Proponents against Global Warming?

Loads. And you don't need to look far to find them.

[Funny; you know what you want to convince people of, but you don't have the facts yet?]

With well over 90% certainty, increasing the more we learn, global warming is real, serious, unprecedented, driven mainly by human activity, and requires appropriate action.This conclusion is reached even after taking natural variation, such as that connected to the sunspot cycle, into account. See the NSF overview:

"Transitions and Tipping Points in Complex Environmental Systems"

through: http://www.nsf.gov/geo/ere/ereweb/advisory.cfm

http://www.nsf.gov/geo/ere/

ereweb/advisory.cfm

There are some excellent web sites, e.g.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/newsarchives.php

that’s http://www.skepticalscience.com/

/newsarchives.php

that rebut the catalogue of zombie (dead but won’t lie down) denialist objections one by one, with real scientific data and references to publications. This site will give you the real data with real links to the actual research papers written by real scientists.

As well as http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/degree/lau...

and statement at

http://royalsociety.org/Joint-Royal-Society-NERC-M...

with endorsements or similar statements endorsed by the [US] National Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy, Russian Academy of Sciences etc listed at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

and eg The Hot Topic, Dvd King, Prof. Cambridge (now Oxford); Global Warming 4th ed. 2009, John Houghton, Prof. AtmosphericSci., Oxford

/newsarchives.php

There is a lot of disinformation out there, and a lot of fossil fuel money being spent to push it. All too successfully, to judge from YA

I believe global warming exists, but not to the extent to which people like Al Gore are leading us to react. By the way, everyone should be 'against global warming caused by humans' and learn how to minimize their impact on the environment around them.

There are valid theories by many scientists both for and against warming from man made CO2. The real fact is we do not yet understand well enough all the variables involved in global warming and cooling.

It is obvious the models and assumptions used by the IPCC predictions have been wrong for recent history.

SkepticalScience is a great blog; it includes the links to the scientific papers it uses.

Never assume a blog is right, go check the science for yourself. Here's a collection of evidence about solar theory:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sun...

Two researchers work in my department (Erlykin & Wolfendale). They insist that the Sun can't explain recent warming; it explains up to about 14% according to one of their recent papers.

Nothing I've found contradicts what they say, lots of science I've read does support what they say, and they are astrophysics experts (Professor Sir Arnold Wolfendale is the ex Astronomer Royal for example). So I'm comfortable with believing them.

Some people on here like Dana are political activists many are in one way funded by global warming either through employment, education, grants, or have vested interests in carbon trading companies.

Global warming if it exists has many benefits for the planet and our grandchildren such as:

• Increased agricultural productivity & land (more rain, warmth & Co2)

• Longer growing seasons for all plant life

• Greening of some of the Earth's vast frozen land masses (Canada, Russia, China)

• Increased Co2 absorption rate

• Added habitat for wildlife

• More bountiful food for animal life

• Less food/energy requirements for animal life

• Less net global energy requirement for humans

• Less deforestation for heating fuel

• Less cold related severe weather and death

MOST IMPORTANTLY: if we are very lucky and warm enough, we may even avert the next ice age: Ice ages are not controversial ideas like global warming, they are real and acknowledged by all scientists regardless of political affiliation. They occur like clockwork, they appear very rapidly, within a few human generations, and wipe out most animal and plant life on the planet.

I disagree with snowman that the first two answers are well thought out. They are just well repeated. They are not well thought out. You get the same thing from alarmists. They are as predictable as the sun rising.

Global warming is not a scientific name. It is a pop name. The climate varies naturally. There is no doubt of that. The climate came out of a cool period associated with low number of sun spots about 300 years ago. Since then it has generally been warming with a few minor cool periods. We didn't cause the cool periods and it is not scientific to conclude we caused the warming periods. It is just plain awful science.

Global warming is an Al Gore invention to get as rich as God based on false science carefully selected images omission of certain facts and crowd hysteria.

and it has worked.

the fudged figures from the university of east anglia and the facts of global variances in temperature over billions of years are ignored.

bs baffles brains.

1) The planet is warming.

2) The dominant radiative forcing (factor causing an energy imbalance on Earth which leads to a temperature change) is from greenhouse gases, mainly CO2.

3) Solar activity has not increased on average on over 50 years.

4) The upper atmosphere is cooling - a key signature of an enhanced greenhouse effect.

5) The planet is warming more during the night than day - another key signature of an enhanced greenhouse effect.

6) The scientific evidence is so strong that over 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

See the link below for more details.

Your answer lies in geology.

The Holocene temperature record shows that the Earth has warmed and cooled on a regular basis since the end of the last ice age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene

Global Warmists only look at the past 100 years or so. A look at the past 10,000 years shows nothing of significance.

AGW is a theory that fits in with Hanta virus, Bird flu, Swine flu, or killer bees. Nothing but a media scare drummed up to increase sales. The only difference, politicians have found a way to benefit their own agendas with AGW.

Don,

You will need to be able to show them an independent and reliable source that shows that the predictions made by the IPCC based on their scientific models were correct. I recommend this link:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archi...

It details the IPCC forecasts and uses the data from NASA, Met Office, etc. Very useful.

Don, the answers above are well thought out but lack a certain thing we call scientific evidence.

Those claims were true when we thought the Climate Models created by the AGW folks were providing reliable predictions. NONE of them predicted the last 10 years of temperature stabilization.

The IPCC also stated there would be a green house signature, as you'd expect w/ the above explanations, that is missing. There is no greenhouse hotspot -- which means that the current warming isn't caused primarily by the greenhouse effect as AGW proponents would have you believe.

If there is no scientific evidence for the claims being made, the conclusions and approaches to experimentation must be revisited. Completely ignoring evidence to the contrary is what cults do -- not scientists.

Here's a decent clip to watch to draw your own conclusions. Lord Monckton is a chief skeptic, also a winner of the nobel prize for refuting some of the IPCC claims (you didn't hear about it? How strange). It's a short 1.5 hour speech he gave and addresses the IPCC report and some of the AGW claims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&feature...

You can also watch The Great Global Warming Swindle where prominent members in the Environmental movement have distanced themselves from the madness -- most notably, the co-founder of Green Peace. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs

Al Gore's claims have been challenged in court and his movie is banned from being shown in classrooms in the UK (didn't hear about that one either, eh?).

AGW folks operate more on faith than science. It's a political/economic move cloaked in "sound science."

Facts:

1. There is warming - there has been for over 1200 years. That's if we want to continue to talk about trends.

2. Nobody knows exactly where that warming originates. Could be CO2 (not likely), could be due to oceanic oscillators, cloud fractioning/feedback, sunspot/irradiance, global orbit/pitch, etc. etc. or some combination of the thousands of variables in and out of our atmosphere that regulate climate.

3. It has been warmer in the past than it is now.

4. The temperatures at time have dipped while CO2 continued to climb (hide the decline)

5. The raw data from weather stations has been processed -- it's a common technique used in statistics. The problem here is we don't know what data was used, what data was discarded and why. Did they merely use data to reinforce the idea that "the IPCC comes in for a lot of stick"?

6. The AGW movement has climbed in funding from 100 million per year to over 25 BILLION per year w/ the appropriation in the "stimulus" bill that allotted 80 billion dollars over the next 3 years to study climate. More money -- more livelihoods depend upon AGW being true or controversial (keep that money coming).

7. There is a formal investigation being held for content found in the CRU e-mails suggesting some unethical behavior in the handling of the raw data.

8. CO2 has climbed over the past 80 years and should be addressed.

9. Temps have stabilized over the past 10 years as CO2 has continued to rise. A strange concept when that rising CO2 is responsible for rising temperatures.

10. In all of the IPCC models, cloud feedback is said to be positive (maintains heat at the surface). It has since been proven that the majority of cloud feedback is negative (cooling) but depends upon the altitude of those clouds. IPCC still contends a positive feedback.

11. The 2007 IPCC report graphs were completely different than the 1995 IPCC report even though the same raw data was used...suggesting further that the data was manipulated. 1995 graphs were relatively flat -- 2007 graphs were all hockey-sticks. The 1995 report cited ZERO influence by man. The 2007 report cited 90% of warming caused by man.

12. There are over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles refuting AGW claims, albeit difficult to receive funding for such a politically and economically supported initiative.

13. Anyone who tells you with absolute certainty that the earth is either warming and/or cooling for specific reasons doesn't know what they're talking about. They're merely parroting some group. At this point, it's mostly speculative...climate science is very young and we have a lot to learn.

14. Science demands skepticism -- especially when the ducks don't sit in a row.

If you want some juice to make up your own mind rather than having someone TELL you what to think, there are plenty of sites out there. This one gives a good overview w/ claims and hyperlinks to sites on both sides of the fence.

The hyperlinks on the left give all kinds of information. The first section (top-left) has the main climate sites.

http://climatedebatedaily.com/