Global Warming Is A Hoax!!

[Swamp Gas]

Global Warming is Just a Hoax

scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/global-warming-is-just-hoax.php

(A comprehensive set of rebuttals to common "climate skeptic" talking points vetted and endorsed by the professionals at Real Climate)
Profile


« There is no Consensus | Main | There is no Proof that CO2 is Causing Global Warming »
Global Warming is Just a Hoax

Category: sceptic guide
Posted on: February 25, 2006 5:22 PM, by coby

This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.


Objection:

Global Warming is just a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government.

Answer:

Here is a list of "enviro-Nazis" and "left-wing loonies" who believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and well supported by sound science:

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) - www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
* The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
* American Geophysical Union (AGU) - www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
* American Meteorological Society (AMS) - www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
* American Institute of Physics (AIP) - www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) - eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
* American Meteorological Society (AMS) - www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) - www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. On top of that list, see also this joint statement [PDF] that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report, a statement issued by

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academie des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

You can also read this one that includes all of the above signatories plus the following:

* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you would find the opinion of some of the bastions of industry more convincing?

* Exxon-Mobile, the largest oil company in the world has this public statement:

The risks to society and ecosystems from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be significant, so it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world.

* Chevron, a bit less non-commital, says:

At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs) -- mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane -- in the earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.

* 18 CEO's of Canada's largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Have the EnviroNazis finally seized the industrial reigns of power on top of infiltrating the UN, the science academies of the major nations and the top research institutes of North America? Somehow, I think that is just not too likely.

[Swamp Gas]

The best argument against global warming

Here is the best argument against global warming:

. . . .

Oh, right. There isn't one.

There is no good argument against global warming. In all the brouhaha about tiny errors recently found in the massive IPCC report, the posturing by global climate deniers, including some elected officials, leaked emails, and media reports, here is one fact that seems to have been overlooked:

Those who deny that humans are causing unprecedented climate change have never, ever produced an alternative scientific argument that comes close to explaining the evidence we see around the world that the climate is changing.

Deniers don't like the idea of climate change, they don't believe it is possible for humans to change the climate, they don't like the implications of climate change, they don't like the things we might have to do to address it, or they just don't like government or science. But they have no alternative scientific explanation that works.

Here is the way scientists think science works: Ideas and theories are proposed to explain the scientific principles we understand, the evidence we see all around us, and the mathematical models we use to test theories. Alternative theories compete. The ones that best explain reality are accepted, and any new idea must do a better job than the current one. And in this world, no alternative explanation for climate change has ever come close to doing a better job than the science produced by the climate community and represented by the IPCC and thousands of other reports. Indeed, the evidence that man-made climate change is already happening is compelling and overwhelming. And our water resources are especially vulnerable (see, for just one example, this previous blog post).

But the world of policy often doesn't give a hoot for the world of science. That, of course, permits climate deniers to simply say "no, no, no" without having to come up with an idea that actually works better to explain what we see and know. That's not science. It's ideology.

And in the world of media, it makes some kind of sense to put a marginal, discredited climate denier up against world-leading climate scientists, as though that's some kind of fair balance. Scientists don't understand that -- and it certainly confuses the public.

Here is the second best argument used by deniers against global warming, (but edited for children) from a message received by a colleague of mine:

"Mr. xxx, this is John Q. Public out here. Perhaps you don't understand there's no such thing as man-made global warming. I don't care if you call it f!@%$#%@ing climate change, I don't f!@%$#%@ing care what you call it. The same thing you communists tried in the 1970s. I've got a f!@%$#%@ing 75 articles from Newsweek Magazine stating we were making the earth freeze to death and we would have to melt the f!@%$#%@ing ice caps to save the earth. You, sir, and your colleagues, are progressive communists attempting to destroy America...Your f!@%$#%@ing agenda-driven, money-f!@%$#%@ing grabbing paws and understand there's no such thing as global warming, you f!@%$#%@ing idiot and your f!@%$#%@ing colleagues."

Nice, eh? Unfortunately, lots of climate scientists get emails and other messages like this. Note the careful reasoning? The persuasive and logical nature of the debate? The reference to the best scientific evidence from 1970 Newsweek magazines? Very compelling arguments, yes?

Scientists are used to debating facts with each other, with the best evidence and theory winning. Well, this is a bar fight, where the facts are irrelevant, and apparently, the rules and tools of science are too. But who wins bar fights? As the Simpsons cartoon so brilliantly showed, bullies. Not always the guy who is right.

Read more: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gleick/detail?entry_id=58962#ixzz0hvTsH9n6