What are the main arguments against?
And what are YOUR thoughts on this?
It's not whether humans are causing global warming from CO2, but how much. Recent papers suggesting low amounts of warming were published too late to be used by the IPCC. CO2 by itself would only cause about one degree of warming. If Nature has negative feedbacks in response to that warming, then the overall amount of warming would be less than one degree and not noticeable within natural variation.
The main arguments for are:
1. Humans are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere and this should cause warming.
2. Humans are also clearing large areas of land and this should cause the natural take up of CO2 to be reduced and it will affect the way earth reflects incident radiation.
Against:
1. Nothing unusual seems to be happening to the climate. Look at the attached graphs. CO2 has been higher in the past, temperatures have been higher in the past and, based on the data, temperature causes CO2 increases not the other way round.
2. Similarly, now temperatures have flat-lined while CO2 is increasing quickly.
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)?
This is a political issue started in 1988 by Margaret Thatcher. See here : http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
Natural Global Warming?
This has to do with the natural ebbs and flows of our climate. Recent history shows that we are in a natural warming period simply due to the fact that we are coming out of the Little Ice Age (LIA). Before the LIA there was the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). These were natural temperature fluctuations of the planet that lasted several hundred years.
Well, it's crap like this --> http://mrc.org/articles/networks-embrace... that are causing more people to doubt the validity of any AGW theory. I mean, if a AGW alarmist campaign in the UK that included blowing up little school kids who questioned AGW didn't work just tell the world that hey, if it wasn't for there being an ocean AGW would have caused the earth's temp to rise by 212 degrees F. How can we take these people seriously with crap like that. Their computer models that they used in the latest IPCC report failed completely to predict that the planet's atmospheric temperature would remain flat for the last 15 years so how the hell can they tell us to trust the models to predict future warming? This is so fraudulent that it's a joke. It's so bad for the AGW alarmists that they have become deniers of reality just to cling to their theories. No mention of real world observations in the latest report. And they wonder why more people are becoming skeptical of them every day? They perverted their theory into a religion. Why? because it's not about the climate. Never has been. It's nothing more than an attempt to force a political agenda. And all the rush to action, telling us that we can't afford to wait any longer, and that the science is settled - all that was just an attempt to force their agenda onto society before real science proved them wrong. LOL! Well, the clock is running out on them and they are in a panic so they blow up little kids in PSAs and tell us that if it weren't for the ocean earth's temps would have risen 212 degrees F, completely ignoring physics in the process.
AGW is most definitely real. You can't expect to put a half trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and not see any warming. Of course, doubling the CO2 concentration by itself will only raise the temperature by 1%. And we really don't know how the atmosphere will respond. The system is just too complicated.
Even if we are headed for catastrophic warming, there is no political will to make the drastic emission cuts needed to prevent a disaster. Who here really thinks China will ever reduce their emissions to pre 1995 levels?
All we can do is hang on for the ride.
And not delude ourselves into thinking we can make any difference.
The action of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas is well documented, and the average temperature of the earth (easily tracked at the poles, and seen via progressive ice melt) has been rising along with a continuous increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, coincident with explosive population growth and combustion of conventional fuels. The picture is quite complete, backed up by solid chemistry, mathematics, and computer modeling. So the main arguments "for" are scientific in nature.
Most arguments "against" are largely ad-hominem (that scientists must have some kind of hidden agenda), or political (it's expensive to start to behave responsibly regarding energy, impractical or unethical to promote birth control, and therefore we somehow "can't" let ourselves believe the bad news), or religious (my old book says how the world is gonna end, so your science is invalid!).
Watch these, all your questions are answered.
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
I'll go with the evidence. All of it indicates the laws of physics work.
The argument against are generally misleading, misdirecting, confusing real science with conspiracy theories.
1. The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics.
2. Either ignorance of 1. above or denial of 1. above.
It's getting cooler. This puts the argument to bed.
What are the main arguments for this?
What are the main arguments against?
And what are YOUR thoughts on this?
most of the answers to such questions are clouded by political agendas and falsified facts to the point where we can simply not trust the experts data because of the corruption in place
The fact is that the earth goes through ice ages and warming spells naturally anyway and always has
The main argument is that more than 90% os the scientists who have studied and spent their lives researching such things agree that it is real and true. What more do you need?
