Global Warming Debate: Refuting Common Arguments

In summary, the kids at school keep trying to argue with me about global warming, but I don't really know how to respond. Most of the time they use ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. I was hoping that somebody could help me find some material that I could show them to disprove their arguments.
  • #176
Andre said:
Just an observation,

There are two different subjects here, the (in)sensitivity of climate to variation of concentrations of greenhouse gasses and the political-economical features of energy management. There is a lot to say for the reasoning: 'we must manage our resources better, politically and economically, hence therefore AGW must be true. I believe that this fallacy is called 'wishful thinking'. Truth is not going to adapt to what we desire.
Uh, that's not the argument. The argument is that hey, if we work hard to solve this problem over here (global warming), we also automatically solve these other problems. In other words, it's a statement that the economic impact of fighting global warming isn't nearly as dire as many of the AGW denialists would have you believe.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #177
Chalnoth said:
By your own numbers, emissions leveled off in 2005, but didn't really decline until the economy started to contract.
Declining or level, either way, only the developing world is "increasing its use of fossil fuels", and that was true before the recession.
 
  • #179
Chalnoth said:
Given the long-term consumption variation, there is as yet no reason to believe this wasn't just a temporary variation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EIA_petroleum_consumption_of_selected_nations_1960-2005.png
Yes there is. The dips in the past correlate with drops in GDP and/or oil shortages, 2005-7 does not. Also energy intensity has fallen, and energy per person has been flat to declining for some time now.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_2.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #180
mheslep said:
Yes there is. The dips in the past correlate with drops in GDP and/or oil shortages, 2005-7 does not. Also energy intensity has fallen, and energy per person has been flat to declining for some time now.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_2.pdf
One of the problems with current GDP measurements, as opposed to those of two decades previous, is that we are increasingly using a more and more skewed measure of the GDP. The people at this website have gone back and re-estimated the GDP, taking out the subjective measures, like imputations, which the government adds to the estimation of the GDP (and other economic measures):
http://www.shadowstats.com/charts_republish#gdp

According to this, the economy has been increasingly declining since around 2004.

In any case, though, it'd be really nice if you were correct, that we were already starting to contract our oil usage while still growing economically. I'm just not sure it's true. It doesn't actually make much sense given Bush's policies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #181
Chalnoth said:
. I'm just not sure it's true. It doesn't actually make much sense given Bush's policies.
Much of the difference is simple technology advances and markets reacting to the energy prices - hybrid cars, better wind turbines, etc. Shale gas reserves discoveries depressing the price of natural gas allowing it to displace coal.

Regarding government policies and the major policies actually in place, causing change today (as opposed to what Obama say's he might do), I don't see that much difference:
- PTC. We had the energy production tax credit in place during Bush that pushed the US into becoming leading producer of wind generation in the world by '08, and is continuing to increase the lead.
- R&D. Obama has bumped energy research spending, but Bush was already several $B a year.
- Drilling. Bush / Congress talked up some offshore, but we never actually saw any (new).
- Nuclear. Down the road effects only. No current effect from either administration. Bush leaned in favor, Obama leaning against.
 
Last edited:
<h2>1. Is global warming really happening?</h2><p>Yes, global warming is a scientifically proven phenomenon that is occurring due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere. These gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, trap heat from the sun and cause the Earth's temperature to rise.</p><h2>2. Isn't global warming just a natural cycle?</h2><p>No, the current rate of global warming is much faster than any natural cycle in the Earth's history. The increase in greenhouse gases is primarily due to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation.</p><h2>3. What about the "pause" in global warming?</h2><p>While there have been short periods where the rate of global warming has slowed down, the overall trend is still an increase in temperature. Additionally, the term "pause" is misleading as it implies that global warming has stopped, when in reality it has just slowed down temporarily.</p><h2>4. Can't we just adapt to global warming?</h2><p>While adaptation is important, it is not a long-term solution to global warming. The impacts of global warming, such as sea level rise and extreme weather events, will continue to worsen and become more costly to adapt to. It is crucial to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate these impacts.</p><h2>5. Isn't the science behind global warming still uncertain?</h2><p>The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that global warming is happening and is primarily caused by human activities. While there may be some uncertainty in specific predictions and models, the overall consensus is clear and supported by extensive research and data.</p>

1. Is global warming really happening?

Yes, global warming is a scientifically proven phenomenon that is occurring due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere. These gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, trap heat from the sun and cause the Earth's temperature to rise.

2. Isn't global warming just a natural cycle?

No, the current rate of global warming is much faster than any natural cycle in the Earth's history. The increase in greenhouse gases is primarily due to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

3. What about the "pause" in global warming?

While there have been short periods where the rate of global warming has slowed down, the overall trend is still an increase in temperature. Additionally, the term "pause" is misleading as it implies that global warming has stopped, when in reality it has just slowed down temporarily.

4. Can't we just adapt to global warming?

While adaptation is important, it is not a long-term solution to global warming. The impacts of global warming, such as sea level rise and extreme weather events, will continue to worsen and become more costly to adapt to. It is crucial to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate these impacts.

5. Isn't the science behind global warming still uncertain?

The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that global warming is happening and is primarily caused by human activities. While there may be some uncertainty in specific predictions and models, the overall consensus is clear and supported by extensive research and data.

Similar threads

  • Earth Sciences
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • DIY Projects
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
25
Views
7K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
9K
Replies
66
Views
15K
Back
Top