Good arguments AGAINST climate change...?

Don't despair, you are actually on the CORRECT side of the debate. We know that there is no man-made Global Warming because it's advocates have no empirical science to back their claim. And their advocacy movement has been mired in scandal since its beginning. Here are some things you should know:

1) The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder in the distant past, long before the industrial age. Climate is indeed changing, but it has always changed and probably always will. These are obviously natural cycles that man does not and cannot control.

2) Global Warming alarmists have been caught in one lie after another. Huge scandals have been continuously revealed since the early 1980’s when the campaign began. Some of these are listed below:

3) Al Gore’s movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was full of bald faced lies. Like the Polar Bears were drowning, or the Ice Caps were melting, or the oceans were rising --- all lies. In fact a court of England ruled the movie was so flawed that it could not be shown to school children without a disclaimer.

4) The ClimateGate affair exposed the utter corruption of the Warmist community with their exposed emails speaking of how they intended to “hide the decline” and how to manipulate data and the peer-review process in their favor.

5) Then there is the fact that the globe isn’t even warming anymore and the small amount of warming experienced from the 1900’s to 2001 timeframe was negligible and well within the envelope of normal.

6) During this same period of marginal warming, scientists also noticed that other planets in our solar system were warming. What do these planets have in common ? --- the Sun.

7) Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, the Guru and High Priest of Global Warming himself admitted there has been no statistically significant warming. If anyone on the planet would have been aware of statistically significant warming it would have been Phil Jones and he admitted there has been none. (Game Over)

8) Warmist like Al Gore refuse to engage in any formal debate on the issue. That’s because on the few occasions Warmist have debated openly, they lose, and they lose big. Lord Monckton utterly destroys them time and time again.

9) Al Gore and other Warmists have stated clearly that they want to make CO2 the object of a global tax. CO2 is the perfect object for their revenue purposes because you literally cannot live without making CO2, after all, we exhale it. And current science has shown clearly that there is no correlation between the planet’s mean temperature and the concentration of CO2 in the air. Demonizing CO2 is all about the tax dollars, and that’s all its about.

See the scam for what it is and don’t believe any of it.

Polar Bears are doing fine:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190805/20110802/po...

Perfect example of Warmist propaganda using polar bears to try and glean sympathy for their global scam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLt0myO8XsA

Phil Jones admits NO statistically significant warming

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-w...

35 major errors in Al Gore’s movie

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerr...

Court rules Al Gore’s movie unfit without disclaimer (11 major errors reviewed)

http://creation.com/al-gores-inconvenient-errors

Graph showing CO2 does NOT drive Temperature

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/correlatio...

Warming on Mars -- and Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6544

Lord Monckton destroys Warmist in debate (Video)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/inde...

For the full story on the man-made Global Warming scam watch these:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE

Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-330991046...

-----------------------

No need to be insulting. And, no need to do your own rant about Socialists. The fact is that the AGW/ACC argument is about a political agenda, not about science. What's more, some comments of the GW people (including those in the East Anglia emails) reveal that the movement is not really about temperature changes, but about something else.

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

All that snow takes energy to type. And so do those robust hurricanes - and tornadoes. When the ocean warms up, so do the storms associated with them - which makes them more violent. It would appear bloodless when the wind is whippin' around. But it's the interaction between the cold and heat air that particularly will get things relocating - tornado-sensible. And it is the WATER that holds the energy - you can not have a tornado and not using a great deal of humidity somewhere. Where does our water come from? - our friggin' OCEANS. If that water is hotter with the aid of just a bit bit, you have got a far better storm. Or a extra fierce tornado. It's time to take the blinders off, persons. Just in view that you did not bake (or freeze) your hinie off in January, doesn't mean all those scientists are incorrect.

If we consider that a brand new volcano were to appear in your backyard and start spewing forth with the molten rocks and lava (as volcanoes have a tendency to do). There are the gas and mass ejections to consider. These are injected high into the planets atmosphere, where it may take decades for dust to settle - and sulphorous gasses alone may be doing a lot of damage.

Even a relatively tiny volcano can output much more gas and ash into the atmosphere than we could hope to save.

There is also the faming needs of a growing population to consider. As populations increase, and become more affluent, there is a visible shift in consumer eating habits from primarily vegetable to meat. The meat industry (apart from the land-requirement) also produces lots of methane and sulphorous waste and gasses.... etc

just look at skepticalscience.com for all the arguments, just leave out the details to make it look like denier arguments are correct. It's not so much about climate change, it's denying CO2 has anything to do with it (and if it does, it's from volcanoes etc...)

remember that you can win a debate without being correct on content. with proper presentation, you could show the earth is flat and spaghetti grows on trees too.

There are many arguments here are a few to start with as dont forget that the global warmers don't actually have any science apart from "computer models" this and computer models that. Computer garbage in equal’s computer garbage out proved by the fact that Al Gores hockey stick projection is wrong as it has not occurred!

Questions for the warmers:

1. How do they observe "climate" being as climate is supposed to be the average weather over a long period of time?

2. How do any of them seriously study climate with no raw data, or haven’t they heard the historical climate data appears to be missing?

In its place is a bunch of homogenized crap made up by a guy we should all trust because he like them only has our best interest at heart and honest he got it all right the first time and didn’t need it any more so he deleted it?

3. How do they calculate man made carbon dioxide when 72% of the planet is under oceans and nobody has the slightest clue how many undersea volcanoes that are active?

There could be 300% or more unknown CO2 spewing sources under our oceans.

When the main greenhouse gas, water is 99.9 % more prevalent than Carbon dioxide why has the climate never run away as they all claim a couple parts per million of CO2 is supposed to do.

4. What happened to the 3000 missing weather stations that we used up until 1970s

5. How do they compare the temperature of a planet over time when they are not even using the same data sources?

6. Why are 300 weather stations in Canada’s Arctic ignored and only one used?

It’s situated on an Island known as the garden spot of the Arctic.

7. Why is it that every time a new story is printed by a supposed green source all we ever see for evidence is observation and convenient assumptions by people whose reputations seem to precede them. Has their science been so debunked that nobody is willing to print it any more or does the thought of a real scientist looking over their work and showing the world that they just make the stuff up as they go along scare the hell out of them? (Real scientists being sceptical scientists).

Science is not gossip about "done science" that nobody seems to know where to find or when they do it turns out to be a hundred years old and based on a none finite atmosphere. Science is prove it or move on, not if they can't prove it call them names or change the subject and talk about sustainability or windmills, or changes their name from global warmists to climate change proponents and hope nobody notices.

If that doesn’t work try fear mongering.

The consensus that they speak of incessantly is not science. Science does not use consensus. Consensus is the last hope of a bad theory and people who have too much invested in the outcome to look at the world with a clear rational head. Smart people would have investigated the science before they spent their lives being “useful idiots” to those who would subvert them and their best intentions. Did they really think that the wealthy elitists would just give them all the money if they could just convince them of their faith? The meek will not inherit the earth they will just continue to serve those that will; however, as long as their wishes serve their purpose they will allow them their fantasy.

Either you have phrased the question incorrectly or without enough information or your school project is unscientific and/or poorly worded.

Of course the climate changes. It always has and likely always will. There is no way to prove climate change does not exist.

Now it's likely you are talking about man's effect on the natural changing of the climate and whether or not that exists. Well, I hate to tell you but that's also going to be impossible to prove it doesn't exist (or more correctly man has absolutely no climate change effect).

It's quite possible that your teacher doesn't even know what the global warming controversy is all about which is unfortunate, especially if she's a science teacher.

Print this out and show this to her.

There are NO "good" arguments supporting the anti-science denial of climate change science. But, you can pick from among the deceit-laden bad arguments here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

If you would prefer to ague for climate change that means you have been brain washed by the lying left socialists.

However hear is the information you want. If you actually read it you might change your mind, that is if you have one.

It's easy for socialists to brain wash females like you because you have a low understading of science.Best you listen to the scientists say.

Good arguments, there are none