Try to continue to the emphasis on the fact that global warming to a certain degree is contributed by humans.

To sum up and refute arguments heard against this:

Argument against AGW (human's causing global warming): Theres a natural cycle!! It goes up and down!

Refutation: There is, anyone with eyes would see a natural cycle of temperature on the graph. But anyone also with eyes would see a rapid incline around the 1970s that exceeds that of the natural cycle. The natural cycle includes factors of our climate system such as the sun, and other factors. The fact that the temperature is spiking up means that theres another external factor that is affecting the climate, because all other climate factors are part of the natural cycle. We can generally point it at humans however the only problem with this claim is the fact that there may be a random event that has not happened in documented science that is instead bringing the temperature up. However the claim of a random increase in sun activity or some other internal factor that isn't caused by humans has minimal proof. The increase of CO2 in correlation with the increase in temperature is much better proved. Also sun activity has been decreasing in the past 20 years, according to the part of the graph that the Great Global Warming Swindle decided leave out while temperatures are going up. But then again we can't be too sure but current evidence points us more in favor of humans causing global warming. Personally I lean more towards AGW, but there are problems with that theory. However, the denialists who completely deny AGW should be ashamed.

Argument against AGW: ITS THE SUN ITS THE SUN ITS THE SUN!!!

Refutation: The sun plays part in the natural cycle, there has been no shown correlation between solar activity and increasing temperatures since 1985. In fact solar activity rapidly decreased while temperature rapidly increased. (from the great global warming swindle). As a few scientists against AGW said in the great global warming swindle, the solar activity exists in a cycle. Well I think that that proposed cycle is similar to the natural cycle of temperature. It does not AT ALL explain the increased spike in temperature near the end of the 20th century. Just blatant points to try and influence the population who aren't educated about this topic.

Argument against AGW: The climate models presented by the IPCC are insufficient.

Refutation: That's true, but they are our current best models at estimating temperature and it has simulated current temperatures that have been recorded to a good amount of accuracy of approx + or - 1.1 degrees celsius. Also there are 6 models that provide a wide range of temperature of 1-6 degrees celsius.

Argument against AGW: its only 2 degrees of increase, who cares?

Refutation: The temperature difference between today and the last ice age was a small amount of temperature below 5 degrees (can't remember exact number).

Argument against AGW: Global warming won't harm our planet, look at the past, all planets are warming, etc.

Refutation: Against the idea that all planets are warming, understand that Venus has a much higher CO2 concentration in it's atmosphere, mars has barely any atmosphere compared to Earth, and that the conditions on Earth are vastly different. Such a comparison is stupid, and it steers the argument away from its fundamental purpose. Against the won't harm our planet argument, global warming or climate change won't harm our planet. But if the climate changes at a rapid pace, faster than the cycles (which is the sudden spike in temperatures on the temperature cycle graph), then our world's ecosystems will not have time to adapt to the changes. In the past, the global temperature has went up by 5 degrees but over 22000 years. Our temperature is going up 5 degrees in approx 1000 years (based on IPCC estimates). Also, when the global temperature increased in the past, there weren't any civilizations of humans, who have rapidly developed, built cities, telecommunications, etc. We live differently now, so climate change may affect us differently. Our current modern era has not been through a large change in climate.

Understand that although I use facts from Pro-AGW global warming sites, the data is not biased. The scientific data is used to prove a cause, not manipulated to prove a cause. That is scientific credibility.

And to all those neo-nazists who claim that this is a political conspiracy and that scientists only care about money. If that's true it can swing both ways, scientists for global warming and scientists again. That's irrelevant to the argument so stop trying to manipulate people.

An Inconvenient Truth

Using facts to support AGW from The Great Global Warming Swindle designed against AGW

The IPCC

National Geographic Documentary on Climate Change

On an end note, Al Gore discovered a letter by the US congress that shows censorship of the fact that global warming is happening. It can swing both ways.

Resources

Top Categories

Product

Company