8 Arguments Against Global Warming

8 Arguments Against Global WarmingAdapted from The Heartland Institute Information gathered by the American Policy Roundtable/tps30info/globalwarmup.htmlThe following arguments give you an idea of what many people who disagree about the extentof global warming often claim. They feel that claiming global warming as obvious but that what is "obvious" often isn't true. These are only presented as someone who disagrees with global warming would most likely say:1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth‟s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth‟s climate.”2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and make mistakes.3. Global climate computer models are not good at predicting future climate changes.All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, NOT historical data. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been …cheating‟ for so long it‟s almost become r espectable.”4. The IPCC (government panel on climate change) did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But the 2001 IPCC report also states that, “As well as uncertainty in initial conditions (of global warming), such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent ac curately the significant climate processes.”5. A small amount of global warming, should it occur, would be good to the natural world and to human civilization.This is one of the greatest arguments against global warming. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle cold Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,”6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing.Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990‟s levels by the year 2012 would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion. Following the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets.After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.”The alternative to demand s for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing greenhouse gases. The Washington Post criticized global warming research, saying “The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming."。