc.