I need help with a debate I'm doing for school on Global Warming (doesn't exist side)?

Question

I'm on the opposing side and I can not find any information on why global warming isn't real. The only stuff that's coming up on google are facts about why it is real. Any website links or info you can give me will be greatly appreciated!

Answer 1

OK, despite what you might think, it’s actually quite easy.



Step one: Establish the Default Position



The first thing you have to do is point out the obvious fact that it is *not* your job to prove them wrong. Rather, it is *their* job to prove that they’re right. Remember, it’s not you who’s asking them to hand over their hard-earned cash. That’s what they’re doing and if they want your money, they have to demonstrate that they’re correct.



So if they say “Prove us wrong” you simply respond with “I don’t have to, I’m happy to keep my money in my pocket unless you can prove there’s something to worry about.” If they say “What do you say is causing it then?” you respond with “I don’t care, but I’m not paying you anything unless you can prove that your theory is correct.”



Thus, you must establish that the “Default Position” is that there is no problem and that it is up to the alarmists to demonstrate otherwise.



Step two: Ask for Evidence.



Remember, this is supposed to be a *scientific* debate. Science works on empirical evidence; so ask for the unequivocal, empirical, scientific evidence that supports the following:



-That mankind’s CO2 emissions have had a *significant* effect on global temperature.



-That global temperature will rise as much as predicted in the future as a result of mankind’s CO2 emissions.



-That any warming that does occur will cause harmful events. (If the warming isn’t going to be harmful, we don’t need to do anything.)



-That it would be cheaper to try and prevent those harmful events *now* rather than simply dealing with them *if* and when they happen.







Now, you have to be careful here and make sure any evidence that they provide *is actually* evidence for what you’re asking for. For example:



Evidence that the world is warming (Temperature records, ice caps melting, etc., etc.) is *not* evidence that mankind is causing it.



Evidence that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising is *not* evidence that it’s causing *significant* warming.



Evidence that mankind is causing the rise in CO2 is *not* evidence that it’s causing *significant* warming.



Evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is *not* evidence that it’s causing *significant* warming.



Evidence that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is indeed behaving in exactly the way that they predicted is *still not* evidence that it’s causing *significant* warming.



While it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that the extra CO2 will cause *some* warming, the $64,000 questions are: “How much?” and “Should I be worried?” and *that’s* what you need evidence for.



And remember, it’s unequivocal, empirical, scientific evidence that you’re asking for, and Climate models are *not* empirical. Many aspects that affect the climate of planet Earth are poorly understood. What values do we use in the climate models for those poorly understood aspects? Answer? We guess. And guesses, let’s be clear, are merely expressions of bias. If you want to predict a catastrophe, you guess at values that produce that result. And vice versa.



Finally, you can also point out that there is evidence to suggest that there is less cause for alarm than the alarmists are suggesting. For example; CO2 is rising as fast as ever, but there’s been no warming at all for the last decade. According to the temperature data from the Climate Research Unit in the UK (the data that the IPCC uses) the trend since 2001 is -0.05 per decade (note the minus sign). (Other temperature data sets show warming, of course, but this just demonstrates the high degree of uncertainty in this debate – You need more certainty before you’ll part with your money!) Also, the high temperature rise predicted by the alarmists is a result of amplification by climate feedbacks – the most significant of which is water vapour. However, the water vapour feedback is supposed to cause a tell-tale hotspot high in the atmosphere that not one, but three separate sources of temperature data say is simply *not* there. So that’s real, observation evidence from multiple sources that suggests that the alarmists’ predictions are wrong.



End of scare.

Answer 2

I don't believe you. But if I had to debate on the subject, I would start with: temperatures go up, and they come down, and climates change (a repeat of the last 4 billion years). There has been a recent increase in temperatures (related mostly to oceanic temperature oscillations). There, I must be on the wrong side of the debate, you see, I believe that temperatures have increased. However, greedy people have used it to make money. Climatologists have used it for notoriety. Environmentalists have touted it to boost their agendas. They gave it a name: Global Warming. A half a degree? Temperatures raised the same amount in the 1930s, but came down through the next three decades. In perspective of geological events, this is normal. We are in what's called an interglacial: the warm period between ice ages. It's getting warmer (thank the good Lord). So it's Global Warming. I agree. But then, in a few years it will get progressively colder and the ice caps will advance towards the equator. See links.



Problems with Global Warming: climatologists' "research" based on tree-ring proxies (which data was "lost"), driven by political and idealist agendas, used for corrupt purposes, alarmist scare tactics used to sensationalize it. So that's what I don't believe in. That Global Warming.

Answer 3

>>in school our type has to do a debate if worldwide warming is powerful or undesirable. i chosen the forged area,<< Cool. >>asserting that worldwide warming is undesirable because of the fact it melts icebergs inflicting sea tiers to upward thrust<< exchange "icebergs" to glaciers. Granted, icebergs often come from glaciers, yet as quickly as the ice is interior the sea, it extremely is melting or no longer melting has no effect on sea point. elementary to think of. Fill a tumbler a million/2 finished with water. Mark the point of the water. Now upload an ice cube (representing ice falling into the sea from a glacier). Mark the water point lower back. next, wait for the ice to soften... the place is the water point now? >>with available extinction of animals and land loss.<< properly, guy is already at as quickly as in charge for the extinction of many species without worldwide warming, yet it extremely is not significant on your debate. warmer could be sturdy for some species, yet even a small exchange could properly be devastating for others. warmer is *no longer* universally greater proper. As for land loss, that one is a huge deal once you communicate approximately the place a majority of the planet's human inhabitants lives. >>yet then i did a sprint prognosis and curiously if there grew to become into no worldwide warming,<< the place did you do your learn? i think of which you have long gone to three questionable web pages if that's what you have got here across. >>the earth could be chillier making no flowers and stuff.<< chillier than what? too plenty warmth kills flowers probable greater advantageous than no longer adequate. >>so how am i able to like have an alibi for that??<< discover greater proper materials. verify out the NASA and NOAA web pages for suggestions on worldwide warming. _

Answer 4

Amancalling is right. You must establish the question properly or the pro-AGW side will smoke you. There has been some warming. It's likely that we will experience a little more warming, but not enough to take draconian measures to prevent.



CO2 emissions alone won't put us in the danger zone, the relationship between CO2 levels and heat trapping ability is logarithmic. You would expect to see about a 1 degree (C) rise in temperature for every doubling of CO2 concentration. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it probably has contributed some to the current warming trend. The important point is that even if the CO2 concentration doubles again (which is unlikely) we would only expect another 1 degree of warming, and we can handle that. (See how specific your argument must be to win?)



The doom and gloom, sky-is-falling pronouncements of runaway temperature come from feedbacks. If temperature increases a little, certain feedback mechanisms will amplify the effect. For example, as the ice at the North Pole melts, you are trading reflective snow pack for open ocean water which will absorb more heat. Warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor which is itself a greenhouse gas. This is the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. However, there is no guarantee the feedbacks will be positive. And this is the Achilles heel to attack. See page 14:

http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Energy/030811/Christy.pdf



The Pro-AGW side has no empirical evidence demonstrating the predictive power of their computer models, only agreement among themselves that their models will be right. When you get outside of the establishment, opinions are much different. Several of Japan's top climate scientists are on record rejecting the whole notion:



Three of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.



Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/print.html

Note: these are not rogue scientists or unqualified bloggers, but high level scientists within the Japanese government.



Finally, we can now have a look at how the models of 20 years ago did. This is the sort of empirical proof which the pro-AGW side needs to really prove their case. Unfortunately for them, empirical data supports your side not theirs. Dr. James Hansen in 1988 predicted a temperature anomaly of 1 degree (1 degree warmer than the baseline temp in 1960). This was based on the computer model of the time which is essentially unchanged. The actual temperature anomaly was only 0.4 degrees, much less than even their best case scenario model. So are we supposed to believe them today?

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/scary-exaggerations-unfounded/#more-14143



Couple this prediction with other sensational, but wrong predictions- "Snowfall will be a thing of the past..."

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html



And what do you have? What real world, empircal data to they have to support their claim? Yes, all the big scientific societies are in agreement- global warming is real, and a threat the the world. Doesn't matter unless Mother Nature gets the memo.



Edit: 5 TD's. I guess the pro-AGW crowd doesn't like to be reminded their computer model is wrong. BTW, Dr. James Hansen is still at NASA, still regarded as one of the world's leading climate scientists today, even though his model is dead wrong.

Answer 5

Global warming doesn't exist. That junk about "polar ice caps are melting" is all a fraud. The Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. Earth naturally gets warmer, it makes no difference whether or not we use different resources or try to decrease our "carbon footprint", the result is not going to change. Even if EVERYONE in the WHOLE WORLD used natural resources and helped our environment, the Earth would continue to get warmer and warmer.

Answer 6

This is the problem with denial all there 'stuff' comes from blogs like 'Watts' or political lobby groups like Heartland, they have no real science to back much of what they say and much of what they say are personal attacks and claims of lying against scientists (all scientists it seems) who they claim are in it for the money!

Now you could try using such material, but if the opposition in your debate are prepared with science you will lose badly, but then being given the denier point of view you have lost already, really.

It is somewhat like being given the religious side in a debate on evolution, there not really much to debate. To be honest if you where to take the denier side in such a debate which theory would you pick, they have so many, at last count over 100 and many of them actually conflict with each other never mind AGW, a point deniers don't even like to talk about, as it shows just how full of holes their 'so called' side of the debate really is. Can something have a side when there are many competing factions with slightly different theories or in many case very different theories.

Just some of them

"It's not happening"

"it is happening, but it's natural"

"it's a fraud by Al Gore"

"it's a fraud by the U.N."

"it's a fraud by Govt for taxes"

"it's caused by the Sun"

"it's caused by cosmic rays"

"it's caused by volcano's"

There are many more but these are the most often used. a longer list can be found here

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



and the facts that show the nonsense of much of the above can be found here

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

Answer 7

The main argument against it would be solar activity, other planets in the solar system are heating up as well according to experts. You can google that even try space.com, maybe they have something about that.



Coming back to the global warming issue, even if it is not what it is blow up to be we all have to agree that it is not good what we are doing to our planet with all the emissions we put out. The air is not as clean, the pollutions destroys the environment and we are dependent on one main source of energy that controls the economy. We need to look for solutions as whether or not global warming is caused by us.

Answer 8

That you can't find much real Information for the denier side should tell you something.

Answer 9

Visit http://www.ecofuture.net

Answer 10

You need to practice lying in order to argue persuasively that global warming isn't serious, significant and mostly man- made. Try http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-truth-about-denial.html

Answer 11

You tube "The Great Global Warming Scandal" it will explain its not about CO2 .

Its about controlling people.

Answer 12

realscience

climatedepot

wattsupwiththat

and about 1 million other anti global warming or whatever we are calling it this week

Answer 13

idk