How can people make any argument saying global warming/ climate change doesn't exist?

It's a peculiar mind set, but once you believe that there is a conspiracy to promote the idea of global warming, then no amount of evidence is sufficient to proving that global warming exists, because each source of information is just thought to be part of the conspiracy. So from their point of view every government agency, every university, every publication, and every scientist --all of them are biased and just part of the conspiracy and automatically discounted no matter what -- if they say anything that supports the idea of global warming.

Paradoxically, they will take email from unknown sources, political blogs, scientists who are known political hacks, graphs with unknown origins, and random posts on YA answers as true, so long they say anything critical about the idea of global warming.

Thirty years ago the coming ice age was the news. Caused by CO2. The same thing that global warming is being based on. Several of the proofs people use to "prove" global warming could, I say could, be explained by other factors.

But mainly it's because the people who are so adamant about it will NOT accept any view except their own.

During the middle ages there was a warm up so profound that grapes were grown in Great Britain. Greenland was so named because it was warm enough to be green,(As seen from the sea).

Colonists landed there and settled in, they raised cattle, sheep and built several villages. Then the little ice age hit.

Nobody has been able to explain those events. It is possible that the earth is gradually warming because it's time for it to.

We've been keeping records for less than two hundred years. The earth is billions of years old.

I'm skeptical. So are a lot of people.

This past winter is an example. It was abnormally cold, yet the global warming enthusiasts simply nodded and said. "It's global warming, that's the reason it's so cold."

Who do we believe?

For every expert who says it's real, there's one who says it isn't.

Well you might say . "Why would they lie about it?" Yet scientists have, for years, lied and falsified anything to make their pet theory look good.

Who do you believe?

Me personally, I think that any time a hollywood personality gets behind some idea, I tend to oppose it..

There's a lot of information out there, on both sides. Who do you believe?

You need to reassess your "facts". The only fact is that CO2 is a gas that is capable of absorbing and radiating IR. The actual effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is not a fact, it's a theory.

And in case you are not aware of the theory, I'll point it out to you. The theory states that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in an increase in average global temperatures of about 3.5C. However, the error margin for this theory is +/-2C so the theory really states that a doubling of CO2 will likely cause a temperature rise of anywhere from 1C-5C (not linear).

That theory relies on several assumptions. The main assumption is that there won't be negative feedbacks (which would reduce the temperature rise). This is an assumption because we don't know enough about the effect of cloud cover and water vapor effects on climate.

If you were aware of this, then I apologize. If you weren't aware of this, then perhaps you need to investigate the science of climate a little more thoroughly.

You should note that the climate models predict various temperature increase scenarios using the above assumption. Given that it is an assumption, you should be aware that it may not be correct. As a matter of fact, some of the more knowledgeable climate skeptics feel this assumption is indeed incorrect and that cloud cover and water vapor create negative feedbacks which would put the doubling of CO2 more towards causing a 1C or even less temperature rise. If this is true, then reducing CO2 by 10, 20 or even 50% would not have a large effect on global temperatures.

Climate models cannot be used as fact since they need assumptions to do their predictions. If the assumptions are inaccurate, then so are the models. As a matter of fact, the models are likely inaccurate for many other reasons.

Easy, that 30% increase in CO2 over 150 years comes from both natural and man made sources. A lot of us do believe that climate change exists but is not being driven by man. All man is doing is adding to it. Also, if you listen to the backers of man made climate change they want to destroy the economies of Europe and North America while allowing China, the #1 total emitter of green house gases, to continue it's increase. It makes no sense to have some people cut emissions when their reductions will be overshadowed with the increases of others such as India, Brazil, Russia, and China.

ok, global warming is not real, it was a theory proposed in the 90's. scientists were funded by the government to prove or disprove this theory. it has recently been disproved. carbon dioxide, while it is a green house gas is not the main contributor to global warming. i know it is hard to imagine, but we dint put out enough to effect the climate. the government uses it as a scare tactic because the reality is that the oil reserves are damn near gone. If americans dont cut their use of oil by at least 30% it will be gone in 100 years. the sun is the main contributor to our climate. There is no more of a rise in carbon dioxide than there ever was in our earths history. (and for the "meteorologist" they didnt use technology 3 billion years ago, they simply go by the amount of carbon dioxide in 3 billion year old rocks. if he was really a man of science he would know thats just common sense!) this has been backed by scientific evidence. go to this sight, http://www.documentarytube.com/?p=114 there is a documentary called the great global warming swindle. it is very informative and easy to understand. and for all of you who are gonna give e a thumbs down, here is my advice for you..... dont listen to the media regarding scientific facts. listen to the geologists, and chemists that actually know what they are talking about. The media is simply hearsay. they hear a blurp of something interesting and put it out cause they know people will believe it. its all about money for them, not about whats real. as for the government, they want this to be true, they have dumped millions into funding the research, and they dont like being wrong. articles put out by government funded agencies are not true!!! please dont be a sheep. educate yourself, and dont believe what people say, find the scientific facts.

as a rebuttal for Lilyan's:

you can put up all the links you want, but all that proves is you believe whatever you read, which is why i say dont be a sheep. when have you actually gone out and done research for yourself? when was the last time you measured the C02 levels from an ancient rock.... or a modern rock for that matter? what is your scientific background? i can read articles and watch tv, i choose not to because it is misleading. the only way to form an educated opinion is to find the evidence for yourself. now you can say global warming is caused by man, or its a myth. but you cant deny that the ones who do the work are the ones who know what they are talking about. you are posting links from government websites, and wickipedia....???? and im sure most of the population will agree the government doesnt know what they are talking about ( that was a joke!) i have no conspiracy theories. i dont think our government wants to conspire against their people. my argument is simply that people believe what they hear instead of doing the actual work to discover the facts. i mean no disrespect to you or any other reader. i am simply trying to motivate people to educate themselves.

I remember hearing this a while back and I think its pretty brilliant for how simple it is.

"I don't know if global warming is real, but I do know that we can change the way we live and if that means burning less coal and using less gas then its a smarter way to live. Why not take advantage of these new technologies that are coming to life because of this global warming issue. Sure it may be a huge debate but we should be able to come together and agree that we need to change the way we travel and live on this earth!"

You don't always have to change someones opinions because they don't see eye to eye with you.

Personally I don't know if i am on this whole global warming, humans destroying the earth "we are all going to die in "insert number" years" but if you can sit there and tell me that humans are not changing the course of history of this planet (like cutting down rain forests or damming up important rivers) then your just down right ignorant.

The proportion of the atmosphere that is CO2 now that wasn't CO2 in 1800 is 1/10,000th.

CO2 has diminishing returns. It does trap heat but the relationship between CO2 and heat thereby trapped is not linear but logarithmic. That means that with each molecule added, you get less bang for your buck. It's like insulation on your home - one layer vs none has a very noticeable effect; two versus one has a somewhat noticeable effect particularly on windy nights; three versus two is overkill. Six versus five would not be noticeable.

We're talking about six versus five.

The reason why she refuses to believe in global warming is because in the 70's it was Global Cooling, a few years ago Global Warming, now Climate Change! At least make up your minds! The Earth is on a cycle! God made this Earth for humans. And no I'm not saying to destroy it, but we don't need to go out of our way to "go green." Did you know that the methane gas in cows feces makes more pollution than our cars.

Its very difficult with someone like that. Almost like trying to debate evolution with creationist's. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is, how many years of scientific research have gone into it, they wont accept it.

@ Stephanie

I find it funny You attach the qualifications of others. Can i ask what your qualifications are? (please feel free to PM me). I have spent years teaching undergraduates in geology, biology, zoology and biogeochemistry. Thus i can say if your only qualification is a geology major, i would tell people to question your assertions.

I also find it amusing you think the government reports are not valid sources. The information they are based on come from peer reviewed scientific literature. Over 95% of all the scientific literature supports the theory of AGW. The evidence is overwhelming.

There is a saying, never try to prove a negative. I find it courageous that she stands up to you. I want to ask you a question. How does NASA know there has been a 30% increase in CO2? How did they measure the levels in 1910 and how did the technology then compare to the technology they use today?

Where did they come up with those numbers? What are the methods today?