Can global warming skeptics back up some of their claims?

No. It's pretty darn hard to defend a factually incorrect statement. I'd be happy to disprove them though.

• The current warming is caused by natural cycles

http://www.greenoptions.com/wiki/global-warming-an...

• Global warming has ended and the Earth has been cooling for X number of years

The fact that we've broken the 12-month running average global temperature record in 3 consecutive months disproves this one pretty easily. It's hard to argue global warming has ended during the hottest period in thousands of years.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/10/nasa-hottest...

*edit* Eric displays gross dishonesty in his answer to this one, attributing the statement to Phil Jones. Jones said the 0.12°C/decade HadCRUT *warming* trend from 1995-2009 was not quite statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. To claim he said the planet was cooling is a complete lie, and eric knows it.

• Scientists have admitted that they invented global warming, fabricated the evidence etc

Never happened. You'll probably get some references to 'Climategate', but none of the stolen emails said any such thing. And in fact a number of independent investigations fully exonerated all climate scientists involved. For example:

“After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=251...

• Global warming has not caused any change in the weather – droughts, floods, hurricanes etc

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080903/full/news.2...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_natura...

• Global warming is caused by the urban heat island effect, surface stations are incorrectly sited etc

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthl...

• Scientists have deleted the raw data, the work of scientists can’t be verified

This myth is based on a statement from CRU that they threw out some tapes in the 1980s which contained raw temperature data. However, these were just *copies* of the raw data. Since CRU does not collect raw temperature data, they are incapable of destroying anything other than copies of the data. The raw data can still be obtained from sources like the GHCN.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/...

Moreover, the data is constantly verified as there are several organizations independently calculating the average global temperature. There's CRU, NOAA, NASA GISS, JMA, and then there's the satellites on top of it.

• It’s warmed faster in the past

This may very well be true. There may have been brief periods during transitions between glacial and interglacial period when the planet warmed as fast or faster than it is right now. We don't have the data resolution to make this determination.

However, this is a logical fallacy (non sequitur). The fact that the planet may have warmed faster in the past obviously doesn't mean that the current warming is natural. What it means is that hypothetically, the current warming *could be* natural. But since there is no natural cause which can explain the current warming (see first point), this argument is completely irrelevant.

Or sometimes this argument is used to claim the current warming is nothing to worry about. There are two major flaws with this claim.

1) Some past climate changes have caused mass extinctions, so unless you can show that those climate changes were more extreme than the current one, you don't have a scientific leg to stand on.

2) Global warming is predicted to accelerate as CO2 emissions accelerate (unless we do something to change that) and feedbacks kick in.

• The number of glaciers is growing, glaciers are expanding etc

http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/img/5-9.jpg

• Volcanoes emit more CO2 then humans do

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15....

• All the computer models in the past have been wrong

http://www.greenoptions.com/wiki/fingerprints-of-h...

• The other planets are warming therefore it’s the Sun

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-oth...

Sadly we hear these long-debunked denier argument so much that it only took me about 5 minutes to get all those links and write up this answer.

Much of these claims, and claims similar, are made by people who are either scared of the truth, or

who want to convince people it doesn't exist for business reasons (i.e. oil companies, etc).

Of course you do get a small percentage of people who don't believe in it because they don't find it

logical or don't see the sense in it but again, this is a very small percentage!

I personally believe in it.

Straight forward answer: Yes they can back up some of them but not nearly enough to prove it

wrong.

Here is a list of what is backed up and what isn't:

• The current warming is caused by natural cycles - NO

• Global warming has ended and the Earth has been cooling for X number of years - NO

• Scientists have admitted that they invented global warming, fabricated the evidence etc - NO

• Global warming has not caused any change in the weather – droughts, floods, hurricanes etc - NO

• Global warming is caused by the urban heat island effect, surface stations are incorrectly sited etc - POSSIBLY BUT UNLIKELY

• Scientists have deleted the raw data, the work of scientists can’t be verified - NO

• It’s warmed faster in the past - POSSIBLY AND LIKELY

• The number of glaciers is growing, glaciers are expanding etc - NO

• Volcanoes emit more CO2 then humans do - NO (There are around 6.8 Billion humans on earth and not nearly enough volcanoes.

• All the computer models in the past have been wrong - NO

• The other planets are warming therefore it’s the Sun - NO

Overall these "Global warming skeptics" cannot back up their claims.

Dana, another red-herring. The alarmists are the ones trying to prove a point. They are the ones who need to answer questions regarding their theories. If a skeptic points out a hole in an alarmists theory, it isn't the responsibility of the skeptic to figure out how to resolve the inconsistency. It is the responsibility of the scientist proposing the theory. So, here are some questions for you because regardless of your points in 1 - 3, if the alarmists can't answer these, then how do we know whether we even have a problem? #1 What is the normal global temperature of the Earth? #2 How do we know we are warming above the normal global temperature and not just warming up to it from the last ice age? #3 How do you calculate the global temperature? #4 How do you calculate the global temperature of the Earth prior to the middle of the 20th century? #5 What is the accuracy of temperature readings prior to the mid-20th century? #6 For locations where temperature readings were not tracked regularly or accurately, what data is used? #7 How do we know the data is accurate? The whole basis for AGW alarmism is based on temperature data for a little over 100 years with truly accurate data only in the last 50 years or so. If we don't even have accurate data for 100 years out of a few billion, are the alarmists so arrogant that they believe they know everything concerning our atmosphere?

There is no point - your mind is demonstrably closed to reason, and you have it backwards: you want us to destroy our industrialised civilisation, you need to prove your theory. The status quo stands unless it is proven that we need to wreck our economy for the greater good. Let's look at your mis-representations of skepticism:

• The current warming is caused by natural cycles.

It is currently cooling, but earlier was cooling 1945 - 1975, warming 1976-1998, cooling 1999-now. Sounds like natural cycles to me, or random variations around the norm. We're talkind fractions of a degree here.

• Global warming has ended and the Earth has been cooling for X number of years.

Even warmists acknowledge it isn't warming, some admit cooling. ""The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming, and it's a travesty that we can't."

• Scientists have admitted that they invented global warming, fabricated the evidence etc. See link below.

• Global warming has not caused any change in the weather – droughts, floods, hurricanes etc. The onus is on you to prove that it has.

• Global warming is caused by the urban heat island effect, surface stations are incorrectly sited etc. Because of the truly tiny 0.6 degrees per century warming trend, it is quite feasable that heat island weffects are in play. Again - prove it isn't so. It is a reasonable point to raise.

• Scientists have deleted the raw data, the work of scientists can’t be verified

Just type climategate in google - read the scientists own emails where they admit deleting data.

• It’s warmed faster in the past.

See Cherry pickers guide below.

• The number of glaciers is growing, glaciers are expanding etc

All we have to do is show they are not melting in runaway global warming. See Himalaya link below.

• Volcanoes emit more CO2 then humans do. They don't but they do affect the global climate more than we do.

• All the computer models in the past have been wrong.

No-one is saying that - all the IPCC models have so far been wrong, but many other computer models work fine.

• The other planets are warming therefore it’s the Sun

At the end of the day, it is all about the sun. If it went out, we would rapiidly get very cold indeed. The suns output is known to fluctuate, leading to warming and cooling periods in our geological history - do you deny that?

<<There's a big difference between a 'denier' and a 'skeptic'. >>

I have the same problem when I debate "roundists" (liberals who think the Earth is non-flat). I explain to them that the science is not conclusive, that despite the hysterical claims from people like Al Gore and Prince Philip that the Earth is not flat, we really do not know. So in response to me expressing *skepticism* about the Earth being non-flat, they call me a "denier" to try to make me seem like a Holocaust denier.

All I have been asking for is an open *scientific* debate on whether or not the Earth is flat. Saying to me "everyone says the Earth is not flat" is just arguing by consensus. Consensus is not science, a point that I learned because everyone on the talk radio says so.

Is there global warming ? Is there climate change ?

YES to both answers BUT it has nothing to do with humans ! Look if you think its all caused by humans then STOP MAKING HUMANS ! That's the only way to slow or stop anything caused by humans.

Look at the sites I have below, you will see where they found tropical ferns under the great ice sheets in Antarctica. You will see where oil is not made from dead Dino's. You will see where the tilt and surface of this earth is in constant change !

They have found sea shells on the tops of the highest mountains and have found trees and bones of land critters under the oceans.

I could not find the sites I wanted to but look around and you will see where the earth is in constant change, the sun is growing and getting hotter. The earth the sun and the entire universe is changing locations and has been sense the first 2 dust bunnies got together and stated forming the SKY !

There is no money in natural climate change but there is zillions of dollars being passed around for man made global warming !

I don't worry about climate change or global warming, its going to happen no matter what humans do. If you really really think man kind has anything to do with it then consider that mans addition to it is about as much as a 10 year old boy wizzzzing in the ocean once a day !

Since the earth has cooled down since it peaked in 1998 (over a decade of cooling?) and proved the AGW models wrong at least for the recent past, I would think this would be enough "Back Up" to at least be somewhat skeptical. That is, if you are educated and really searching for facts.

How about this, why don't you read the IPCC report with a critical eye? All it takes for me is to see that they change the units on GHG emissions from ppm to tons with no conversion factor for people to check to see how much GHG man is adding. Even the US EPA says that we can't recreate past climate conditions to the accuracy that the climate scientists are saying. All you have to do is actually READ the EPA and IPCC reports to see these contradictions. Also, it is up to the scientific community to proof that climate change is man made and so far they haven't come up with significant proof. All they really have is that the climate is warmer and the minor GHG emissions are up, they ignore water vapor because it is mostly natural.

The current warming is caused by natural cycles

The current warming can either be natural or unnatural (ie human induced from greenhouse gases). If it is from the build up of greenhouse gases there should be a build up of heat in the troposphere, with temperatures rising there at a faster rate than ground temperatures. But the data says otherwise. People counter this by saying that there is something wrong with the satellite data that monitors the troposphere. But global warming theory also says that as the troposphere warms, it should hold more water vapour. But the evidence is suggesting that that is not happening. (‘Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data’ by Garth Paltridge , Albert Arking and Michael Pook). Susan Solomon concluded the decline in water vapour concentrations that occurred in 2001 slowed down the rate of global warming in the last decade by 25 per cent. (Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1182488). This is evidence that it is not co2 that is causing the warming. Since this warming is not unnatural (ie co2) it has to be natural.

"Global warming has ended and the Earth has been cooling for X number of years".

That would have to be from Phil Jones in a BBC interview. There are also many skeptics that say the same thing, but according to you they are big oil stooges that cannot be trusted.

"Scientists have admitted that they invented global warming, fabricated the evidence etc"

I have not heard that from any scientists. Although I have heard former Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore say that left wing advocates are masquerading left wing politics under a green banner. Which is why he left Greenpeace.

"Global warming has not caused any change in the weather – droughts, floods, hurricanes etc".

There have been a number of studies that shows that there has no been an increase in droughts. (Sheffield et al.) The most comprehensive study (Narisma et al, 2007) showed that, of the 20th century's 30 major drought episodes, 22 were in the first six decades, with only five between 1961 and 1980. The most recent two decades produced just three.

Kuleshov et al. did a study in hurricanes in the southern hemisphere and concluded:

“For the 1981–1982 to 2006–2007 period, there are no apparent trends in the total numbers of TCs reaching minimum central pressures of 995 hPa or lower, nor in the numbers of severe TCs in the five subdomains of the SH examined”.

"Global warming is caused by the urban heat island effect, surface stations are incorrectly sited etc"

If any skeptic says that they are mistaken. But there is evidence that the Urban heat Island effect has exaggerated the warming trend. McKitrick and Micheals had a hypothesis that poor nations lack the resources to properly maintain temperature stations. Their analysis found that the rate of warming is greatest among poorer nations. Their findings were later confirmed independently by de Laat and Maurelis. IJC 2006

Edit for Paul B. Yes I have, have you?

"The trend this time (2002 to the present)is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant."

There's a big difference between a 'denier' and a 'skeptic'. The scientifically, peer reviewed data shows an accelerating degree of climate change, but there's no real consensus as to what tipping points have already 'tipped' and what is or could be heading in our direction, how soon it will get here and what form it will take. The matter of 'degree' is also 'known' only within a broad range of probability and possibility. That's where the 'skeptic's' opinion comes in handy as they tend to reduce speculation down to 'best case, worst case, most likely, least likely scenarios. A skeptic's input is legitimate while a deniers is total nonsense and for the most part serves the interests of the coal and oil mafias and the cheesy politicians who pimp for those interests. I hope this helps!

Problem is that both sides of the arguments have insufficient data to confirm either point of view, despite the fact that climate change advocates have a better claim.

Let me put it this way. Climate change advocates says that due to global warming, the glaciers are receding. BUT skeptics say that glaciers have expanded and receded for eons. BUT the skeptics don't say what causes it.

But for their explanations that you listed:

The current warming is caused by natural cycles

• Global warming has ended and the Earth has been cooling for X number of years

-Inconclusive. In fact, less conclusive than global warming advocates saying Earth is still getting warmer.

• Scientists have admitted that they invented global warming, fabricated the evidence etc

-What percentage? 100%? 1%? Some, all, most, very few? They cannot reinforce the claim without data they don't have.

• Global warming has not caused any change in the weather – droughts, floods, hurricanes etc

-Once again, they have nothing scientific to back that up. Where as GW advocates....

• Global warming is caused by the urban heat island effect, surface stations are incorrectly sited etc

-Problem is are they scientists? Do they know were the proper measurements are suppose to take place?

• Scientists have deleted the raw data, the work of scientists can’t be verified

-Is that a fact or a claim?

• It’s warmed faster in the past

-Based upon?

• The number of glaciers is growing, glaciers are expanding etc

-As stated before, what caused it in the first place?

• Volcanoes emit more CO2 then humans do

-And do they have data to back that up? And do they take into consideration of all man made causes of global warming including deforestation?

• All the computer models in the past have been wrong

-Did they verify that data proving it wrong? Or is it a claim based upon desperation?

• The other planets are warming therefore it’s the Sun

-Yet Venus is warmer than Mercury, and Mercury is closer to the sun. Venus's atmosphere has a thick layer of CO2.

As well ice caps samples shows conclusively that there is a relation between carbon dioxide concentration and Earth's temperature. But skeptics say that this isn't conclusive or whatever.

-Once again, desperation of proving a point they don't have.