How to Answer the Dumb Things Climate Deniers Say

Below are a few responses to some of the more frequent statements the deniers toss out.

The Skeptics: There is simply no evidence that humans are contributing to climate change, if the earth is even warming.

Answer: As carbon dioxide (CO2) is pumped into the air through human activities, heat becomes trapped in the atmosphere. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as the "greenhouse effect." If the earth's global temperatures rise a mere 3 degrees, there will be catastrophic results all over the world.

*****************************************************************

The Skeptics: CO2 can't possibly be to blame for any so-called climate change as emissions only stay in our atmosphere for up to 10 years. Our oceans and terrestrial carbon sinks absorb this CO2 anyway. In fact, the oceans are so big that they could absorb over 50 times more CO2 than humans contribute now. As such, we can't possibly be to blame for any change in global temperatures today.

Answer: Actually the ocean's ability to store CO2 is not very long. Only 50% of CO2 is absorbed by areas of the ocean that are not very deep. In these areas, CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. Recent studies have shown that only 30% of CO2 is stored in the deep ocean. The rest, some 20%, stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

*****************************************************************

The Skeptics: The evidence that CO2 emissions are linked to any rise in global temperatures is casual at best. Global CO2 emissions do not match Arctic temperatures, which are often used as the best gauge for how to measure the earth's climate.

Answer: While the Arctic may serve as a great resource for measuring climate change, looking at one small area of the planet is not the best way to assess the situation. During the 1930s, for example, warming occurred in the Arctic, but the cause is not exactly known and did not take place all over the planet.

*****************************************************************

The Skeptics: It's actually been much hotter than it is today during recorded human history. During medieval times, for example, warm temperatures plagued much of Europe. This happened long before humans started burning fossil fuels, which is hard proof that we aren't causing global warming today.

Answer: The warming that happened during 800-1300 AD is considered to be a local warming event, which is quite different than the changes in the global climate we are experiencing today. Ice samples have shown that temperatures around the world varied during that time.

*****************************************************************

The Skeptics: But ice core sampling is simply not a reliable way to measure changes to our climate because it is an imperfect science. Records come from measuring gas that is trapped in tiny air bubbles. But this air isn't saved in stone, it can seep out over time.

Answer: Specific ice samples may not be completely reliable, this is true. However, in order to reduce error many samples are taken all over the world, which gives us a much better record of the earth's historic climate trends. When used in conjunction with other resources, like tree rings, these records are undeniably accurate and reliable.

*****************************************************************

The Skeptics: Scientists fix the data all the time. One ice sampling in the Arctic at Siple has shown us that CO2 levels were around 328 parts per million all the way back in 1890. However, global warming believers insist that this level wasn't met until the early 1970s. In order to make their point, graphs have been altered to fix this data in order to have us believe that CO2 emissions, from humans, were to blame for the rise in global temperatures.

Answer: When new evidence is found scientist alter their theories and data. No additional samplings taken anywhere in the world confirm that CO2 levels were above 290 parts per million in the last half of a million years. The Siple ice core samples in the Arctic cannot be used to counter this overwhelming consensus. Perhaps temperatures in the Siple area were elevated for a month or a year, but not consistently and not anywhere else on the planet at the same time. Since new data has come to light to address these findings, scientists have adjusted their graphs.

*****************************************************************

The Skeptics: Our environment has a great ability to adjust for inflation in CO2 emissions. When an increase occurs, our carbon sinks pick up the slack over a period of decades. So all the hype about global warming is nothing more than hot air.

Answer: Past warming cycles are not the result of greenhouse gas emissions. These warming trends were the result of the earth's rotation around the sun. When the earth heated up in the past, more CO2 was released from our carbon sinks, which created a greenhouse effect. So when humans release CO2 today we are not allowing the earth to go through its natural cycle. Our oceans haven't even started heating up yet. But if they do, and we do not cut CO2 in the atmosphere over the next twenty years, catastrophic effects will ensue.

Source

Message



Edit:

I completely believe that human activities has raised the risk which threatens the planet. I don't need no chart or graphs to tell me what I see in front of my eyes. One just have to look outside their window. The short winters, prolonged summers, erratic climate etc. I know many people are against believing, it's human nature to disassociate themselves from the harm they do. Part of self mechanism nothing wrong with that. Good thing is the protest at G20 Climate Change showed how many people support this and called for effective action from corrupt govt. and organisations.

Here's a great map hosted on National Geographic Website one can visit and see.
Global Warming Effects Map


**************************

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sites; please post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by 12m8keall2c]

[edit on 27-2-2010 by December_Rain]

Ooohhh no, it's ManBearPig!

I am serial.

No, SUPER SERIAL!

Sceptics: Can you prove that the effects of Climate change are a direct result of excess CO2 output produced by human activities?

Scientists: Not directly, but indirectly. Just look at the graphs. Oh, and watch An Inconvenient Truth.

Agnostics: An important issue (Showing respect towards the Earth) has been turned into a Divide & Conquer issue. And a Carbon Tax is not far off.

Elites: Muhahaha. Can you believe these guys are falling for it, AGAIN!

[edit on 27/2/2010 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Not directly, but indirectly. Just look at the graphs.

Which tell us the Earth is warming.... and the most likely explanation is CO2.

Just because it was locally warmer in the past doesn't mean we can make the planet as warm as we like!

Asteroid impacts were common in the past, and even though some life survived then, we wouldn't want it to happen again.

Yo - climate change denier here

Any way, just registering my claim to logic here.... Will be watching the thread.

So CO2? That's the meanie yes?? So other gases (CH4 - you know frozen in state at the bottom of the sea just waiting for a good quake) or 'extra planetary' influences have no role to play?

CO2? Really?? Who keeps banging this drum? Let's get some tape for this drum please.

not trying to troll or bash here, just a few honest questions.

What about other greenhouse gasses such as water vapor?

What about the fact that volcanoes create huge amounts of CO2 far beyond the capacity of humans?

What about the fact that there was a mini warming period in the middle ages with high amounts of CO2?

What about the increased solar activity? the sun is the wellspring for nearly all activity on our planet, doesnt it make sense that it would be the main source of heating and cooling on our planet?


i would like to hear the AGW proponents answers because i am honestly confused. From my personal research into the argument, NOT listening to rightwing ppropoganda, the idea that we are causing an irreversible warming trend seems far fetched. I also am confused becqause there are many other ways to help our environment other than cutting CO2 emissions, but htese get absolutelty no coverage in tthe media.

Additionally, cap and trade legislation has existed in europe for a while now with no observable benefit to the environment (please correct me if im wrong here). Cap and trade does not reduce the level of emissions, it just makes people pay more.

All of these factors come together in my mind to paint a picture of people exploiting the fear of environmental destruction for personal gain, while on the other side you have corporations exploiting actual environmental destruction for personal gain.

Everyone is out for money, and no one cares about our home. Just my 2 cents.

Skeptics: Climategate?

I don't believe in crazy man-made global warming conspiracy theories.

Which tell us the Earth is warming.... and the most likely explanation is CO2.

Ignoring for the moment that more recent data shows the Earth has been cooling the last few years, wouldn't the effects of varying levels of solar radiation (aka the solar cycle) be a more likely explanation?

But assuming the Earth was continuing to warm and assuming the Sun plays a limited role in comparison to CO2 levels, how exactly would international banksters implementing a carbon tax racket save the planet? By allowing Al Gore to fly around in a private jet and live in a energy-guzzling mansion because he can afford to buy carbon offset credits?

www.nytimes.com...

"Carbon will be the world's biggest commodity market, and it could become the world's biggest market overall," said Redshaw, the head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital. But he said that in his current job, unlike some of his previous ones, including a stint as a British power trader at Enron, "I don't have to compromise on anything when I get out of bed in the morning."

www.youtube.com...


Another example of how political cures are usually worse than the original disease. We're better off doing nothing.

You have not convinced me any differently. I even laughed at the explanation given about the oceans absorption rate of CO2. Most of the earths surface is ocean, and most of it is very deep.

Climate pseudoscience that claims we are the cause of global warming is akin to the equally pseudo-scientific eugenics hoax.

Here is an essay by Micheal Chrichton regarding this connection and the dangers of politicizing science.

www.crichton-official.com...#

I'd like to point to a thread I made a few days ago.
Where I've posted a number of articles in favour of the skeptics.

U.N. says emissions vows not enough to avoid rise of 2 degrees


I'll keep searching if requested of course.
But not if people won't at least read them.



Note
The lack of interest was IMO disappointing.

[edit on 27/2/10 by Sinter Klaas]

Originally posted by daeoeste
You have not convinced me any differently.

You are mistaken if you think this thread is made to make someone anyone "convince". Oh and whoever mentioned the puppet tool Al Gore is kiddin' him'herself. I don't give balls to Al Gore crap. I have known about this whole climate change before Al Gore even came to picture, by going out and visiting places. Couldn't care any less about Gore or stuff. It's about earth not some fringe politician.

reply to post by December_Rain


Please tell me what the purpose of the post is then?!?

Do tell as well what made you believe in man made global warming according to your travels.

Where did you travel to?

What did you see that made you believe it is our fault?

Were you one of the people that warned of global cooling before the Warming *fad* popped up on the *political* radar?



[edit on 02/21/09 by daeoeste]

What I like to beading is the pollution of the planet !

For years organisations like Greenpeace were fighting for a clean world !

Free of toxins. Free of garbage like plastic which is now found in the middle of our, No, The planets oceans.

This whole climate warming thing is ceased by corporate businesses and at the same time fully distracted us for everything else.

But I didn't stand up when fish numbers went down. I'm no fisherman.

[edit on 27/2/10 by Sinter Klaas]

Originally posted by daeoeste
reply to post by December_Rain

 

Please tell me what the purpose of the post is then?!?

Not to convince but to discuss.

Do tell as well what made you believe in man made global warming according to your travels.

Copied from OP
I completely believe that human activities has raised the risk which threatens the planet. I don't need no chart or graphs to tell me what I see in front of my eyes. One just have to look outside their window. The short winters, prolonged summers, erratic climate etc. I know many people are against believing, it's human nature to disassociate themselves from the harm they do. Part of self mechanism nothing wrong with that. Good thing is the protest at G20 Climate Change showed how many people support this and called for effective action from corrupt govt. and organisations.

Just go out and see for yourself mate. Visit villages, factories, their waste disposal etc.

Where did you travel to?

A good start would be Equator Countries but not limited to. Northwestern and northeastern North America, Europe, northern Asia, the east coast of Asia, southern Australia,and parts of South America, will be affected by heavier rain and/or snow. I think that people in these contries should realize that our world can be better if we work together and think about our world so that our world can last longer and we can live a longer life. It makes the world as a whole warmer. The extra energy could lead to more powerful storms. It also causes lots of ice to melt raising sea levels. The latest up to date news says that Africa has been severely damaged by global warming. It is called "GLOBAL" warming. so that means it is all over the world. but it depends on where your at. like global warming might affect India differently than how it will affect south/noth america. it affects Australia differently than how it affects Asia and so on.

What did you see that made you believe it is our fault?

Degradation of Eco-System thru different type of pollution.

Were you one of the people that warned of global cooling before the Warming *fad* popped up on the *political* radar?

No

Another good information can be found Global Warming and Agriculture: Impact Estimates by Country (pdf)

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Indirect evidence proves nothing. NOTHING! --wait, no. It strongly suggests things. It indicates probable truths.

You don't have any direct evidence that the people posting in this thread is human, but all the indirect evidence suggests it.

reply to post by December_Rain

Not this old song and dance again... CO2? Really? Did most people forget basic elementary
science THAT easily? If we didn't have CO2, we wouldn't have about 95% of the plant vegetation on the planet. Remember?

reply to post by AztecWrior805


If we didn't have H2O, we wouldn't have 100% of life... But if we had a whole lot more H2O, we wouldn't have any land for land based life. So a whole lot of something necessary isn't necessarily going to be better. That's a deeply deeply flawed argument that you just made.

Ok, fast and simple answer to all you problems of saving this world from dangerous gases...

All the cattle in the planet create more harmful gases than all of mans creations put together, and incase you didnt know, methane has a worse effect for heat retention than CO2 by 4 TIMES.

KILL ALL THE COWS....

Oh wait we cant do that cos what about animal welfare? Well heres your choice, kill all the cows and save the planet, dont kill the cows and the whole planet dies...

We all know that scientisits have manipulated the data to make the world seem like its heating up, this is rubbish...total rubbish...the sooner everyone wakes up and sees that it was only ever done to generate new revenue from new industry the better

[edit on 27-2-2010 by jrmcleod]

Originally posted by jrmcleod
KILL ALL THE COWS....

Or we could kill all the people, then no one would mind the cows - I prefer to kill one cow at a time, and then eat it. Are cows that disproportionality responsible for fart gas?