Global Warming Debate: Refuting Common Arguments

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on skepticism regarding man-made global warming and addresses common arguments made by proponents of climate change. Key points include the assertion that there is a global consensus on catastrophic outcomes from global warming, the misconception that melting ice caps will lead to immediate flooding, and the claim that skeptics are funded by ExxonMobil. Participants emphasize the importance of understanding the nuances of climate science, including the gradual nature of temperature increases and the historical context of climate changes. The discussion highlights the need for critical evaluation of climate models and the scientific consensus surrounding anthropogenic climate change.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of climate change terminology, including "anthropogenic global warming" and "climate sensitivity."
  • Familiarity with climate science reports, particularly the IPCC Assessment Reports.
  • Knowledge of the historical context of climate fluctuations over the last 10,000 years.
  • Awareness of logical fallacies such as "ad hominem" and "straw man" arguments.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the latest findings in the IPCC Assessment Reports on climate change impacts.
  • Examine the historical climate data to understand natural climate variability.
  • Study the concept of climate sensitivity and its implications for future warming scenarios.
  • Explore logical fallacies in climate debates to strengthen argumentation skills.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for climate skeptics, students of environmental science, and anyone engaged in debates about climate change and its implications for society and ecosystems.

  • #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:

Similar threads

Is the 'Rising Sea Levels' Argument for Global Warming Valid?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
What is your opinion on climate change? Man-made or not?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
The question about volcanic ashes
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
8K
Is the Theory of Global Warming Falsifiable?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
Global Warming: Unraveling the Confusion
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Chemical/Paint Best transparent material that allows infrared to pass through?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
Global Warming Changes in Heat Content
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
What caused the sea to inundate Beijing within the past 80,000 years?
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
17K
Is anthropogenic global warming a scientific theory?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
Help with Understanding Global Warming Graph
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K