Why do cons still use tired old weak arguments against man made global warming?

You need a girl, mate.

No offense Dana, but where is the proof that the #1 green house gas is not the driving factor? So far no scientist has come out and explained the effects of water vapor on climate change especially since water vapor makes up a grand total of 95% of all green house gases and only 1% of the 95% is man made. Also from my understanding all the charts and statistics show that CO2, methane, and other green house gases lag behind temperature change not drive it. Can the man made crowd come up with any proof that doesn't ignore past climate history, doesn't use computer models that dumb down the Earth into one variable or few variables causing climate change? Finally, how does the fact that man's total contribution to green house gases is at most 3% driving the climate change off of a cliff? For the person bringing up peer reviewed articles again, all that means is that people agree with your work, not that it is accurate or good science. There is a big difference and the scientific community has gone away from doing real research into doing research that brings in the most money. I have family that are into scientific research.

I hate to break it to you but there is not a scientific consensus that Global Warming is what is going on…

There are actually a lot of scientists out there that believe this is just the reversing of the “Little Ice Age” of the middle ages and that the earth is currently undergoing a climate correction.

Then there is the arguments about “Global Dimming”…

Then there was the scientists back in the 1970’s that claimed the exact opposite of Global Warming by saying that global warming is going to cause a snow-ball earth…

If you actually go out and start reading ALLLLLL the scientific literature from the legitimate publications and not just the articles that say what you believe then you will be surprised to find how varied the community is and how there is no current scientific consensus on the subject.

Mars is apparently also going through a "global warming" phase. So who's causing that -the martians driving too many SUVs?

I'm not saying man is not having an effect - but you can't place the degree of effect on man. There are way too many variables to be considered.

Please explain why the new ice age was such a big concern 30 years ago.... ever thought about naturally-occurring cycles that vary with sunspot cycles? Except I guess that isn't emotional enough.

I personally have known a number of world-reknown scientists, climatologists and volcanologists. While there is some discussion going on in the "academic" world, they all recognize there are too many unknowns to point a finger at single solutions.

And byt the way - don't get me going on "paying for my carbon offset." ... what a scam. To all the tree-hugging environmentalists - If you want to do something about it, get rid of your SUVs and start walking to work. Walk the walk and lead by example.

Otherwise, you're nothing more than hypocrites.

You say you give your full trust in these people. So be it, i dont see anyone changing youre point on view (but you have doubts- thats why youre here). 1) volcanoes have been putting out sulfer into the air since the beginning of time. Much more than all manmade pollution combined. Yet, global warming is all of a sudden jumping to astronomical levels.. and we have to do something about it. hmm. 2) keep in mind the old (very old, do your research) phrase:devide and conquer. The government is made up of many different sects, and power is given to small research companys. Everything revolves around money. Fear is the biggest moneymaker. Scare people that theyll fry if they dont come together and do something- and you have the core of Globalization.

I'm not a "con", but I'm still somewhat skeptical about the idea of "man made" global warming.

I don't deny that global climate change is happening. But I'm not convinced the global climate change isn't part of a natural cycle on Earth or resulting from increased output from our sun. The fact is, we have only been studying and collecting data for a little over 100 years. The Earth has been around for about 4.5 billion years, and I am skeptical that humans could have that drastic an impact in just a little over 100 years.

That being said, I don't have any problem with laws and regulations to help reduce or eliminate pollution and "greenhouse emissions". I'm just not convinced that even if we were to completely stop today it would have any significant impact.

First of all you twisted the argument, it isn't just because ice melted in the past, its because Ice melted at the same rates it is melting now in the past, it is also because scientists are not in consensus on what causes global warming, even those that say it is man made can't decide what is actually causing it, the reality is there is no consensus. Your analogy also makes no sense, this one would make more sense "A rabbit dies of natural causes, but because humans pollute the environment, liberals say he died because of pollution, not natural causes." The reality is we have no idea why the earth is warming up, it could go either way, humans just like to pretend they have control, and blaming it on us gives us control.

Simply because it's hard to come up with new arguments all the time. So they'll come up with something, it will be quickly debunked, they'll put it on the shelf for a while, then trot it back out when they think everyone has forgotten it was debunked.

The "SUVs on Mars" is probably the best example of this. It's very easily debunked, and yet people continue to raise it as though it were a valid point. I have to debunk it so often that it's in my global warming Word file:

'Mars is warming for entirely different reasons than the Earth - namely dust storms darkening its surface:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/07... '

Global warming deniers can't come up with a valid alternative theory to explain the acceleration of global warming, so they have to resort to trotting out the same old debunked arguments in order to maintain their denial.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As6MM...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApKvi...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aquwe...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar5f3...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AipGt...

Many scientists believe Solar Cycles are the primary reason for climate change. Long before the industrial age Greenland was named Greenland for a reason. The earth is a constantly evolving planet, change will happen. I do agree we should our part to treat the environment with more respect, but I have always believed this long before warming theories cropped up.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance. “This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,” said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”

The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers’ specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.

“We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events,” said co-author Singer. “On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted.”

“Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people,” says Avery. “It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease.” “There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders,” says Singer. “However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause.” He noted that about 70 percent of the earth’s post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.

Can you separate the man made global warming from the GW that would occur otherwise?

http://www.stuffintheair.com/globle-warming.html

If so, congratulations!