I need some help arguing with a freeper! GLOBAL WARMING

We're talking about Global Warming and he says it's a myth. I say we should at leat be doing something to stop it. Here's his argument. What can I say to him? I'm not up on the latest information.

Global Warming is indeed a myth as it has occurred multiple times in the ancient past on our planet. Today it may not be a myth the planet is warming as there is no evidence this planet has ever stopped warming between associated cycles of cooling. There were global warmings before mankind along with the following coolings (likely taught to you in elementary school called "Ice Ages") and cycling between warming and cooling for this planet anyway is part of the overall cosmology of this particular universe called nature. Nature existed before the planet developed, mammals arrived, mankind arose, and will likely exist well after this planet keeps cycling between coolings & warmings all the way to our star expanding consuming it and then becoming a black hole containing it's remnants. The actual myth from my perspective is mankind itself is the cause of global warming and the larger myth is that mankind can assuage it with his behavior much as tossing a virgin in a volcano will assuage that force of nature. IMO many of the very people who do not profess theism of any sort fall all over themselves to make mankind the center of the universe and destroyer of planets (i.e. a God) through poppycock such as "global warming." That conclusion is laughable on it's face for logic when warmings and coolings happened on this planet without mankinds involvement previously and where very little of the overall timeline of this planet's evidence supports it as a conclusion.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

......

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

That's perfect.

Second none of his "Facts" line up. Demand to see published in any peer reviewed publication any think supporting this thesis. There is nothing.

..and if he still wants to believe it's not true then he can live with the guilt of ruining the planet for his children and grandchildren.

There have been patterns of warming and cooling throughout history but the facts support the effect carbon dioxide is having on this normal phenomena.

But you may have to let him go because some of them put politics over common sense and you will never reach him


www.climatecrisis.org

He's right in that there have been cycles of warming and cooling. It is just that as far as researchers can tell there has never been such a rapid warmup in history.
And much like the tobacco industry's arguments on cigarettes & cancer, there is no one single final cigarette (or car emmission) that causes the irreversible cancer or irreversible global warming.
I'll leave it to the experts now.

this cycle of global warming is "man" induced. Nevertheless, if it continues, we are in deep do do. If he takes the stand that animals evolve to compensate for these fluctuations, then stop talking to him immediately. He's such a dope that it's a waste of good oxygen arguing. 99.9% of all living things cannot survive rapid changes. And that's what is happening. Also, ask him if man has contributed to any decline in the environment? This will tell you quickly if he is a born-again fruitcake.

No offense, but you should never give these people ground to stand on. If you "suppose it's a myth" then the argument's already lost.

It's not debatable. The earth is at its hottest point in 400 years, and the scientists said today "there are human influences". It is true that the earth goes on warming and cooling periods, but you can't argue with the scientists. If your freeper buddy or whatever doesn't believe science, then tell him scientists are wrong and the earth is really still flat...

Ask him if he believes in creationism too, he probably does.

Anyway, tell him that if it's the natural cycle, it should be cooling off, not getting warmer.

And tell him it's the same scientists who discovered the natural cycle that now say it's global warming.

if you two are bright enough to figure out how to use it.

In my experience, people who haven't already grasped the horrors of global climate change have the IQs of rutabagas.

Google Larsen-B ice shelf. Google Kilamanjaro. Google coral-reef-bleaching. Google Greenland ice sheet. Google drought-in-Spain. Google melting tundra and methane release. Google Seychelles Islands. Google starving-seabirds. That's enough to get you started.

But, I know coming here I'd find intelligent people who could give me quick answers and good resources.

I'm putting all your thoughts into a single paragraph, hitting the high points and giving him links.

Of course I know it won't change his mind, but at least he'll see our sources and the REAL truth.

side of caution (take a conservative view) or throw caution to the wind by ignoring the findings of those who have made it their lives work understanding the natural world.


Ask him if he'd trust the word of a cardiologist or a tobacco company spokesman on the subject of the link between smoking and heart disease. If he says the cardiologist, then apply the same logic to global warming replacing cardiologist with climatologist and tobacco company spokesman with oil company spokesman. He may not allow you to go very far. He will figure out quickly what you are doing.

One reason the poles are melting is from soot. The soot acts like a solar collector on the ice fields.

The only right scientists are those that believe in the right-wing agenda??

Scientists: Earth Seeing Hottest Temperatures In 2,000 Years

http://www.wral.com/weather/9412205/detail.html

Science is too real for them.

Here's the studies.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html


Temperature over the last thousand years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jones2004/jones2004.html



The final word.

" There is considerable debate centered on the cause of 20th century climate change. Few people contest the idea that some of the recent climate changes are likely due to natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar luminosity, and variations generated by natural interactions between parts of the climate system (for example, oceans and the atmosphere). There were significant climate changes before humans were around and there will be non-human causes of climate change in the future.

Just the same, with each year, more and more climate scientists are coming to the conclusion that human activity is also causing the climate of the Earth to change. First on the list of likely human influences is greenhouse warming due to human-caused increases in atmospheric trace-gases. Other human activities are thought to drive climate as well. As this web document points out, there is no doubt that humans are causing the level of atmospheric trace-gases to increase dramatically - the measurements match the predictions. There is also no doubt that these gases will contribute to global warming (since they warmed the Earth before humans). However, there is uncertainty about some issues. For example, these questions remain to be answered with complete confidence:

* How much warming has occurred due to anthropogenic increases in atmospheric trace-gas levels?
* How much warming will occur in the future?
* How fast will this warming take place?
* What other kinds of climatic change will be associated with future warming?

Paleoclimatology offers to help answer each of these questions. Several of the paleoclimate studies reported on in this web document (Briffa et al., Mann et al., Overpeck et al.) have begun efforts to attribute past climate change to both natural and human causes, and to use this information to estimate how much of the current warming is due to humans (i.e., greenhouse warming). The best estimate is that about 50% of the observed global warming is now due to greenhouse gas increases. Although this number will continue to be refined, it indicates that the climate modeling community is on target with their estimates that the earth may warm an additional 2 to 7 degrees F in the next century.

What future global warming means to society is beyond the scope of these www pages. However, the paper by Overpeck et al. also includes an analysis of what the unprecedented 20th century warming has meant so far to the Arctic environment. Because the warming already seems to be causing unprecedented changes in glaciers, permafrost, lakes, ecosystems and the oceans, it is likely that future changes will be even more dramatic as the warming continues."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html


Go have a thorough reading and say to your friend, yes the earth has had warming and cooling cycles,,,, this isn't one of them... This is us.
After that, after giving your friend the address to read the studies if they still believe the talking points without being able to support their claims with a peer reviewed study it is time to remove them from your friends list. Would you really want to be friends with someone that thinks it is ok to believe the lie in the face of so much truth? There must be something inherently and morally wrong with such a person.