- Carbon Dioxide Levels Were Higher in the Past Therefore It Is Alright if They Are Higher In the Present
- More Carbon Dioxide is Good for Plants and Agriculture
- Human Carbon Dioxide Emissions are Small Compared to Natural Emissions
- Carbon Dioxide Levels are too Small to Have an Effect on the Climate
- Volcanoes Emit More Carbon Dioxide than Humans
- There is no Consensus Among Scientists on Global Warming
- It Is Only A 1.4 Degree Increase
- It’s the Urban Heat Island Effect that Contributes to Global Warming
- The Sun is Responsible for Global Warming
- Mars and Other Planets are Warming Up
- The Climate Has Always Been Changing
- An Ice Age was Predicted in the 1970s
- It is Colder During the Winter in the United States and Elsewhere
- So What if the Arctic Sea Ice Melts?
- Cold Weather Kills More People than Hot Weather
- The Email ‘Scandal’: The “trick” to Hide the Meaning of the Word Trick
- The Email ‘Scandal’: The Missing Warmth
- Scientists are Faking Global Warming Because of the Money They Make from Government
- 32,000 Scientists, 9,000 with PhDs, do not Believe in Global Warming
- Those who Believe in Global Warming Changed the Phrase to “Climate Change” in Order to Deceive the Public
- Believing in Global Warming Goes Against the Bible
- Global Warming is a Socialist Conspiracy
List Of Rebuttal Arguments
There is no Consensus Among Scientists on Global Warming
Yes, there is consensus among scientists no matter what Skeptics claim.
About 93% or more of climatologists, who publish on the subject, agree that there is global warming and that humans are the cause of it. The American Meteorologist Society states:
Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence. The two groups least likely to be convinced of this were the nonpublishing climate scientists and nonpublishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists, at 65% and 59%, respectively. In the middle were the two groups of publishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists at 79% and 78%, respectively. – 1033
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
It is meteorologists (weathermen), whose level of expertise is limited on this subject. They, not climatologists, are the ones divided on the subject. Not having the expertise of a climatologist they fall among the opinions of the public in general. One thing that must be kept in mind is that a meteorologist is to a climatologist what a nurse is to a doctor. They may both be in the same general field but you don’t go to a nurse for surgery.
Science, like medicine, is a broad profession which has a wide variety of specialized positions. A brain surgeon is not likely to know what a heart surgeon does. Likewise, for science, a chemist might not know what a biologist does. In similar fashion, a meteorologist does not have the expertise of a climatologist.
Another point that the AMS brought out is that those who disbelieve in human-caused global warming base their belief on their political inclination and psychological reasons, not scientific knowledge:
Political ideology. Decision making about how to mount an effective societal response to climate change in the United States has been complicated by increasing polarization over the issue, which has occurred largely along political lines. In the late 1990s, similar proportions of liberals and conservatives saw global warming as real; by 2008 (Dunlap and McCright 2008)—and continuing to the present (Leiserowitz et al. 2012)—large differences had emerged such that liberals were more likely to see it as real, and conservatives had become increasingly skeptical. This growing polarization appears not to be caused by differences in scientific understanding—indeed, most Americans know very little about the science of global warming (Leiserowitz et al. 2010)—but rather by differences in political ideology and deeper underlying values (Kahan et al. 2011). Many conservatives see the solutions proposed to mitigate global warming as being more harmful than global warming itself due to their effect on the economy (McCright and Dunlap 2011). Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to accept the dominant scientific view, as they see the proposed responses to global warming as strengthening activities they value—namely, protection of the environment and regulation of industrial harm. – Page 1030
Can we afford to have politics dominate science, particularly where it affects our well being?
So What if the Arctic Sea Ice Melts?
Skeptics, when they are not claiming that the Arctic Sea ice is growing or staying the same, ignore the implications of its disappearance by saying, “So what if it melts?”
There are two reasons why it’s important, the first being less important than the second:
First, it is a clear indication that the earth is indeed warming.
Second, and most important, an ice-free Arctic will drastically alter the weather in the northern hemisphere where the majority of Earth’s population live. To understand how the weather will be changed, we need to know how the ice currently affects it and what would happen without it.
There is no Consensus Among Scientists on Global Warming
Yes, there is consensus among scientists no matter what Skeptics claim.
About 93% or more of climatologists, who publish on the subject, agree that there is global warming and that humans are the cause of it. The American Meteorologist Society states:
Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence.
American Meteorological Society – 1033
Meteorologists (weathermen), whose level of expertise is limited on this subject, are not climatologists. They are the ones divided on the subject. Not having the expertise of a climatologist they fall among the opinions of the public in general. One thing that must be kept in mind is that a meteorologist is to a climatologist what a nurse is to a doctor. They may both be in the same field of medicine but you don’t go to a nurse for surgery.
Science, like medicine, is a broad profession which has a wide variety of specialized positions. A brain surgeon is not likely to know what a heart surgeon does. Likewise, for science, a chemist might not know what a biologist does. In similar fashion, a meteorologist does not have the expertise of a climatologist.
Another point that the AMS brought out is that those who disbelieve in human-caused global warming base their belief on their political inclination and psychological reasons, not scientific knowledge:
Political ideology. Decision making about how to mount an effective societal response to climate change in the United States has been complicated by increasing polarization over the issue, which has occurred largely along political lines. In the late 1990s, similar proportions of liberals and conservatives saw global warming as real; by 2008 (Dunlap and McCright 2008)—and continuing to the present (Leiserowitz et al. 2012)—large differences had emerged such that liberals were more likely to see it as real, and conservatives had become increasingly skeptical. This growing polarization appears not to be caused by differences in scientific understanding—indeed, most Americans know very little about the science of global warming (Leiserowitz et al. 2010)—but rather by differences in political ideology and deeper underlying values (Kahan et al. 2011). Many conservatives see the solutions proposed to mitigate global warming as being more harmful than global warming itself due to their effect on the economy (McCright and Dunlap 2011). Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to accept the dominant scientific view, as they see the proposed responses to global warming as strengthening activities they value—namely, protection of the environment and regulation of industrial harm. – Page 1030
Can we afford to have politics dominate science, particularly where it affects our well being?
Carbon Dioxide Levels Were Higher in the Past Therefore It Is Allright if They Are Higher In the Present
Skeptics like to point out that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels were much higher in the past and therefore, such large amounts would have little consequence in the present. Some even say that it will improve our environment.
In order to understand how CO2 levels affected us in the past, we need to understand the difference between the recent past, the ancient past and the deep past. The recent past is thousands to hundreds of thousands of years ago. The ancient past is millions to tens of millions of years ago, and the deep past is hundreds of millions of years ago.
The further back in time we go, the more different the earth becomes with CO2 levels having different impacts on its climate.
It’s the Urban Heat Island Effect that Contributes to Global Warming
The Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE) is a phenomenon in which cities give out heat (From mostly roads, rooftops, automobiles, and air conditioners) resulting in slightly warmer air over cities and suburban areas when compared to surrounding rural areas.
It has been suggested that UHIE has significantly influenced temperature records over the 20th century when there was rapid growth of urban environments. This, some Skeptics claim, is the reason for global warming.
Mars and Other Planets are Warming Up
Skeptics often times say that Mars and other planets are warming and that somehow explains why the Earth is warming. They suggest that humans cannot be the cause of global warming since we are not on those other planets.
However, other planets have radically different atmospheres and climates than ours, and they get warmer and cooler for reasons that are not related to anything that is happening on Earth.
The Email ‘Scandal’: The “trick” to Hide the Meaning of the Word Trick
When the so-called e-mail ‘scandal’ broke out, a number of carefully selected statements from several scientists were chosen to give the false impression that they were engaging in covering up the facts about Global Warming. One of these statements was from Phil Jones, who was quoted as saying:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick […] to hide the decline”.
The entire quote, however, is:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline”.
Skeptics removed 22 words from mid-sentence.
With this context missing, particularly the phrase “adding the real temps,” it is falsely interpreted to mean that Jones was ‘tricking’ the public and ‘hiding’ something. But does it really mean that, or is it a case of professional jargon that was opportunistically quoted out of context?
The word “trick” can be used in two different and opposing ways. One is to fool somebody or play a prank on them. The other more serious definition is to present a shortcut or different way of solving a problem. Every profession, scientific or otherwise, has their own system of solving problems and they adopt the word “Trick” and the phrase “Tricks of the trade” to show other members different ways of solving a problem or learning something.
Below are examples of how the word “trick” is used by scientists, doctors, and other professionals:
- Mathematics: Some tricks from the symmetry-toolbox for nonlinear equations: generalizations of the Camassa-Holm equation
- Economics: Big data: New tricks for econometrics
- Education: Teaching statistics: A bag of tricks
- Medicine – brain physiology: Cerebral venous thrombosis and multidetector CT angiography: tips and tricks
- Neurobiology: The basal ganglia: learning new tricks and loving it
- Astronautics – Aeronautics: Add fluorescent minitufts to the aerodynamicist’s bag of tricks
Also, the phrase “Tricks of the trade” is used to describle multiple “tricks” used in every profession.
- Scientific research in general: Tricks of the Trade: How to Think about Your Research While You’re Doing It
- Heart surgery: Pacing Options in the Adult Patient with Congenital Heart Disease – Tricks of the trade
- Spinal surgery: Spine Surgery: Tricks of the Trade.
- Astronomy: Pulsar Searches – Tricks of the Trade (Chapter title).
- Writers: The English Journal – Tricks of the Trade
- Bicycling: Tricks of the Trade: Episode 1 (Video and text)
Believing in Global Warming Goes Against the Bible
Fundamentalist Christians in the United States tend to be Skeptics due to their affiliation with political conservatism. Some of them state that the Bible gives them the right to use the land, and therefore they can burn fossil fuels.
For instance, in the first chapter of the Judeo-Christian Bible, God addresses himself to Adam and Eve and says:
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Genesis 1:28, New International Version
The problem with their reasoning is that they are using the land recklessly – destroying it. That is something that the Bible has not told them to do. They are thus taking a gift from God and ruining it. If anything, their excuse is sacrilegious; an insult to the God they claim to worship.
An example worth following by Evangelical Christians is that of Katharine Hayhoe, who runs a YouTube channel dedicated to global warming. Below is her video on how her Evangelical Christian faith leads her to accept the reality of human-caused global warming.