[Please visit my List of Arguments for the complete list of global warming issues and talking points.]
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a naturally occurring gas, as well as a by-product of burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas, gasoline, and other industrial processes. Unlike Nitrogen and Oxygen which make up much of our atmosphere CO2, even in small amounts, has the ability to retain heat. It is one of the principal greenhouse gases that affect the earth’s temperature.
With the arrival of the industrial revolution, around 1760, we began burning more and more fossil fuels releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. It was a tiny amount at first, not affecting our climate, but it accumulated in the atmosphere as more and more industry was created. It was inevitable that our temperatures would finally begin to go up with resulting changes to our weather systems.
Courtesy of Science Clarified
Scientists have been studying the progression of our warming and its current impact on us. They have also made studies on how global warming is going to affect us in the future.
There is cause to be alarmed.
Contrary to what many would think, civilization is a fragile thing that can only exist when there is stability in our climate. Too much instability and our civilization suffers and can even fail.
More intense droughts will cause crops to start failing on a regular basis leading to skyrocketing food prices and famine throughout the world.
Intensified flooding will damage homes and destroy infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and power lines. When this starts happening on a regular basis, it will lead to a lower standard of living even among well-off first world nations.
There are those who take exception to what scientists have been saying about global warming for the past few decades. They refer to themselves as “Skeptics.”
Skeptics take a contrarian view on anything related to global warming. They are always in agreement with each other on the minutest of details and never have meaningful discussions amongst themselves except to reinforce their positions.
They are vitriolic against those with opposing views and engage in name calling and personal attacks. Then they complain that scientists are doing the same thing.
On the other hand, even though they agree that there is global warming, scientists are more critical of each other in a professional manner. It is built into their methodology as part of the scientific process. By so doing, they correct themselves until certainty is reached.
Essentially, this issue has turned out to be a propagandized event with little understanding by the public of its critical points. The purpose of this website is to communicate the essentials of human-caused global warming and respond to the multitude of arguments that have been made by Skeptics.
When reading through their arguments, there are a few points to keep in consideration:
Political ideology is very important to Skeptics, who tend to be conservatives.
Conservatives get their information from conservative websites who in turn get their information from conservative think tanks. These think tanks are well financed by oil and coal corporations who feel financially threatened by alternative methods of producing electricity.
Big picture, little picture
Also referred to as taking out of context or “cherry picking”. This is usually done by picking a select date from a temperature chart or a specific region from a portion of the earth in order to give a false impression about the evidence in general. The big picture must first be taken into account before the little picture can be understood.
Skeptics habitually state the exact opposite of what scientists say. When scientists say “white” Skeptics do not say “yellow” or “orange”, they say “black”. When scientists say “A” Skeptics do not say “G” or “P”, they say “Z”. There is nothing so minor that scientists say that they won’t contradict.
Most Skeptics tend to be politically conservative. Conspiracies are a common theme amongst conservatives and Skeptics are no exception.
In the imagination of most Skeptics, there is a conspiracy among scientists to bring about a global Socialist dictatorship and that somehow the solutions to human-caused global warming are part of that agenda.
A Gish Gallop is a tactic famously used by creationist Duane Gish in his debates with those who believe in evolution. A Gish Gallop involves making so many statements in such a short period of time that the opponent cannot respond to all of them.
In principle, it takes only 5-10 seconds to utter a falsehood but it may take 2-4 minutes or more to make a complete rebuttal. It would thus be easy to state half a dozen falsehoods in a minute’s time, which means it may take perhaps half an hour to make a full response to all of them. Since this is impractical, it prevents the other party from responding to all the points that were made.
Thus, the advantage always goes to the incorrect party unless the other debater is given sufficient time to respond to them all.
Often times, when presented with evidence that they do not like, Skeptics slander the motives of the scientists who produced it.
They accuse them of wanting to make money from the government, therefore, everything they say, and any evidence they produce, is false. This is both slanderous and illogical. To make an analogy, the United States put a man on the moon 50 years ago. The Apollo space program cost around $300 billion in today’s money with most of it going into the salaries of scientists, engineers and technicians.
So now imagine a person arguing that the Moon landing was a hoax because they had a government salary. In any case, most scientists who write on the subject of global warming do so voluntarily.
Skeptics have called scientists and those that believe in global warming pathetic excuses of human beings, cockroaches, and have likened them to Nazi’s. Then they take offense when these scientists refer to them as “Deniers.”
They claim that they are being likened to Holocaust deniers, which they find offensive. That is not true. In fact, there are a wide range of deniers on many subjects.
There are lunar landing deniers who do not believe that men landed on the moon. There are those who deny that the earth is round like a ball but instead is flat. You can be in denial of a wide range of subjects without being a holocaust denier.
What makes a person a denier is a persistent opposition to a fact regardless of the evidence presented.
Everyone, no matter how truthful and accurate they are, eventually makes a mistake. Scientists own up to any error they make and apologize for it. Skeptics do not, no matter how big and obvious their mistake may be.
Experience has shown all of this to be an effective means of indoctrination.
In short, this issue is a war of words and ideas; propaganda versus rebuttals; well-funded think tanks, websites, and individuals, versus scientists paying out of pocket for their educational websites.
History stands ready to judge us.
[Please visit my List of Arguments for the complete list of global warming issues.]