Global Warming Denial: Is there a good argument?

[mark kennedy]

I tried starting this in Current Events but thought I might get more responses here. I'm not sure what I think, guess I always thought it was an actual fact. Then I stumbled onto a couple of videos and articles and now I'm not so sure. I've been catching these videos on YouTube about Global Warming being a hoax. Of course you can find those easy enough, but some pretty credible arguments out there. There are others but I thought this one was worth watching:

Patrick Moore was one of the founders of Greenpeace and is convinced the rise of CO2 is actually saving the planet, and man has little to do with it:

"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," he told a US Senate Committee "If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists." (Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change, Independent)
​

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else had encountered any of these arguments and what do you think?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Isn't the burden of proof on those who claim global warming is real and man-made?

 

[mark kennedy]

Isn't the burden of proof on those who claim global warming is real and man-made?

I suppose but they are abundant, many leading scientists are saying exactly that. Now I'm not trying to dismiss their work but I was kind of impressed with the counter argument, and a little surprised that there is a pretty good counter argument. Haven't made up my mind but wondered why this isn't more of an issue.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I suppose but they are abundant, many leading scientists are saying exactly that. Now I'm not trying to dismiss their work but I was kind of impressed with the counter argument, and a little surprised that there is a pretty good counter argument. Haven't made up my mind but wondered why this isn't more of an issue.

I don't really relate to the counter-arguments, tbh. Maybe it's real and maybe it isn't. But it's time to start exploring new technologies for cleaner air. It's possible to do now. And if global warming is real, well, cleaner air will hopefully make the difference.

Still, there's a dark side to this whole thing that steps on a lot of PC toes. I'd probably get banned for even mentioning it though. But my point is there is a challenge to cleaner air than just the alternative technologies.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't really relate to the counter-arguments, tbh. Maybe it's real and maybe it isn't. But it's time to start exploring new technologies for cleaner air. It's possible to do now. And if global warming is real, well, cleaner air will hopefully make the difference.

Still, there's a dark side to this whole thing that steps on a lot of PC toes. I'd probably get banned for even mentioning it though. But my point is there is a challenge to cleaner air than just the alternative technologies.

I'm sure there is a reasonable argument there, I remember Rush Limbaugh going into a rant that global warming and the Paris Accords were custom made for governments accumulating more power. I doubt seriously you will get any argument from people living in LA that emissions control improvements is a good idea. Ever seen LA in the summer around sunset, you can't see a mountain ten miles away.

Just what if it's all a farce, I mean it wouldn't be the first time they lied to us. I'm not seeing this as a conspiracy theory but Madison once commented on the governments ability to use every contingency to accumulate power. It's just got me wondering.

 

[USincognito]

Isn't the burden of proof on those who claim global warming is real and man-made?

That's where all the evidence points, which is why the onus is on those who deny it to address and debunk said evidence.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's where all the evidence points, which is why the onus is on those who deny it to address and debunk said evidence.

Honestly I have never really doubted it, just stumbled onto some pretty interesting arguments.

 

[HowRU?]

I tried starting this in Current Events but thought I might get more responses here. I'm not sure what I think, guess I always thought it was an actual fact. Then I stumbled onto a couple of videos and articles and now I'm not so sure. I've been catching these videos on YouTube about Global Warming being a hoax. Of course you can find those easy enough, but some pretty credible arguments out there. There are others but I thought this one was worth watching:

Patrick Moore was one of the founders of Greenpeace and is convinced the rise of CO2 is actually saving the planet, and man has little to do with it:

"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," he told a US Senate Committee "If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists." (Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change, Independent)
​

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else had encountered any of these arguments and what do you think?

Hello Mark,
I was a real scoffer for some time about global warming, but now I’m not so sure.
You can get very biblical and quote Genesis 8:22, and let people know that God has it all under control. That’s true in a “macro”, the world-won’t-end sense.
However, God has left mankind in charge of the planet as its physical caretaker. It is possible for us, I believe, to screw it up big time and render our home world a fairly inhospitable, and uncomfortable place to try to live.
Is global warming a cyclical phenomenon that will correct itself somehow over time? Maybe, but I’m convinced that there is some evidence of at least a short term warming trend. Since we aren’t aware of the period of this “cycle”, we need to be cautious not to be arrogant Christians but rather good stewards of this wonderful planet God’s given us.
We can use fossil fuels and just do it responsibly.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hello Mark,
I was a real scoffer for some time about global warming, but now I’m not so sure.
You can get very biblical and quote Genesis 8:22, and let people know that God has it all under control. That’s true in a “macro”, the world-won’t-end sense.
However, God has left mankind in charge of the planet as its physical caretaker. It is possible for us, I believe, to screw it up big time and render our home world a fairly inhospitable, and uncomfortable place to try to live.
Is global warming a cyclical phenomenon that will correct itself somehow over time? Maybe, but I’m convinced that there is some evidence of at least a short term warming trend. Since we aren’t aware of the period of this “cycle”, we need to be cautious not to be arrogant Christians but rather good stewards of this wonderful planet God’s given us.
We can use fossil fuels and just do it responsibly.

I remember in the 80s I read The Greening of America, it was an environmental warning of our impact on the earth. It was devastating and believable. I never really gave it that much thought, it made sense to me with the rise of populations and the enormity of cars and industrial emissions that global warming was the result of industrialization, it seemed pretty obvious. I listened to the guys in the links in the OP and all of the sudden, I realized there is an alternative way of thinking about this.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a hoax. Now I have some doubts, I'm not all that worried about it but I was wondering if anyone else was taking this view of global warming seriously.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

Hi the best argument about this topic is scientific and does not deny climate change but postulates that the global chem trailing of the atmosphere with metallic particles and the use of HAARP has effected the weather we see in the headlines and the culprit is not man made carbon emmission but a global geo engineering program. There are many good documentaries on this topic. This issue is also the single most important platform issue for the formation of a global government. The idea of using the weather and ecology as a global common threat was proposed back in the 60's as the best way to institute global unity. Ive looked into this for decades and if you spend about 5 hours researching it you can decide weather you think this is a credible possibility.

 

[mark kennedy]

Wow, an actual conspiracy theory, I'm beginning to wonder if starting this thread was a good idea.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No, there's not valid excuse for climate denial...

For no other topic is there such a scientific consensus and body of evidence that has such a embarrassingly large following of deniers. (with the possible exception of people who believe in Chiropractic & Homeopathy)

You look at the other forms of science denialism (flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers), they're the fringe...

The scientific consensus linking our actions to the changing climate is as strong as the consensus behind the data linking smoking to increased rates of lung cancer. Only difference is, we don't have 40% of the population claiming that "it's a hoax" or saying "well, gee, I'm undecided on whether or not smoking is good or bad for you"

 

[Tom 1]

Honestly I have never really doubted it, just stumbled onto some pretty interesting arguments.

It's a fairly common belief here in Romania (within the farming community that is) that 'the Russians' are messing with the weather to affect agricultural yields. Once an idea takes hold you can't really get rid of it.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's a fairly common belief here in Romania that 'the Russians' are messing with the weather to affect agricultural yields. Once and idea takes hold you can't really get rid of it.

We are doing good to predict the weather, the idea of manipulating it artificially seems fanciful at best. Industrial pollution on the other hand I can easily accept could lead to a greenhouse effect, looking at this strictly from a layman's perspective. I'm very curious about an alternative view to global warming, what appears to be a conspiracy theory doesn't appear to be very helpful.

 

[Tom 1]

We are doing good to predict the weather, the idea of manipulating it artificially seems fanciful at best. Industrial pollution on the other hand I can easily accept could lead to a greenhouse effect, looking at this strictly from a layman's perspective. I'm very curious about an alternative view to global warming, what appears to be a conspiracy theory doesn't appear to be very helpful.

No, just saying, once an idea like that takes hold people tend to ignore the science.

 

[juvenissun]

I tried starting this in Current Events but thought I might get more responses here. I'm not sure what I think, guess I always thought it was an actual fact. Then I stumbled onto a couple of videos and articles and now I'm not so sure. I've been catching these videos on YouTube about Global Warming being a hoax. Of course you can find those easy enough, but some pretty credible arguments out there. There are others but I thought this one was worth watching:

Patrick Moore was one of the founders of Greenpeace and is convinced the rise of CO2 is actually saving the planet, and man has little to do with it:

"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," he told a US Senate Committee "If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists." (Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change, Independent)
​

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else had encountered any of these arguments and what do you think?

I can not prove it (so can’t anyone else), but I strongly suspect the increase of CO2 is A Consequence of global warming. Challenge anyone who says otherwise.

 

[juvenissun]

No, there's not valid excuse for climate denial...

For no other topic is there such a scientific consensus and body of evidence that has such a embarrassingly large following of deniers. (with the possible exception of people who believe in Chiropractic & Homeopathy)

You look at the other forms of science denialism (flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers), they're the fringe...

The scientific consensus linking our actions to the changing climate is as strong as the consensus behind the data linking smoking to increased rates of lung cancer. Only difference is, we don't have 40% of the population claiming that "it's a hoax" or saying "well, gee, I'm undecided on whether or not smoking is good or bad for you"

I am not sure if you know this: the earth is at the peak high temperature of the past 1 million years. So, if someone said it is not likely to be any warmer, may be he is just right.

 

[SkyWriting]

I tried starting this in Current Events but thought I might get more responses here. I'm not sure what I think, guess I always thought it was an actual fact. Then I stumbled onto a couple of videos and articles and now I'm not so sure. I've been catching these videos on YouTube about Global Warming being a hoax. Of course you can find those easy enough, but some pretty credible arguments out there. There are others but I thought this one was worth watching:

Patrick Moore was one of the founders of Greenpeace and is convinced the rise of CO2 is actually saving the planet, and man has little to do with it:

"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," he told a US Senate Committee "If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists." (Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change, Independent)
​

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else had encountered any of these arguments and what do you think?

I am 100% confident and can raise volumes of supportive "proof" of my claims:
Man is not going to change and make any effort to avoid global climate change.
We will not only continue to free up carbon, but we are on the brink of doing so in ever increasing amounts for the next 20 years. Move away from the beaches people. Build with brick.

 

[Yliginou1]

I tried starting this in Current Events but thought I might get more responses here. I'm not sure what I think, guess I always thought it was an actual fact. Then I stumbled onto a couple of videos and articles and now I'm not so sure. I've been catching these videos on YouTube about Global Warming being a hoax. Of course you can find those easy enough, but some pretty credible arguments out there. There are others but I thought this one was worth watching:

Patrick Moore was one of the founders of Greenpeace and is convinced the rise of CO2 is actually saving the planet, and man has little to do with it:

"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," he told a US Senate Committee "If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists." (Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change, Independent)
​

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else had encountered any of these arguments and what do you think?

Patrick Moore wasn't a founder of Greenpeace.

As for CO2 and scientific proof that human emissions of CO2 are dominant, well, human activity in general accounts for the majority of global warming based on what are called forcing factors. We know a great deal about NATURAL forcings (like the sun or ocean circulation etc.) and right now the various factors we know of that are natural DON'T account for the warming we see. But you know what does? Human activities such as greenhouse gas emissions. They explain a HUGE amount of the warming trend we see. And we know the recent run up in greenhouse CO2 emissions is due to humans because of ISOTOPIC signatures in the carbon of the CO2.

 

[Yliginou1]

I can not prove it (so can’t anyone else), but I strongly suspect the increase of CO2 is A Consequence of global warming. Challenge anyone who says otherwise.

Warming can cause dissolved gases to exsolve from ocean water. But if you look at the isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 you'd see that it is increasing in 12-C over 13-C indicating it is coming largely from vegetal and fossil fuel combustion. So it's a pretty good indicator of where the excess CO2 is coming from.