Evidence that disproves Human - Caused Climate Change?

Question

I have to research evidence that both supports and disproves Human - Caused Climate Change, however, I cannot find much evidence that is against human- caused climate change. What are some arguments used by climate change deniers to disprove human-caused climate change?

Answer 1

It's good that you have noticed that you can't find much evidence against human-caused climate change. That is because there isn't any.



Global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/warmingindicators.jpg

And we are causing it

http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2010/08/Humans_Cause_Global-Warming.jpg



Beware of certain denialist claims, such as



1. Carbon dioxide is plant food. - everything is harmful in excess.

2. Cold weather in U. S. - the U. S. is not the whole world

3. It's cooling - no it isn't

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/to:2013/trend

4. It's the Sun - the Sun is an important influence on weather and climate, but not the only one.



by mayo_car...



5. - irrelevant. When no one drove SUVs, temperature was the only mechanism to change atmospheric carbon dioxide. And that does not prove that carbon dioxide does not absorb thermal infrared.

Answer 2

Release of methane from arctic tundra and wetlands

Earth goes through a cycle of climate change that lasts 40,000 yrs

11 year solar cycle

Volcanic eruptions

El niño

These are some natural causes

Answer 3

There is no real evidence that disproves manmade global warming. At the end of the day the laws of science that govern global warming are more powerful than the laws of gravity. It really would make more sense to argue that gravity didn’t exist.



That said, it doesn’t stop some people from trying, and to achieve their ends they rely on any number of spurious claims. Often the sceptics only tell part of the story and conveniently omit the part where the claim fails spectacularly.



Here’s a dozen of the more commonly used ones, although there are many more (all of which can very easily be debunked). You can use these to present your case against global warming but in each case you’ll have to be deceptive or lie outright.





•The climate has changed before, it’s natural.

• Correct, it has. But right now we’re in a natural cooling phase, not a warming one. Further, no natural cycle can come anywhere close to the rate of warming observed these past few decades.



• Global warming stopped in 1998 (or thereabouts).

• Whilst it’s true that the atmosphere hasn’t warmed since then, the amount of heat in Earth’s systems continues to increase steadily. As the air warms up the extra heat flows more readily into the oceans, these have continued to warm.



• It’s the Sun, it’s sunspots, it’s solar activity etc

• The Sun only provide the heat, the greenhouse gases provide the mechanism by which Earth retains the heat. If concentrations of these gases increase, as they have been doing, then more heat is retained.



• Such and such a scientist said it’s not true. I read this report…

• Some scientist claim global warming isn’t happening, the overwhelming majority were paid by the fossil fuel industry to say this.



• This cold weather proves there’s no global warming.

• Cold weather is just that – weather. It’s local, it’s short-term and it’s governed by regional variations. If it’s cold in one part of the world then odds are that it’s hot somewhere else (just as it is now). Global warming does not mean that cold weather becomes history, just that it’s not quite as cold as it would be otherwise.



• The amount of sea-ice is growing.

• Last year was not a record breaking year therefore there was more ice than in some recent years. However, short-term fluctuations in weather and ocean dynamics can cause the loss or gain of ice from one year to the next. In the longer term there is a very marked decline in the amount of sea-ice and this trend is continuing downward.



• Antarctica has record amounts of ice.

• It has record amounts of ice-extent. This is similar to measuring the total area it covers. The Antarctic ice is ‘thinning’ out and spreading further. The total amount of ice continues to decline by about 200 billion tonnes per year.



• The climate isn’t sensitive enough to change.

• The naturally occurring greenhouse gases create 33°C of warming, if they didn’t then the planet would freeze solid. We’ve added 42% more of these gases. As more and more gases are added the amount of warming does decline but it doesn’t stop as some people perhaps think.



• All the climate models (predictions) have failed.

• They’ve not failed but they haven’t been entirely accurate either. By and large they have been fairly accurate and have estimated current temperatures to within 0.15°C. Because they weren’t precise then some people deem this to have been a failure.



• Scientists said there would be an ice-age, now they say it’s global warming.

• Back in the last 60’s and early 70’s there was some speculation that the planet might cool if we didn’t curb our emissions of cooling gases. We did cut emissions significantly and any potential cooling was averted, the scientists were correct. None of them predicted an ice-age, this was a headline in a very small number of magazines.



• The other planets are warming so it must be the Sun

• There are about 179 planets and moons in the solar system (it depends how you count them) and only seven show signs of warming, in every case it’s because of conditions unique to that planetary body. Earth is the only place in the solar system where there’s global warming.



• Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans.

• This argument appears in many different forms but they’re all wrong. Humans actually emit 150 times as much CO2 per year as all volcanoes combined do.

Answer 4

Best evidence that disproves AGW theory is the lack of proof of AGW. There's no real world evidence that supports AGW. Only academic "evidence" based on flawed computer climate models. The fact that no global warming in spite of rising CO2 for almost 2 decades. Follow the money trail and agenda behind AGW. If you really want some eye opening insight to the ideology and logic of the very same type of people promoting AGW alarmism research the quotes, demands, solutions from enlightened academic elite alarmists on the very 1st earth day. Look at what they said and how they said it. Read their predictions and projections (they were very date specific and with AGW they were careful enough not to make that mistake again for the most part however they are continuously downgrading their near term projections when they realize they aren't coming to fruition). I find it incredibly entertaining. Overpopulation was the root cause of most of the projected ecological and humanitarian catastrophies back then as it is now even though the climate alarmism today is the exact opposite of what it was back then.



Climate is a straw man crisis being used to promote their socioeconomic agenda which is the binding implementation of UN agenda 21. Study UN agenda 21 and then research the draft treaties that were being proposed at the 2009 climate change convention in Copenhagen.



We know that climate is a straw man crisis when AGW cultists are forced to become expert contortionists to stretch and bend every aspect of weather (especially weather and conditions that are in direct contradiction to everything they claimed as a result of AGW such as extreme cold and massively expanding record breaking polar ice) to global warming. Look at all the crap AGW cultists claim are impending consequences to AGW. More hookers on street corners? Asteroids smashing into the earth? The earth exploding because the air temps become a few degrees warmer? It was warmer in the past and the world did not exploded. All of these ridiculous claims can be found with a simple google search. I've posted links to them here many times.



But the best evidence that fails to support AGW is that many other planets and moons in our solar system are experiencing warming at the same time as on earth. Pluto is.

Answer 5

If you want to see a view contrary to the IPCC look at the NIPCC report: http://www.nipccreport.org/



You will find lots of supporting papers in there as references. Remember, the scientists should not take a view. The over-arching report does that.



The biggest "common sense" argument is that in spite of record CO2 emissions the earth is not warming.



The scientific question to ask is not if man is contributing to climate change but how big is that contribution 100%, 50%, 2%, 0.01% ... Remember, the figures behind the recent Cook et al (2013) survey suggest that only 0.3% of abstracts in climate papers say that man is mainly responsible.





PS: I think Sagebrush meant: "Life magazine of January 30, 1970, stated: ..."





http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bFAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA3&dq=masks+pollution&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ua7RUobtDtHxhQeD9YDoCw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=masks%20pollution&f=false

Answer 6

Denialists have very little evidence to support their case, that is not a misrepresentation of the facts. This is because they are politically motivated rather than interested in the truth of the matter

Answer 7

Is this where we call Sagebush a liar? Repeated once again, there was no Time magazine released on January 3rd 1970. Here are the stories in January 1970. Can you spot which one what you claim came in?





http://search.time.com/results.html?sid=1438300C29B7&Ntk=WithBody2009&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial%2bsnip%2bp_body%3a25&N=45&Ns=p_date_range%7c0&Nf=p_date_range%7cBTWN+19700101+19700131&Nty=1

Answer 8

the lag time (avg 700 years) between warming and CO2 rise.

ice cores show that CO2 has always gone up after the start of a warming period, rather than before.



this is because it takes time for the atmosphere to warm the oceans below the thermocline (where most of the absorbed CO2 is)

Answer 9

You can find evidence against human caused climate change at any (garden) nursery. It come in bags labeled "Steer Manure." The rest of us know it by a somewhat more accurate term ...

Answer 10

There is none You are wasting your time You can check all the denier myths at http://skepticalscience.com as well as the truth that debunks them

Answer 11

CO2 does not control the Earth's temperature.



The earth's temperature has cooled for over a decade,



http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend



Yet at the same time the CO2 level has risen. Foolproof that CO2 does not control the temperature.



Then let us look at what the proponents of AGW say,



Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."

Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."

Quote by David Suzuki, celebrity scientist, alarmist extraordinaire: 1990 quote: "More than any other time in history, the 1990s will be a turning point for human civilization."

Quote by David Suzuki, celebrity scientist, alarmist extraordinaire: 2011 quote: "Humanity is facing a challenge unlike any we’ve ever had to confront. We are in an unprecedented period of change."

Quote by Robert Stavins, the head of Harvard’s Environmental Economics program: "It’s unlikely that the U.S. is going to take serious action on climate change until there are observable, dramatic events, almost catastrophic in nature, that drive public opinion and drive the political process in that direction."

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."



AGW is political, not scientific. They even admit it. Here is another quote from a proponent.



Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”



Does that sound scientific or political?



Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”



So you see, the true data does not support AGW.



Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”



True science does not rely on fiction.



So here is the plan for this scam:



Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."



Years ago some of the same scientists, Hansen and Ehrlich in particular, that are now preaching Global Warming were warning us of an imminent Ice Age caused by CO2.



Life magazine of January 3, 1970, stated: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support . . . predictions” such as: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”



How could it do both?

Answer 12

There is none..