- Proponents consider manmade warming an existential threat but do not oppose secular warming. This is illogical and calls their motives into question.
- There is no scientific consensus that warming is anthropologically caused.
- The IPCC has stated that moderate warming is a net benefit to humanity.
- Unadjusted satellite data show temperatures nearly unchanged for 20 years.
- Weather-related insurance claims show no increase in extreme weather.
- Icecaps are increasing in some places (Greenland) and decreasing in others.
Following are other compelling scientific and logical arguments in the case against manmade warming. They are not listed in any particular order.
Warming throughout the solar system: NASA has documented warming on 11 planets and moons in our solar system but not a single instance of cooling. The odds are over 1,000 to 1 against this occurring randomly if temperatures on Earth were rising mainly due to human activity. See our post of 12/8/13 (on website) for NASA sources.
Argument from authority: Citing a (false) scientific consensus, IPCC and media reports is the weakest form of argument. Authorities must prove claims like anyone else.
Warming and human welfare: During the past 200 years, a warming climate has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare of all time.
Occam’s Razor: The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one; solar warming is a much simpler and less convoluted explanation than an anthropological one.
Failure of predictions: Warming predictions have been spectacularly wrong. Gore predicted Manhattan would be under water by 2010. The IPCC predicted entire nations would be wiped away and there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
Science is never settled: To avoid debate, warming proponents argue the science is settled. So was gravity and heliocentrism until Einstein and Galileo.
Junk science: Our 11/25/18 post (see website) listed 50 recent instances of junk science promulgated by alleged experts and hyped by the media – all debunked. This creates a presumption of doubt for manmade warming. Remember acid rain and global cooling?
Politicization of science: Government funding, along with political correctness, biases climate change research. Government funds $3,000 for every $1 from others.
Carbon dioxide sensitivity: New research shows the effect of CO2 on temperature is much less than earlier believed. Circa 2000, a doubling of CO2 was believed to raise temperature 3-6 degrees. By 2010 this was reduced to 3 degrees; now it is 1 degree. Models continue to use 3-5 degrees – explaining, in part, why they are so wrong. Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 spewed more greenhouse gasses than the entire human race ever has.
Failure of computer models: They have failed spectacularly. The logical explanation (Occam) is warming is not significantly anthropogenic and hence cannot be modeled.
Other scientific explanations: Climate is affected by changes in solar irradiance, sun spots, eccentricity of Earth’s orbit, obliquity (axial tilt) and position at perihelion.
Refusal to debate: If the science truly was settled, scientists and politicians would be eager to debate and to trounce their opponents. The simplest explanation (Occam) is they refuse to debate because they know they would lose – and likely be embarrassed.
Singapore: The average mean daily temperature in Singapore is 55 degrees warmer than the global average; yet, it is modern, clean, rich, high-tech, diverse and peaceful.
Fraud: Proponents of manmade warming repeatedly have engaged in fraud on a massive scale. Examples include the infamous hockey stick graph, UK deleted emails, adjustments to past temperatures and flagrant chicanery and flimflam by Al Gore.
