good questions to ask someone who doesnt believe in global warming, to challenege his opinion?

Question

im doing a debate presentation to argue that global warming is happening in our world today, while my classmate is tryin to prove the opposite. i would like to know what would be some good questions to challenge his opinion. i know its hard to ask without knowing what he will be presenting, but thats the point of the debate, to be not know, but be prepared for anything....hopefully someone could help...thanks

Answer 1

If there is no global warming what ended the ice age.

Answer 2

Firstly global warming is a FACT ... you can't debate this. Global warming is the trend of the long-term average surface temperature of Earth (generally 30 years is the minimum accepted time period to define the trend). Also generally the temperature anomalie is used to define if it is warming or not, not necessarily the ACTUAL temperature (as these are hard to compare between stations, however an anomalie is more precise to statistically compare). Statelittle data (from the last 30 odd years) has also enabled the measurements to be more uniform. All this data shows a warming trend over the past 30 years (at least), which therefore is GLOBAL WARMING.



If humans are having a net effect on the global warming is what you could argue. But you haven't asked that.

Answer 3

What? because of the fact we don't pick to have faith the form you want to have faith have been worried of a reality that hasn't been shown. I additionally love how human beings declare there is soooo plenty information. nicely what's the information? You all have the wool pulled so some distance over your heads you won't be in a position to ascertain the reality if it replace into maximum suitable in front of you. Alot human beings did a heck of alot extra analyze and examining in this than you have and we've come to a distinctive end. Like a pair human beings pronounced carry out a little examining up on sunlight spots and their cycle. you apart from mght might desire to focus on the readings coming from ocean based temperture stations. curiously that the oceans are cooling off no longer warming up. (This additionally explains the shrink in hurricanes) i understand some declare climate has no longer something to do with climate, yet I disagree. to show this you're able to look better then your individual outdoor even with the shown fact that. If the Northern Hemisphere retains experiencing progressively extra chillier winters that shows me that the climate is cooling off no longer warming up. If the Northern Hemispere has progressively extra warmer (milder) winters it shows me the climate is warming up no longer cooling off. Then I upload in what i've got discovered approximately sunlight spots and what's going on with the oceans and the Winters in the two the Southern hemispere in 2007 and this previous iciness interior the Northern Hemisphere and that i for sure experience I neglected my probability to get out of Minnesota before yet another 20 twelve months chilly snap instruments in.

Answer 4

The good news is the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly on your side. This means your initial presentation will be easy, just talk science.



The bad news is your opponent knows exactly what you're going to argue: the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring, is caused almost entirely by human activity especially greenhouse gas emissions, and will have significant negative net consequences. But you can't predict which of several alternative positions he'll be arguing (it's not warming? it's warming but it's a natural cycle? it's warming but warming is good?). This means your rebuttal is going to be hard.



So, first things first. Get in touch with your opponent and ask to exchange position statements before beginning research.



If you're unable to do that, you'll have to prepare against several very different positions. Fortunately, the evidence supporting the various positions tend to share certain flaws, so that you can address them from a logical rather than scientific standpoint.



I can say with high confidence that his position will be supported by cherry picking of data. No matter which website he did his research on, they all cherry pick like crazy. So be prepared to:

* give a simple, graphic, non-controversial demonstration of how cherry picking works, for example, showing how home runs per game in major league baseball have been fairly constant since the 1990s, but the long term trend is very clearly a rising one¹

"Home runs haven't been rising since the 1990s, but isn't there still a clear long term rising trend?"

* cite multiple corroborating, independent lines of evidence other than direct temperature readings, e.g., global sea levels, sea temperatures, glacial mass, specific humidity, etc.

"Why isn't your data corroborated by sea levels, etc.?"

* scrutinize the titles and labels of your opponent's graphs closely for signs of incomplete information

"Your graph showed temperatures rising over a 400 year period, but why does the graph stop at the year 1950? What happens after 1950? Why doesn't the graph have a title? How do we know if they were global temperatures or just temperatures in one spot?"



In addition, your opponent will likely use unreliable sources, or rely on deceptive sources that used quote mining. Quote mining is the deceptive strategy of taking a statement of low importance out of context, and ignoring the statements of high importance, such as conclusions, from the same source. Be prepared to:

* challenge the reliability of your opponent's sources, see for example the Australian national science agency's rebuttal to "The Great Global Warming Swindle"²

"If a source isn't peer-reviewed, what's stopping the author from printing incorrect statements?"

* find the abstracts or full text of the scientific studies often quote mined to contradict the consensus viewpoint, and bring a short note as to what the actual conclusions of those studies are

"Isn't 's conclusion that more reliable than the minor quote you gave out of context?"



Finally, this is less likely, but your opponent may inappropriately use raw data, or cite a source that used raw data. Be prepared to:

* argue that adjustment makes data more accurate, accounts for known specific flaws in measurements, and is not part of some scientific conspiracy

"If scientists adjust data based on known, specific, disclosed problems in the measurements, doesn't that mean raw data has problems?"

* give an example of why scientists adjust raw data, for instance, adjusting sea level readings when the land the meter is installed on is discovered to be rising or falling³

"If the meter is moving, doesn't it make sense to adjust its readings to offset that movement?"

* draw a distinction between scientific adjustments of data, which are disclosed and often done by different researchers as common practice, and documentaries manipulating data, where the film doesn't disclose which data points are moved or why

"You found out about these adjustments because the researchers openly disclosed them (or because all researchers use this same adjustment), right?"

Answer 5

According to a survey of 10257 earth scientists, only 11% of scientists in general believe global warming is not happening, or not caused by humans (half of them are engineers). Only 1% of actual climatologists believe that climate change is not caused by humans. So if the person says it's been proven that global warming is fake, then give them this.

Answer 6

Trevor: Why do you continue to lie. You know perfectly well that the debate is not if co2 will cause warming, but how much warming and is it a cause for alarm? To quote Lindzen in his testimony before the house of commons.



Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak - and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.



But yet you continue over and over again to take the position of a minority of skeptics and present it as the majority. I find that very dishonest.

Answer 7

Here’s 20 points you may wish to direct to your opponent:



• Global warming is dictated by the laws of physics, please indicate how these do not apply.



• Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increased as much in the last 100 years as they did in the preceding 15 million years, what caused this?



• Why is the average global temperature higher now than at any time since the last but one ice-age.



• Please explain how emitting more than a thousand tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every second can’t affect the climate.



• Given that the source of heat energy on Earth is the Sun, and this has been declining since the 1970’s, where is the additional heat energy coming from.



• What caused half the glaciers in the world, outside of the Polar Regions, to melt.



• Some skeptics claim global warming is part of a natural cycle, please identify this cycle (there isn’t one so he can’t).



• Why have heatwaves overtaken flooding as the world’s number one weather killer.



• For every one cold temperature record that’s been broken in recent years, there are seventeen hot temperature records that have been set, please explain this.



• Why isn’t there a single scientific organisation on the planet, national or international, that disputes humans are affecting the climate.



• Why have climate change skeptics and deniers had to come up with several hundred explanations for global warming. If just one of them were correct they wouldn’t need to keep inventing new excuses.



• Please explain why 90% of ‘scientific’ research that opposed the global warming theory was funded by Exxon. And why would Exxon publicly admit to funding such a propaganda campaign.



• Why has no climate change skeptic or denier come up with anything that can’t immediately be refuted using solid scientific evidence.



• For what reason did the CEO’s of the world’s largest 1,000 corporations unilaterally declare at a meeting in Davos, Switzerland, that global warming was the biggest single threat facing humanity.



• What happened to the five million square kilometres of Arctic ice that there used to be every summer. If there’s no global warming then why has it melted. Similarly, explain the loss of the best part of a trillion tons of polar ice each year.



• If you have a bottle of air and one of carbon dioxide, the one with the CO2 in it retains more heat. If greenhouse gas emissions can’t affect global warming, how can the experiment be explained.



• If manmade global warming doesn’t exist, please explain how natural warming can exist. And if there’s no such thing as natural warming either, then why isn’t Earth frozen solid.



• If the world isn’t warming up, then what could cause an increase in rainfall at the same time as a decrease in snowfall.



• Considering that most governments in the world have their own scientific advisors, why has every one of them independently accepted that global warming is happening. Why did every nation except the US, sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol.



• Several organisations maintain global temperature records obtained from different sources. Why does every record show the same level of warming irrespective of how it’s obtained.



Something worth noting: Those who accept global warming is happening are able to back up their claims with real world evidence, research from universities, international scientific organisations, the laws of physics etc. Those that don’t accept it generally rely on YouTube, non-scientists and personal blogs.



There was a similar question the other day – someone wanting to know how to counter claims that global warming isn’t manmade. Have a look at the sensible responses that were provided:

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20120520183057AAr6kal



- - - - - - - - - - -



EDIT: TO ERIC



You've quoted Richard Lindzen, he's a climate scientist and a skeptic (in the true sense of the word); it's possible to have a reasoned and informed debate with Lindzen because he knows what he's talking about. The same does not hold true for many 'skeptics' who are of the opinion that there's no such thing as global warming, the world is cooling, it's a natural cycle, the Sun is getting hotter, it was invented by Al Gore etc etc. These aren't skeptics, they're deniers who vehemently oppose any notion that humans could affect the climate.

Answer 8

There are several indisputable facts that you may be able to use to your advantage, depending of course on their strategy.

1) Humans add over 30 trillion kilograms of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

2) CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by about 40% since the industrial revolution.

3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

4) Solar output has not increased significantly in over 40 years.

5) The Earth's orbital cycles put us in what should be a slight cooling period.

You might also want to become familiar this list of skeptic arguments as it is likely that they will be using at least a few of them.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php



[re: Spider Boy]

>>Hmmm...How about, "OK, then, why is it getting COOLER?"<<

The '90s was the warmest decade in the instrumental record...and the '00s were warmer on average than the '90s. Seems like it's still warming to me.



>>How about, "What about all those predictions the warmists have made that have not borne out?"<<

Which predictions? Be specific, because there are some predictions like the 2006 hurricane season prediction that were actually made by skeptics and others that were not part of scientific research, but were instead personal opinions stated in interviews with journalists.



>>Oooh, oooh, here's one that I know will work. "Are you a climate scientist?" Wait for answer then say, "Well then, case closed!"<<

I think that you are confused. This question should be "Is your source a climate scientist or a published paper in a peer-reviewed journal?" Of course that won't work in a debate because there is no way to verify anything. That is why Monckton wants to debate everyone - he can say anything he wants and it's really not possible to verify anything until after the debate is over...



[re: mick t]

>>Skeptical science is a well known alarmist mis-information site. It uses bogus science to propagate a political doctrine<<

I'm sorry, but what science posted on that site is bogus?

BTW how exactly does this answer the asker's question?



[re: Ian]

>>"If there is no such thing as man made global warming then why is today hotter than yesterday?"

Deniers hate this question because there is no logical answer.<<

hahaha That's funny. That's actually a denier question swapped back to front - asking something similar to where is Al Gore to help you shovel all the global warming off your driveway. AGW deniers *hate* it when you use trends longer than a few years. See Spider Boy's answer is you need proof.



>>Maybe throw in "The science is settled, ******!!!!!" just to close out the debate.<<

The science is settled, but obviously there is still a debate between people who are not scientists.



[re: jim z]

>>Global warming is such a ridiculous and ill defined name.<<

No it's not. That some people don't use the various terms properly doesn't mean they are ambiguous.



>>It might mean any warming that humans have caused or it might mean any warming in the last 100 years.<<

No, it means global warming. Human caused global warming is generally referred to as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Warming for the past 100 years is referred to in general as...wait for it...global warming. If you want to be specific, we could just say something like "global warming over the past century" or "AGW over the past century".



>>If you think it means the later, then you could ask why did the River Thames regularly freeze 300 years ago.<<

I see you are also confused about which side of the debate he is supposed to be on...

No one denies that The Little Ice Age caused the Thames to freeze in the winters. I'm sure that we can all agree that it wasn't cold that was added to the Earth which has since receded causing the current warming trend.



[re: Sagebrush]

>>"If you are so smart. How come you are not rich like Al Gore?"<<

We all can now see why you aren't rich like Al Gore.



[re: Psychobenzaprine]

>>"How come 1998 is still the warmest year on record, despite CO2 emissions increasing ever since?" No, wait... That one won't work, either.<<

Obviously. 1998 is not still the warmest year on record and even if it was, the strength of the El Nino does a really good job of answering the question of why it was extraordinary.



Edit: [re: Ian's reply]

>>How about Hansen's temperature prediction from 1988... Oh right, the science is settled so the model must be right and not reality.<<

The key here is that you are talking about a prediction from 24 years ago and it's pure raving lunacy to claim that anyone is saying that old projection is still correct.



>>How about 50 million climate refugees by 2010...oh, ooops...make that 2020???<<

Now didn't I say, "Be specific"? Who said it and when and where?

>>Oh right, the science is settled so that model trumps reality too right?<<

You weren't specific, so for all I know a bunch of UN politicians said it.



_

Answer 9

you can be right and still lose a debate. learn the debate rules. It's not about content. You can win a debate claiming the earth is flat and win.



you cannot win against a belief no amount of logic and facts change their minds.

Answer 10

Ask them to explain increased radiation levels in the tropopause at specific frequencies. Namely those that lie outside the Suns emission spectrum and within specific greenhouse gases absorption spectrum while the rest, including within the atmospheric window, is not following suit. Ask them to specifically explain the increase in the band at 667cm^-1, the CO2 absorption band.



Eric C: Trevor is not lying. There are various ways people state AGW is not occurring in the public. One of those ways, as has been mention din here numerous times, is that the effects of CO2 can not cause warming because the greenhouse effect is non existent, CO2 does not retain heat, or other such rubbish. There are hundreds of ways 'skeptics' use to call into question CO2's hand in warming. It is not just your personal argument he is arguing against or even the arguments in the scientific community but all of them. I would also like to see your explanation of my question above if CO2 is not the cause of warming. This person he is questioning is not a scientists but a member of the public. The questioner did not state exactly what the opposing presenter would argue so it's pretty much all up in the air.

Answer 11

"If there is no such thing as man made global warming then why is today hotter than yesterday?"



Deniers hate this question because there is no logical answer. Maybe throw in "The science is settled, biatch!!!!!" just to close out the debate.



@Vampire Muffin..."Which predictions?"



How about Hansen's temperature prediction from 1988 and even GISS trending below his scenario C (drastic cuts to C02)??? Oh right, the science is settled so the model must be right and not reality.



How about 50 million climate refugees by 2010...oh, ooops...make that 2020??? Oh right, the science is settled so that model trumps reality too right?



How about an ice free Arctic by 2000...opps...I mean 2012...oooops...I mean 2016....errr.... 2045 perhaps??? Oh right, the science is settled so again the model must be right and reality is wrong.



Maybe you could help me out and name ONE prediction alarmists got right? It should be fairly easy since the science is settled. ROFL!!!!!!

Answer 12

ask them do they believe in cause and affect as there is definitely man made pollution it must have an affect most deniers just can not get this,one answer i got was its only a small amount compared to natural pollution, but that is not an answer as it takes very little cyanide to kill the point being something small can still have great affect so with out evidence that it has little or no affect this is not an answer

Answer 13

Global warming is such a ridiculous and ill defined name. It might mean any warming that humans have caused or it might mean any warming in the last 100 years. If you think it means the later, then you could ask why did the River Thames regularly freeze 300 years ago.

Answer 14

"How come 1998 is still the warmest year on record, despite CO2 emissions increasing ever since?"



No, wait... That one won't work, either. :-(

Answer 15

The River Thames in England is as far north as Canada is. It should be freezing regularly. But it's not anymore.

Answer 16

Skeptical science is a well known alarmist mis-information site. It uses bogus science to propagate a political doctrine

Answer 17

This question has been asked thousands of times by people who were too lazy to do their homework.



The more interesting question is: who are the lazy TEACHERS who set up "debates" about whether people landed on the moon or not, or about whether we should or should not "believe" that the earth is round and not flat?



In answer to the question asked, however, a simple point to raise is: "Who says global warming isn't clearly established, significant, and very probably of serious detriment to humanity's long term future."



NOT the world's top scientists:

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=1

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://nationalacademies.org/morenews/20100716.html

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”



The key deniers of global warming are mostly NOT scientists at all.

http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-truth-about-denial.html

Answer 18

"If you are so smart. How come you are not rich like Al Gore?"

Answer 19

Hmmm...How about, "OK, then, why is it getting COOLER?"



Errr..maybe not.



How about, "What about all those predictions the warmists have made that have not borne out?"



No, not a good one either.



Oooh, oooh, here's one that I know will work. "Are you a climate scientist?" Wait for answer then say, "Well then, case closed!"

Answer 20

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php



This is a list of common denier beliefs and assertions, with links to an explanation and further links to scientific papers and support. Mostly the denier beliefs are based on flawed understanding of science and an inability to think critically about what they read and to deal with the complexities of science.