Top 10 facts to dispute man made climate change fans

[merc_man]

I was out with a couple of friends on Saturday night that I hadn't seen in a long while and they've all pretty much bought into the "Climate Change, it's all our fault" ideology. Now, it being a pleasant drunken evening thus far I didn't really want to get into a pointlessly long debate on the matter. However if the subject does raise its head again what are the top ten facts that can be used to counter the argument?

Bunch of hypocrites anyway. One in particular is always going on about how we could only make a difference if we all acted. However, when asked if he'd give away his Playstation, leave his flat and go and live in a self-sustaining community in "Hippy on the Wold" he seems strangely reticent.

[jamoor]

Just ask them how the ice age disappeared, last time I checked the first car was made in the late 1800s.

[Pappa Lurve]

Personally I like to confuse greenists by pointing out that if all the ice in the Arctic melts sea levels will fall as water is more dense than ice.

Confuses the hell out of them!

I also pointed out to one that if you want to lower sea levels all you have to do is take stuff out the sea, may as well take the big stuff first and whats the biggest? Whales!

Also check the percentage of green house gasses that come from cows and the problems caused by bio fuel, there are loads of articles. Also, where do they think the electricity for the g-wiz and other such evil devices comes from?! factor in energy lost in transmission and I wonder how much more efficient they are. Sure, the energy is more cost effective but I have no idea how much pollution is generated to re-charge them as well as making and disposing of the batteries.

[CaptainSlow]

Pappa Lurve said:

Personally I like to confuse greenists by pointing out that if all the ice in the Arctic melts sea levels will fall as water is more dense than ice.

Confuses the hell out of them!

yeah but its above sea level at the moment

[shirt]

CaptainSlow said:

Pappa Lurve said:

Personally I like to confuse greenists by pointing out that if all the ice in the Arctic melts sea levels will fall as water is more dense than ice.

Confuses the hell out of them!

yeah but its above sea level at the moment

and the vast majority is on land iirc.

[Welshbeef]

I think its all down to this we dont know what the tipping point is of our impact on the world. Everything existed before the industrial revolution then we have had an impact, is that enough or is it us & Sea alge, animals, Volcanos all happening in an unlucky coincidence?

Personally I believe Climate change but I played devils advocate with a biologist & Geologist friends a while ago. They were not impressed but still debated. At the end of the day we never will have 100%/perfect science knowledge of whats occuring so you can play on that aspect. You can play it on the front that the oil producing nations have a Vested interest to boost oil price (with climate change as their adgenda) so as to boost price or simply deny what their true reserves are.

[BigLepton]

Welshbeef said:

Personally I believe Climate change

That's the problem, it's a faith-based revenue gathering exercise, not a fact-based one.

[Welshbeef]

BigLepton said:

Welshbeef said:

Personally I believe Climate change

That's the problem, it's a faith-based revenue gathering exercise, not a fact-based one.

Well its a theory (I guess you could call religion a theory too and it will remain a theory until disproved & Im not talking about the bible and its stories but the higher being God [Im not religious BTW]).

[jmorgan]

Re ice.

Just curious as to what will happen to Greenland etc (as in other land) if it melts (the ice before the smart Alecs drop in). Although I understand the ground level is below seal level so what there? Big lake until the ground swells up again?

Anyway came across this
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

[Loach]

Bullet points? You could try this one - CO2 makes up les than a tenth of half a percent of the atmosphere. About 0.04%. We horrible humans with our filthy habits account for less than 5% of the planet's total annual CO2 production, and rotting vegetation alone throws almost 10 times as much C02 into the atmosphere as we do. I'll leave it to you to estimate how much filthy human CO2 (less than 5% of 0.04%) comes from 4x4s.

Do we contribute CO2 to the atmosphere? Yes. Have we made levels highe? Yes. By how much? A tiny percentage of f*ck all. Enough to cook the planet? No.

[cocopop]

Pappa Lurve said:

I also pointed out to one that if you want to lower sea levels all you have to do is take stuff out the sea, may as well take the big stuff first and whats the biggest? Whales!

[Twincam16]

What I can never understand about the 'prediction's for future climate change is this:

Apparently all the rich, cold countries are going to disappear under water and all the hot, deserty countries are going to suffer huge droughts and burn to cinders.

How?

If the sea levels rise, it will be for seas the world over. Humidity will increase everywhere. Subsaharan Africa might even flood - displacing at least some of the water that's supposed to turn Holland into Atlantis.

And thus the balance is restored. Basic physics (but of course these 'the science is over' types are never particularly interested in letting the truth get in the way of dogma).

[Welshbeef]

Loach said:

Bullet points? You could try this one - CO2 makes up les than a tenth of half a percent of the atmosphere. About 0.04%. We horrible humans with our filthy habits account for less than 5% of the planet's total annual CO2 production, and rotting vegetation alone throws almost 10 times as much C02 into the atmosphere as we do. I'll leave it to you to estimate how much filthy human CO2 (less than 5% of 0.04%) comes from 4x4s.

Do we contribute CO2 to the atmosphere? Yes. Have we made levels highe? Yes. By how much? A tiny percentage of f*ck all. Enough to cook the planet? No.

I agree - however it could be that at this point/recent history is that every other aspect has increased and our addition is the tipping point.

What was the CO2 in the atmosphere in the last hot period? Thats the only way to really compare as in isolation 0.04% is 100% meangingless apart from the fact it looks like a small %.

[Mr POD]

I'm afraid i'm at that point where my only co-herent discussion about climate change includes words which are not polite.

Try : put these words in a sentence that you understand.

It's all Bullst and I think you should go screw yourself.

[Carl_Spackler]

Some off the internet "jazy snippets"

1.“Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/0...

2. A veteran US Meterologist is getting ready to sue Al Gore in New York for fraud over what he calls the "biggest scam in history".

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/catherineelsw...

3.a scanned PDF of a Newsweek article from 1975 talking about how the world is heading into an ice age. Have a read, it sounds like the direct opposite of what is being talked about today, the same sort of nonesense from the same people who can't predict what the weather will be at the weekend and next week, never mind the next 20 years

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

4. And the excelent Ch4 doc http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CxBP-UCIZGU

5. Global temperatures may not increase over the next decade because of natural variations in the climate which will offset man-made warming, scientists predicted

http://www.theherald.co.uk/display.var.2238317.0.0...

6. The the anthroprogenic (man made) sources of CO2 account for exactly 0.11 percent of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. In other words, 99.89 percent of the greenhouse effect has not a damn thing to do SUVs, jet travel, backyard barbecues or any other human activity.

The late New Zealand professor Augie Auer explained that three-quarters of the planet is ocean, and 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is governed by water vapour.

"Of that remaining 5 percent, only about 3.6 percent is governed by CO2 and when you break it down even further, studies have shown that the anthropogenic (man-made) contribution to CO2 versus the natural is about 3.2 percent.

"So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the the global greenhouse effect is 0.115 percent ... that's like .12 cents in $100. It's minuscule ... it's nothing.

Should be a starter for 10.

[mondeoman]

Its the SUN, stuuupid.

nothing more to be said.

[FourWheelDrift]

Variations in temperature, CO2, and dust from the Vostok ice core over the last 400,000 years.

Shows the clear temperature cycle. In fact over the last few thousand years the temperature seems to have remained pretty constant.

[ViperDave]

who says the current climate is ideal and worth preserving, seems to me there are plenty of floods and droughts around the world so that doesn't seem too ideal to me.

Its an ecosystem which we and our developments are as natural a part of as anything else, lets just get on with it, plenty of things had to be extinct just to get to the dinosaurs so whats the difference if a few more go.

[Loach]

Welshbeef said:

I agree - however it could be that at this point/recent history is that every other aspect has increased and our addition is the tipping point.

What was the CO2 in the atmosphere in the last hot period? Thats the only way to really compare as in isolation 0.04% is 100% meangingless apart from the fact it looks like a small %.

I understand your notion of a tipping point, but my own view is that today, we have relatively negligible levels of C02 in the atmosphere, and our contribution to those levels is negligible. Severe bush fires can throw as much CO2 into the atmosphere as several months' worth of global fossil fuel consumption. If CO2 levels are that sensitive, then there's absolutely nothing practical that humans can do one way or the other to regulate C02 levels given that our overall contribution to their production is so limited. It makes more sense to me, to focus on sensible things like energy security and renewability, and to wean ourselves to some extent off oil for pragmatic reasons rather than run around like headless chickens with notions that the sky is about to fall on our heads and what should we do about all of these terrible 4x4s etc.



ETA - On the subject of oil, I think shortages are overstated and I don't think we'll run out any time soon, but that's another debate.

Edited by Loach on Monday 22 September 12:49

[rhinochopig]

The whole MMGW debate will rage on for years, but nobody can deny that we should be working towards lowering our impact on the world around us using all PRACTICAL means. Have the government helped to achieve this is an a responsible way - IMHO no. But, would people voluntarily reduce their consumption without being "persuaded" - well history has shown us no. We only have ourselves to blame.