What genuine arguments can be used to oppose the theory of global warming?

Well, the genuine arguments are easy to list.

Ok, there really aren't any genuine arguments that can be used to oppose the theory of global warming. The planet is far too obviously warming even for the die hards to claim it isn't with a straight face any more...

The arguments against anthropogenic warming are in about the same state. There just isn't any way to get around the fact that humans have increased CO2 concentrations by 40% without taking some pretty serious liberties with math or claiming extreme ignorance. Obviously if we put far more CO2 into the atmosphere than CO2 concentrations are increasing, then we must be the primary cause of the increase.

Now, that brings us to the real question. There are several arguments that can be made that AGW isn't a serious threat or that it may be beneficial. Not that these are particularly strong arguments, but they are still relatively valid.

Of course you know I love it when they are all three used. lol

Monday:

denierX - There is no warming. The surface station data is manipulated/missing/made up.

denierY - The warming is natural. All the planets are warming up. It's the sun.

denierZ - The lefties are all meanies who want me to give money to the government and the poor, jobless, pot-head, hippy, living-in-their-mom's-basement, commie, lazy stupid-heads.

Wednesday:

denierX - Volcanoes spew far more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans ever have. That's why the warming is natural.

denierY - The liberals want you to think that any day now, the planet will explode into billions of little bits unless you let them tell you what kind of car to drive and you go live in a cave somewhere. Really though, with more CO2, we won't know what to do with all the extra food we'll have and Santa will start coming down the chimney *TWICE* every single year!

denierZ - One time when I was driving an armored transport for the army, I realized that I was the smartest person on the planet (except of course for my brother). So I watched In Search Of one time and Mr. Spock said another ice age is coming... It must be true.

Saturday:

denierX - I had to shovel five *HUNDRED* millimeters of global warming off my driveway today. I can't wait till that global warming really starts kicking in. Now that my driveway is clear, I can drive my F350 down my 50 ft driveway to get my mail.

denierY - I took my temperature last night and it was 96.7. Obviously there can't be any global warming if my temperature is too low.

denierZ - I read every book on a library shelf once and saw bigfoot. He was trying to search for porn on one of the library computers. doesn't he know that they block most porn sites? Anyway, humans can't influence the climate so the warming must be natural.

_

climate exchange ~ load of rubbish. basically ought to examine the Bible to appreciate that the Earth has been heating & cooling for hundreds of years. The Earth won't decide on the flow away by using fact all the ice in Antarctica is meant to soften by using fact the earth is getting warmer ~ God gave his sign of the rainbow after Noah's Ark so we'd all bear in suggestions His promise that He might on no account flood the earth returned. that's an excellent advertising ploy ~ quite making somebody/agencies somewhat some money. Scientists will attempt to sell us something. xxx God Bless

I believe skepticism is a valid argument, after all it is what scientific theories are bound upon.

There is no argument you can make that "opposes" the theory AT THE MOMENT!

The only genuine argument that can be made is that it is being caused by some UNKOWN variable. This doesn't disprove the theory, it merely argues that further information is required about certain variables to "discount" them from being potential causes. NASA lists the uncertainities the best I have found.

It is the best argument I can find that is skeptical of the theory that at the moment science can not dismiss.

All these points and evidence have been posted a hundred times Trevor. How is posting it in this particular thread going to be more convincing than it has been in the past?

My previous answer to you is probably directly applicable to this question as well so I'll cut and paste the pertinent parts:

Quantum mechanics is not the only issue in understanding a system as complex as the climate of the Earth. There's especially the physics of thermodynamics. While we understand the three basic laws of thermodynamics, it is not a simple task to apply them to a chaotic, non-linear system. This is where the role of feedbacks comes into play along with several variables that not fully quantified like clouds.

Simply stating that an increase in a greenhouse gas concentration would cause a rise in temperature is ignoring many other factors in the climate system. A good example is a falling leaf. In a perfect vacuum it would land directly below where it fell and in a calculated time. In nature, it would rarely do so as predicted.

That is the problem with trying to apply QM and thermodynamics directly to a natural system with multiple variables, many not well understood and probably several not even known.

Edit@david b: "For AGW theory to be incorrect several scientific laws must be violated, which is "impossible.""

For my falling leaf analogy, if the leaf does not fall from a 20 foot tree and land directly below its drop point in precisely 3.2234 seconds, did it violate the laws of gravity?

I don't think there are any really good arguments to oppose the theory of global warming, but I think it is reasonable to say that we don't have any sort of precise number for how much warming will come about due to a certain level of increase of CO2. The ranges quoted from various models are really quite large and more precise answers will have to wait until we have a longer track record at forecasting climate as well as more detailed models. Models rely on various parameterizations and will for some time to come. There are no cloud resolving global climate models and we need separate parameterizations for different types of clouds (stratus, cumulus, cirrus). The global models are just beginning to include atmosphere-ocean coupling. There are still great data voids of the world's oceans (although those are to some extent being filled in by satellites) and to a lesser extent there are also data voids over land masses, particularly for those variables that are not routinely measured, like soil moisture. Perhaps most importantly, climate models need to be run faster, so that the ensemble techniques that are currently being employed for routine forecasting can also be used for climate forecasts.

All that being said, I believe that climate models are getting better every day, researchers are working very hard on them. I think when they give us estimates of temperature increases expected from global warming, and changes to precipitation patterns, we need to pay attention to them. Reality will undoubtedly differ in some important respects from what the models tell us, but future climate will almost certainly be closer to what the models are telling than to our current climate, and denying that we are bringing about changes in the Earth's climate is not just short-sighted, but potentially disastrous.

Trevor, you of all people should know that the only sound argument opposing the current AGW theory is to propose another alternative that both explains existing evidence and makes accurate predictions better than AGW does. (Such as, but not limited to, cooling predictions made relative to Pinatubo in 1991.)

The only sound response would be an alternative. And anything worthwhile wouldn't fit here.

Of course, there isn't an alternative... yet. No one has conceived a comprehensive and predictive alternative. If they had, it would be framed in lights and there would be a Nobel issued soon enough.

Hi Trevor

1 1.5 kW – tech: legal limit of power output of an amateur radio station in the United States

2 50 kW to 100 kW – tech: highest allowed ERP for an FM band radio station in the United States

3 10 MW – tech: highest ERP allowed for an UHF television station

I did some maths and found this as reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

One thing I didn't do was add all the repeater stations and satellite links I just used the main stations which came to 27,190 x 10MW= 271GW of accumulative ERP (Effective radiated power)

4 Radars are also on my list to search ERP levels (weather,shipping and aircraft radars) and lets not forget space research

5 The mobile phone network is also a problem and needs to be calculated

6 The military will be the hardest to calculate no power restrictions when it comes to war, the one with the most power wins .

I recon by adding all the above ERP there will be over 2 terawatts emitted per hour 24/7 night and day and it's all this energy that is disrupting the natural cycles of the atmosphere and oceans. There needs to be a push to make the electronic industry put some infrastructure in th ground and stop pumping GW of energy into the oceans and atmosphere I wounder why Australia is spending billions on putting fiber optics in the ground when the wireless networks are already set up?

I agree with Dook.

Statistically, the theory cannot be "proven" much as smoking can't be proven to cause cancer. More work can certainly be done to refine the theory and improve forecastability by marginalizing uncertainty.

Regardless, the physical framework upon which the theory is built can be and are the basis or myriad scientific laws. For AGW theory to be incorrect several scientific laws must be violated, which is "impossible."

"More research is needed" because we aren't completely sure yet.

This barely (stretching hugely) "valid" or "genuine" argument has little appeal for deniers here because (a) the con artist sites they use don't like it and (b) the con men on those sites don't like it because it strongly suggests that there really is more to climate science than just the mighty socialist conspiracy of Al Gore and his amazing technicolor time machine.