Grim Planet

The Five Most Excruciatingly Annoying Arguments Made By Climate Change Sceptics

// November 1st, 2008 // Environment, Humour

Debate is an essential part of a healthy democracy, just as scepticism and questioning are an essential part of scientific discourse.

That said, when it comes to climate change, there are some questions that have been asked and credibly answered, only to be asked again, and again authoritively answered. These questions then somehow became statements of fact in climate discussions, always diverting discussion into some asinine backwater cul-de-sac long passed.

Not everyone is a scholar or climate scientist, but for some reason Joe Bloggs the internet commentator who read something in the National Enquirer or next to the Page 2 Girl in the Sun seven years ago feels he is one, spraying every climate article with a vociferous drive-by comment decrying the “myth” and “religion” of GLOBAL WARMING! and talking trash in general on all those “hippy sheeple” that get “suckered in to believing that con”.

So with that epic sentence behind us now, I give you the top five most ridiculous arguments presented by sceptics…

5) “The same scientists were predicting an ice age in the 70′s!”

Actually, the “imminent ice age” cries in the 70′s were hardly frantic and came from a few articles, a book and some scientific speculation on glacial cycles and a slight cooling trend.

There is simply no comparison to the kind of overwhelming literature, studies, and sober calls for action we are getting from respectable sources these days. Please, for the love of whatever god you may or may not believe in, just leave it alone.

4) “Y2K was supposed to see planes falling out of the sky and nukes being launched by accident and that didn’t happen! The henny-penny’s are wrong this time too!”

Climate and Y2k do have one thing in common, and that’s the amount of media talk surrounding them. However, unlike the climate, governments and companies of the world ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING to prepare for Y2k, thus preventing any kind of cataclysmic event, probable or not.

Precautionary principle. Much cheaper than dealing with fallout. Just like energy efficiency and investment in mass transit is much easier and less costly in the long term than throwing up nuclear power stations and supporting happy SUV motoring.

3) “There have been temperature swings all the time in the earth’s history!”

Mini ice age, medieval warm period, hot/cold/hot/cold/hot/cold: Yes, there have been many fluctuations in the earth’s climate over (vast amounts of) time, however, the change we are now seeing is significantly out of the ordinary. A drastic change in 50 years cannot be compared to swings over thousands and millions of years. Some links for shorthand:

‘Some sites show cooling’
‘The satellites show cooling’
’Climate change is nothing to do with humans’

2) “It’s all a green conspiracy! They just want to implement a breathing tax, further their eugenics agenda and make us all go back to living in caves”

I used to not know where to start with such ludicrous statements, but now I do: nowhere. There’s no point getting into any debate with the nutters that spout this complete bollocks as nothing one says can ever sway them.

A green conspiracy? Please. If you’ve ever spent time with a green organisation you’ll realise that working with other like-minded organisations is like trying to herd cats.

What’s more likely, a worldwide green conspiracy to force governments to adopt environmentally friendly initiatives, thereby boosting donations to green charities and increase interest in renewable energy companies, or that big businesses around the world are protecting profits by doing everything in their power to prolong “business as usual”?

People have a tendency to see patterns in chaos and read conspiracy theories into events when they feel out of control. I put this type of argument in that bin.

And the number one most asinine argument….

1) “Volcanoes emit more C02 than man ever could!”

Every time there is a debate at the bottom of a climate article, some jackass rolls out this gem. It’s serious facepalm material and has got to be one of the most disingenuous arguments limply flopped out onto the debate table. No matter how many times someone who knows what they are talking about takes off a shoe and flattens it there will always be some douchebag ready to roll it out again.

Not only is this false, it couldn’t possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes — one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.

The fact of the matter is, the sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions,” from gristmill.grist.org/skeptics.

Further reading:

http://www.realclimate.org

http://www.ipcc.ch

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

http://www.aussmc.org/Global_Warming_Swindle.php

Related posts:

1. Australia, Japan and the real arguments behind whaling With the Tokyo Two trial being at its core about...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.