My Rebuttal To Some Of The Arguments Against Global Climate Change

American Policy Roundtable has a list of 8 arguments against global warming. And this is my blog post ripping them apart.

1. "Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate." There is a petition of 17,000 scientists that rejects the idea that there is scientific evidence that greenhouse gases is causing a disruption of Earth's climate.

My Response: How many of them were climatologists? Or at least in a field qualified to have an opinion?

2. "Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend." The site then goes on to to spew out statistics of satellite readings for the past 23 years.

My Response: 23 years is not enough time to make conclusions. It doesn't include a pre-indestrial state for comparison. The ice core data normally cited is reliable.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. Predictions of global warming are based on models, not historical data.


My response: That is incorrect. Before a model is used to actually make predictions, it is calibrated using historical data. Also, models don't predict what will exactly happen, but can predict a trend. Predicting the climate is different than predicting next week's weather.


4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.

My response:  First of all, you can never "prove" anything. You can however, have a lot of evidence to suggest something. And the IPCC summarizes research by scientists, which the overwhelming majority of are finding that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity.


5. A modest amount of global warming should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.

My response: Sure, warmer temperatures are nice, and so is expanding the range of some animals. But for others, they are unable to cope with the dramatic changes and die. Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning would be catastrophic. Increases in extreme weather events would also be catastrophic.


6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth's climate from changing. This would require higher energy taxes, cause a loss of jobs. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would only reduce the global temperature by .14 degrees Celsius.

My Response: Yes, it would be costly. And it wouldn't stop the climate from changing, but help to slow it down.But the alternative to doing nothing would be even more costly. And how did you come up with the .14 degrees Celsius? A model probably. But didn't you say those were unreliable?


7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets." States face a deficit in spending, and these programs to reduce greenhouse gases have no effect and destroy jobs.

My response: Where's the data to support that the programs don't work? New jobs should be created to in developing green technology.


8. The best strategy is "no regrets." The best plan is to do more scientific research and reduce emissions in the future if the science becomes compelling.


My response:  Meanwhile, as we make sure that global climate change is actual happening, the damage increases and it becomes harder to reverse. Yeah, that sounds like a great plan.


For more on arguments against global warming, , here is a great site explaining the science behind why they are incorrect.