Which is your favourite BS denial argument for global warming?

although i do have to laugh at the Mars argument considering where it is usually preached, i would have to say my favorite arguments against it are:

1) scientists are wrong about global warming because 50 years ago(when technology wasn't near as advanced) they were claiming the earth was cooling and we were all going to freeze to death. They were wrong then,(even though the upper atmosphere is cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming) and they are wrong now.

and

2) the 145-255 per million tons of CO2 per year emitted by volcanoes is much more than the 30 billion tons of CO2 per year caused by humans, so humans can't be causing Global climate change. since volcanoes cause more greenhouse gases than humans(even though they don't) there is nothing that we can do.

3) it is a natural cycle of the planet, because something had to trigger the thaw of the last ice age. and since CO2 levels are relatively at the same level as that time (and rising), humans weren't around(even though the planet was covered by rotting plant debris) so it couldn't be caused by humans, even though we are surpassing the prehistoric levels without any ice age present.

and last but not least:

#4

global warming is nothing to worry about because it doesn't exist, even though global CO2 concentrations are at nearly 400ppmv(nearly 100ppmv rise in the last 100 years) and the lethal concentration to humans in under 3 hours of exposure is 800ppmv.

Top Ten Policies Necessary to Ensure a Global Apocalypse Following are the most urgent policy prescriptions necessary to maximize the likelihood of a collapsed global ecosystem. They are listed in order of importance. To have any chance of hastening the end we really must get at it. No. 1 - POPULATION - Human population is not relevant to our current situation. We can make as many people as we wish and there will be no consequence. Human ingenuity can solve any conceivable problem. When we run out of room here we can colonize the Moon, then Mars, then the whole Universe! No. 2 - GREENHOUSE GASES – Global Warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated. The Environmentalist / Socialist / Secular Humanist Axis of Evil must be destroyed at all cost. No. 3 - PROTECT ECOSYSTEMS? –Nature will regenerate itself endlessly no matter what we do. A lot of the stuff we do is better than nature anyway. No. 4 - CONSUMPTION – We have a God given economic right to consume what we want. Period. I worked hard for my money and I’ll spend it as I please. No. 5 - AGRICULTURE - God gave us dominion over the earth. It is ours to use as we see fit. We can tinker with the genes of our food, and heck with everything else for that matter. When all that is left is green slime, so long as it's nutritious and tastes good, who cares! No. 6 - ECONOMIES - Markets are the purest form of Natural Law. Let the cream rise to the top and let the rest eat cake. No. 7 - TECHNOLOGY - Technology is the Holy Grail. By God, what Man would ever want to stick his hand down into the dirty Earth, the smelly slimy Sea. The end state of humanity should be to live in a hermetically sealed bubble with all his wants and needs artificially provided. No. 8 - ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION? – We already give up too much to the crazed hippy environmentalists. We have a God Given Right to take the last 2% of world that hasn't been spoiled and make some more money off it. When Antarctica unfreezes, I want first dibs there too. No. 9 - POVERTY- Poor people are lazy and deserve their lot. No. 10 – DEMILITARIZATION? - If I can’t defraud you out of what you have, I’ll make laws that make cheating you out of it legal. And when that fails I’ll just kill you and take it.

There is really no question that the Earth is warming up, so there can be no denial of this fact. There can, however, be resonable debate as to the causes of warming and as to what we should do about it.

For my part, the data show that in prehistoric times, global maximums reached levels of about 3 degrees celsius above current global average temperatures. These occurred without any contribution from man made green house gases. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that in this current warming trend, temperatures will reach this level, even if we some how stopped burning all fossil fuels and removed all of the excess CO2 we have added to the atmosphere.

It is possible that the additional CO2 we have added to the atmosphere will cause the current maximum cycle to exceed past maximums, but this is by no means a proven fact. It is also possible that what ever causes CO2 levels (and temperatures) to fall soon after peak temperatures are reached will come into play as normal and completely overwhelm our puny effects.

In summary then:

1) Global temperatures have been much hotter in the past than they are now.

2) There is no reason to believe that they will not reach these historical maximum levels again regardless of what we do to try and prevent it from happening.

3) Since further warming is inevitable, we would be better served if all of the energy and resources being spent on name calling, finger pointing, hand wringing and attempting to stop global warming were spent on getting ready for the inevitable effects.

I like to compare global warming to the following scenario:

You and your family are crossing a rail road track when the car stalls. You see a train approaching you on the track, but you have a few minutes before it is going to hit your car. What do you do:

a) Get out of the car, stand between the train and your family, hold up your arms and try and stop the train?

or

b) Use the time you have to get your family out of the car and out of harms way.

To me the answer is obvious.

Oh yes, didn't your mother ever tell you that starting a conversation with an insult is not the best way to engage people in dialog?

An analysis of peer-reviewed literature shows that there is indeed consensus in the scientific community on anthropogenic climate change. Rather than focusinig on one issue, more thinking, discussion, and action need to center around the fallout from the convergence of multiple factors. In a world rapidly getting hotter that is over-populated, deforested, has shrinking fresh water supplies, whose soil is eroding, whose genetic diversity is being lost,whose fisheries are being destroyed, and where unprecedented masses of humans are migrating, we've got a lot of thinking, planning, and acting to do. We don't need everyone to accept the idea, just enough.

Anyone who believes in global warming should wear a tin hat. 3rd grade science teaches that plants use CO2 for growth. Most Marijuana grows pump in CO2 to increase output. I have yet to see an explosion of plant over-development to support the supposed increase in CO2. Second, humans and human output are infinitesimal in comparison to the HUGE star that effects our planet and its seasons. You crazies need to stop acting like you are so important and learn how to turn a wrench on your Prius.

this is a question looking for a foot rub?my fav argument, is co2 lags temperature in ice samples at the poles used in AL gores spoof, by 800 years . co2 is following temperature rise, not causing it.the lag is from the long time it takes to increase ocean temperatures.when this does occur, the ocean increases emissions of co2.my other fav argument is once again those pesky ice crystals from the poles that an inconvenient truth shapes the argument with.the ice maintains a record of earlier warming periods before we had industry...this period of warming was far warmer than today,and it was maintained for 3 millennia. some how the polar bears got buy just fine without us sending cash to green political campaigns during this time of great warming 10000 yrs ago.climatologists call this period of warming the holocene maximum, but it is not the only one.there have been several warming periods warmer than today in the earths history called by climatologists as pixie thermals.

I'm sorry, I didn't see what your qualifications are say that we nay sayers are in denial - you read Al Gore, James Hanson, Y!A??? I'm not a scientist but I majored in Earth & Atmospheric Sciences and even I can see through this one. This has to do with money and manipulating the masses - nothing more. If our attention can be diverted away from the real issues then the world manipulators have had their way with us.

None of the above. I like these ones:

It can not be global warming. Why did temperatures rise during the early part of the twentieth century when co2 level were low, and why did they fall from. Why have they not risen since 1998?

Scientists who have worked with the IPCC, say the the United Nations is a political body that distorts the facts.

I also like when former believers like Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy claim that “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.”

Reid A. Bryson claim that “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,”

I also like Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson's quote, Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,”

How about Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, claim that the ice core samples that show pre-industrial co2 emissions as faulty. “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,”

I take it by the thumbs down that the truth hurts.

Ok, how did this planet escape from the last seven ice ages without SUV's or factories?

Why is it that Mars' polar caps are shrinking?

Keep in mind, that you mentioned previous climate changes, how did those happen? I'm all for less polution, just not the mindless hysteria that is portrayed and encouraged in the media.

I like the FOX news argument. They tell you they are "fair and balanced" on the whole global warming idea. They give you the Presidents view on it....AND.....the Vice-Presidents view!

Good question. Can't wait to see the other responses. :)