List Of Rebuttal Arguments

  1. Carbon Dioxide Levels Were Higher in the Past Therefore It Is Alright if They Are Higher In the Present
  2. More Carbon Dioxide is Good for Plants and Agriculture
  3. Human Carbon Dioxide Emissions are Small Compared to Natural Emissions
  4. Carbon Dioxide Levels are too Small to Have an Effect on the Climate
  5. Volcanoes Emit More Carbon Dioxide than Humans
  6. There is no Consensus Among Scientists on Global Warming
  7. It Is Only A 1.4 Degree Increase
  8. It’s the Urban Heat Island Effect that Contributes to Global Warming
  9. The Sun is Responsible for Global Warming
  10. Mars and Other Planets are Warming Up
  11. The Climate Has Always Been Changing
  12. An Ice Age was Predicted in the 1970s
  13. It is Colder During the Winter in the United States and Elsewhere
  14. So What if the Arctic Sea Ice Melts?
  15. Cold Weather Kills More People than Hot Weather
  16. The Email ‘Scandal’: The “trick” to Hide the Meaning of the Word Trick
  17. The Email ‘Scandal’: The Missing Warmth
  18. Scientists are Faking Global Warming Because of the Money They Make from Government
  19. 32,000 Scientists, 9,000 with PhDs, do not Believe in Global Warming
  20. Those who Believe in Global Warming Changed the Phrase to “Climate Change” in Order to Deceive the Public
  21. Believing in Global Warming Goes Against the Bible
  22. Global Warming is a Socialist Conspiracy
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on 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?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on There is no Consensus Among Scientists on Global Warming

Cold Weather Kills More People than Hot Weather

Some Skeptics say that there are more cold-related deaths than those who die of heat-related causes. This is supposed to mean that a hotter climate is preferable to a colder one.

Regardless of whether an individual prefers warmer weather rather than cold, there is a limit as to how warm it could get without affecting us adversely. More important than physical warmth for the individual is the total effect that warmer climate will bring throughout the earth. Skeptics don’t acknowledge the impact on people from droughts and floods.

Direct heat deaths killed anywhere from 35,000 to 70,000 in Europe in 2003. While some may quibble over the exact cause of the heat or drought, saying that it was not global warming but ‘natural’ causes, the point is that ever-increasing temperatures due to carbon dioxide emissions will give us more of these droughts and floods, as well as direct heat related-deaths.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Cold Weather Kills More People than Hot Weather

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.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on So What if the Arctic Sea Ice Melts?

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?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on There is no Consensus Among Scientists on Global Warming

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.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

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.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on It’s the Urban Heat Island Effect that Contributes to 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.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Mars and Other Planets are Warming Up

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 19 words from mid-sentence (Not including the words in parenthesis).

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 phrase “Tricks of the trade” to show other members different ways of solving a problem or learning something.

Below are examples of how the phrase is used by scientists, doctors, and other professionals:

Also, scientists and other professionals use the word “trick” alone:

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Email ‘Scandal’: The “trick” to Hide the Meaning of the Word Trick

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.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment