What are the scientific arguments against climate change?

You don’t need any as there are no scientific arguments that we are “heating” the planet. Those scientists who are qualified to make an assessment all seem to have strong doubts. Those scientists who support the nonsense are usually working out of their field of expertise. If it was solidly supported by science there wouldn’t be any debate.

The one I’ve heard most commonly is that the Earth has always undergone cycles of warming and cooling, and that we’re simply in one of the cyclic warming periods. (link, link)

Most reasonable I’ve heard is our climate models aren’t complex enough to account for all weather input variables. Therefore, the model being incomplete can’t be necessarily trusted.

Sur commande.

There isn’t any debate among scientists that climate change is happening and it’s real. There has been some discussion about how man made it is vs whether it’s from solar cycles, but it’s all agreed upon that the atmospheric pollution is certainly contributing.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

The modelling that is not complete isn’t the data showing it’s happening, but what we can expect in the future. Heat being retained in areas of the deep ocean and it’s effect… plus so many other factors,,... they don’t have the hardware or data models to see exactly where it’s going.

Yes there are hot and cold cycles, however we are in the middle of a warm up cycle and the percentage its increasing is like 150 or 200% faster than previous recorded warm ups. Also CO2 has risen at a similar rate. The only real scientific argument against it that I have heard is that this correlation between CO2 and global temperature are only correlated and not related (or in other words one isn’t causing the other they just happen to be happening at the same time)

@MissAnthrope, that’s not really a scientific argument. It’s not even that logical.

Basically, it’s like arguing: “Because my living room has been colder in the winter and hotter in the summer, burning a fire in the middle of my living room won’t make it hotter.”

@cazzie The climate models that predict the future effects of climate change are more what I’m referring to. But this question was challenging b/c I believe the data supporting climate change and don’t disagree with you. I was answering as best as I could.

I think @DarkScribe said it perfectly.

This issue has several layers of complexity. There are loads of variables that make prediction difficult and then there is politics. Once large sums of money get involved, I just do not expect an honest answer. I have seen increasing spin surrounding climate change, and a lot of laws get put on the books in the name of reducing the effects of climate change whose negative impacts would seem to outweigh any potential positive impact on climate change.

It has become a buzzword, kind of like terrorism, that plays like a trump card. Throw it out there and the seas part and everyone bends over and you are free to wreak whatever havoc you can dream up.

I absolutely agree that most of the people talking about climate change know absolutely nothing about it, and are working outside their fields of expertise. Our local advisory boards on climate change were a bunch of hand-picked intellectuals willing to put on a ruse that they actually know something about the issue when in fact they had no scientific clue and therefore were not able to actually produce / do anything.

If we are going to legislate to reduce the effects of climate change, we need someone that understands how the fuck it works. There are plenty of people on the policy side but a real dearth of talent on the technical side.

@Qingu – I didn’t say I agreed with it, but it is definitely one of the arguments against climate change. I had lectures at school where professors would teach things like this and I wish I had access to the materials they presented (charts and such) because it did make me stop and think. I didn’t think it was that illogical, in fact, in a way, it makes sense to me. Now, I think it’s undeniable that humans are also affecting the climate through various pollution-creating activities. So, I feel like even if the upward trend in temperature is normal/cyclic, we are definitely speeding this trend forward. I think it’s foolish to try to deny our impact here, whatever the cause.

Yay, found the chart I was looking for!

From the late 1940s through the early 1970s, a climate research organization called the Weather Science Foundation of Crystal Lake, Illinois, determined that the planet’s warm, cold, wet and dry periods were the result of alternating short-term and long-term climatic cycles. These researchers and scientists also concluded that the Earth’s ever-changing climate likewise has influenced global and regional economies, human and animal migrations, science, religion and the arts as well as shifting forms of government and strength of leadership.

Much of this data was based upon thousands of hours of research done by Dr. Raymond H. Wheeler and his associates during the 1930s and 1940s at the University of Kansas. Dr. Wheeler was well-known for his discovery of various climate cycles, including his highly-regarded ‘510-Year Drought Clock’ that he detailed at the end of the ‘Dust Bowl’ era in the late 1930s.

During the early 1970s, our planet was in the midst of a colder and drier weather cycle. Inflationary recessions and oil shortages led to rationing and long gas lines at service stations worldwide. The situation at that time was far worse than it is now, at least for the time being.

The Weather Science Foundation also predicted, based on these various climate cycles, that our planet would turn much warmer and wetter by the early 2000s, resulting in general global prosperity. They also said that we would be seeing at this time widespread weather ‘extremes.’ There’s little doubt that most of their early predictions came true. (via)

i don’t think i have heard a legitimate/scientific argument against global warming. there are some claims out there like the one that @MissAnthrope said, i.e. the concept that the earth has always gone through warm/cold cycles, but anytime i have heard that argument it seems to be much more consumerism based than science based.

by that i mean a scientist will state the concept that the earth’s weather patterns are in fact irregular but only due to the earth’s “natural patterns of warm and cold cycles” and quickly follow up his argument with “so its fine to drive your H2’s and H3’s”

Global warming is real and it doesn’t require rocket science. It requires reading thousands of thermometers around the world year after year. The issue is about the influence of human activity. Some scientists say that climate is far too complex to draw the conclusions made by the IPCC. But I would argue that we need to play it safe. Even if only 30% of the reputable climatologists were worried we should apply the precautionary principle. In fact at the moment more than 90% of reputable climatologists are worried.

This is a tough one because the earth has a history of climate changes long before man existed. You had your ice age, you had 90% of the earth with a tropical climate during the times when dinosaurs walked the earth. Both sides give good arguments, i’m not even sure which one i believe.

“Both sides give good arguments”

@Jabe73 – What are the arguments you consider good against (man made) climate change?

The earth does have a history of climate change. Personally i’m on the side that global warming has been caused by man however and we will be in serious trouble if we don’t start taking steps immediately to try to reverse the damage.

what i honestly don’t understand about the global warming debate is who cares if it is human caused or not, we know for a fact that there are things we should be doing to not aggravate it (i.e. we should use green/sustainable energy instead of energy that isn’t renewable and etc.)

@alive I think it matters because the cause affects the solution.

Edit for more details: If its naturally occurring, maybe it doesn’t matter what we do. In that case, why waste time/resources on green energy? If it is man-made, then we should be looking for green energy.

@roundsquare But, no matter what it has to be better to not be dependent on other nations for energy, and no one can tell me it is ok to have plastic floating in the ocean or so much trash we don’t know where to put it. So, at minimum for America, even if we ignore carbon footprint hype about global warming, it is still impossible to argue that greener is not better for the country and the planet I think. Imagine the earth is just your house, and all the trash you create will have to be disposed of in your house or on your property? Wouldn’t it be better to have some sort of process where we are at one with nature, and can reuse what we use? Or, have zero or close to zero negative biproduct from energy sources?

@JLeslie Sure, but there are limited resources (time, money, intelligence, etc…) to spend on problems. I’m sorry but making the world look nicer is just not as high a priority as making sure the world stays habitable. So if (BIG IF) we discover that our actions are not responsible (or not the major contributor to) global warming, I’d rather focus on that then making the world a nicer place. The whole world isn’t my house, so I don’t have to worry about having things look nice in garbage dumps.

As for dependence on foreign energy, I agree, but, in the same hypothetical, that becomes a matter of politics/international relations. I would still want the scientists to focus on keeping the world from overheating.

In the end, it all comes down to priorities.

@roundsquare It is not about how the trash looks! It is about how it pollutes. Your house filling up with trash means there eventually wil be no space for you to walk, sit, or sleep.

What about the huge garbage patch in the pacific that kills marine life? Here is the Oprah http://www.oprah.com/world/Ocean-Pollution-Fabien-Cousteaus-Warning-to-the-World and wikipedia has it also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch A bunch of trash estimated to be the size of Texas. Anyone who is angry about the oil spill in the Gulf needs a reality check on just how much we pollute in general.

Out of sight out of mind seems to be your philosophy.

@JLeslie “Out of sight out of mind seems to be your philosophy.”

Eh? I admit my post could have been better written (and better informed), but thats not really what I said.

If you re-read what I’ve written, I said its about priorities. Again, with limited resources we need to prioritize. If global warming isn’t man made, and therefore reversing it (if it needs reversing) requires us to do something other than switch to alternative energy sources, we now need to decide what takes higher priority:

1) Doing whatever we need to do to reverse global warming.
2) Switching to being greener.

If we focus more on solving one problem, the other will take longer to solve. So far, I don’t think I’ve said anything controversial (though now I will).

If this is the decision we have to make, my sense is that global warming is a higher priority, though I’d be open to being proven wrong (though since people seem to agree that global warming is man made, the debate seems unlikely to come up).

A note on the house analogy: The fact of the matter is that the planet is much larger than my house. This means that we may have some time to do things. Again, this influence our priorities when discussing what problems to solve.

@roundsquare Sure we need to prioritize, there I agree. We have to be realistic with the options we have at our disposal also. I am saying whether there was a debate for global warming or not, I would want to be greener anyway. I barely think about global warming, but like I said above I care about being energy independent and not producing pollutants that affect our air, land, or sea. I get the impression that if global warming was proven tomorrow to not be man made at all that you would be fine with using all the oil we can drill, nuclear energy, coal, etc. Why not go clean with wind and solar? I know it is not quite realistic yet to convert everything, but we can move in the right direction, including research. Maybe you agree with me. My only real point is I think the global warming argument is unneccesary for us to still do the right thing for the planet.

And, just to kind of go off on a tangent. I think the economic argument, although I think it is important, mostly is big business and big government wanting to keep their profits, and keep us dependent, and not necessarily good for the individual. I think of energy as being like the Gilette model we learn in marketing class. Get them to buy the razor, and for the rest of their lives they will be buying our blades. Build big power plants, and every month the people pay you. If we have solar on our individual houses, we become more energy independent even at the micro level. Why don’t we all have instant hot to heat the water for our kitchens and bathrooms? Why are we all still keeping gallons of water hot all day all year in a big hot water heater when it is not necessary? I just don’t get why there is a reluctance to accept new technology. I don’t mean you, I mean in general. Looks like the car industry will finally start moving in the right direction. I am guilty of having cars that aren’t so great on mileage, my husband is a car nut so it is tough, but I try to do my best in other places in my life. I don’t expect everyone to live off the grid and hug trees, but I would like as a country to have a plan to move in the right direction, and for each individual to do at minimum minor things that are not inconvenient.

To truly combat global warming is going to require a major change in lifestyle. Suburban living is very detrimental to the planet. Suburbs should be replaced by small cities built around mass transit systems and surrounded by green spaces. Replacing our rampant consumerism with simpler living would also help.

@roundsquare i see what you are saying… however, even if humans aren’t the cause of global warming per se. we are causing significant damage to the environment with our actions… there was proof of that years and years ago when humans ‘discovered’ that they could cause the extinction of an entire species. the dodo for example is directly attributable to human activity.

in other words global warming is like a conglomerate of all the things that humans are doing to [literally] destroy the world.

@roundsquare – Most likely it’s a combination of both. Every year humanity burns an amount of fossil fuels which required 1 million years of solar energy through photosynthesis. Every year. Year after year.

This means: We should apply the precautinary principle.

In addition we get rid of the dependency on middle east oil, avoid the risks associated with deep ocean drilling, and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs related to developing and producing green technology.

A worthy cause.

The business case is shown here:

“Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution—and How It Can Renew America by Thomas L. Friedman”

http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Flat-Crowded-Revolution-America/dp/B002BWQ504/

@mattbrowne Do you have a source for that million year number? Not that I think you are lying, but I like sources for extreme data if possible.

In any event, if you’re going to argue that we should focus on one problem more than another, you need to get a comprehensive view. Sadly, from the media we don’t get that. We get individual facts. I admit though that I don’t have these facts. Still, since most scientists seem to agree that that global warming is man made, we are reduced to one (horribly complex) problem.

Also, I agree, we should all find ways to save energy when possible, at the least by doing stuff that doesn’t really effect us.

@roundsquare – I think I read this number in a German magazine several months ago. The professor was from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, see

http://www.pik-potsdam.de

The institute is one of several agencies in Germany from which the government recruits its science advisers.