I’m sure many of you have run into a similar situation. You’re having a conversation with a true believer and no matter what you say they insist humans are responsible for global warming. Perfectly reasonable arguments like the Earth is a complex system and at any given point in time it is likely to be heating or cooling and solar and ocean cycles have a far greater influence on global temperatures than atmospheric CO2 concentration, just doesn’t matter to some people.
A couple months ago I had an exchange on a Greenpeace website regarding this issue with a volunteer named Juliette. Though a clearly capable individual, and a representative of the environmental movement pushing for CO2 emission regulations, I was able to stump her with a very simple question: “Can you tell me, in easily understandable language, what scientific data exists that proves manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for global warming?”
Juliette had no idea this was a trick question. I had recently reviewed a number of alarmist websites to see if I could find a single valid argument supporting global warming theories -- I tried to keep an open mind about it besides, it gave me the chance to put my BS and MS degrees in biology to work for the first time in years -- and saw for myself that no such compelling evidence existed. Plenty of theories, sure, but years of scientific training tell you the only thing that matters is data. Gut feelings don’t count and there is no second place prize for trying. Besides, if a CO2 smoking gun was out there, I’m pretty sure we all would know about it by now.
I’ve read books on 11 dimensional string theory that a layperson could understand, but I have yet to find a plausible explanation for how a small molecule like CO2, present in only 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, could possibly warm an entire planet.
Juliette’s answer was a good effort, if simplistic. She pointed out the greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and greenhouse gas properties of CO2 were discovered by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Not bad for a novice, though her examples were a bit dated.
I responded there were other atmospheric molecules present in greater concentrations than CO2, most importantly water vapor, which were far more powerful greenhouse contributors, so what made her so sure that only CO2 mattered when it came to global temperature variation?
This is where her argument broke down. Rather than rely on scientific reasoning, which of course she had none because none existed, she accused me of asking for a “university course” in the climate sciences and “to sum up years of data in a few sentences…would be dishonest.” This is of course the default response for most global warming proponents: If you don’t believe in it, you’re stupid and don’t bother asking me for the details, because I don’t know… but I’m still smarter than you.
I couldn’t help but point out the absurdity of her argument: “What you are saying is, in effect, that you personally have no idea how or why CO2 is responsible for global warming. As I said in my previous post, none of you do. Good luck with defending a theory you do not understand and have no way of articulating.”
Observers of the exchange jumped in to say that Juliette should reconsider her allegiance to an organization pushing an unproven and impossible to explain theory. Even though she put up a good front for Greenpeace and exchanged 20-30 messages with other skeptics like myself, she had no come back for that and soon afterwards the thread was shut down.
Pump out alarmist rhetoric in order to scare people into line and keep the grant money flowing
What people like Juliette cannot comprehend, is they have been brainwashed into supporting a theory they do not understand and furthermore has no scientific basis. The so-called “proof” that CO2 is responsible for global warming comes from computer simulations developed by specialists, many of whom have ulterior motives and often refuse to share their data with others for independent verification, an important and necessary part of the scientific process. All scientists know that if a theory isn’t independently verified, it isn’t proven.
If their computer models were truly reliable, then we wouldn’t be talking about simulations in the plural form, but rather a singular simulation that could accurately predict global warming and cooling patterns that match geological history. To date, no such simulation exists.
What we have here is the equivalent of climate scientists following their “gut feelings”, or more accurately lucrative funding opportunities, when it comes to the study of human caused CO2 warming. They pump out alarmist rhetoric in order to scare people into line and keep the grant money flowing.
To say scientists can accurately predict the effects of CO2 atmospheric concentration on global temperatures is not science, it is guesswork and should be treated by the public with the same respect as arguments proving the existence of UFOs and ghosts.
