The key arguments to denying man made climate change and good responses

Over the weekend in response to Better Century promotions we’ve put out there have been a series of climate deniers writing back mainly by facebook. I personally want to ensure everyone has the information to hand so they can make their own mind up about climate change. It would be great if others could add what arguments they encounter, so we can make this a go to source of information on this matter. We also welcome climate deniers to contribute to this discussion!

The Basis of Climate Science

The climate has changed mainly due to Milankovitch cycles, determined by the tilt of the earth and the way we move around the sun. Geologists challenge Milanokitch’s mathematical equation for the temperature of the earth as after warming periods going back 100s of millions of years ago the temperature didn’t come back down for thousands of years. They finally agreed that this caused this was the green house effect. And also agreed that a higher concentration carbon dioxide in our atmosphere results in more solar energy being absorbed, resulting in higher temperatures and more erratic weather.

Natural climate fluctuations do occur from our movement around the sun but the maximimums and minimums of these fluctuations occur over 100,000 years. Sun Spots and Volcanic Activity result in changes to global temperatures. Sun spots cause the sun to release a flare from interactions with our magnetic field and cause temporary heating. Volcanic activity as result in the release of aerosols increasing temperature or volcanic dust blocking the suns light and decreasing temperature.

Literature reviews show that 97% percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which pulls climate scientists across the world, have produced reports to that affect dating back to 1990. Global temperatures rose 0.87 degrees from 2006 - 2015 and will increase to 1.5 degrees at some point between 2025 and 2040, where it is likely that humans may not be able to stop further global warming.

Medieval Warming Period Climate Denial Argument

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region lasting from c. 950 to c. 1250. This warming period is an anomaly in climate science and often pointed to as a flaw in current climate thinking.

Many studies show that the amount of warming occurring during the MWP varied by season and region. Some provide evidence of relatively warm temperatures (most pronounced during the summer months) in several regions, including the North Atlantic, northern Europe, China, and parts of North America, as well as the Andes, Tasmania, and New Zealand. Other studies maintain that the temperature conditions of certain regions, such as the Mediterranean, South America, and other locations in the Southern Hemisphere, were essentially no different from those of the present day.

Many scientists arguing for the existence of the MWP have noted that the interval was characterized by an increase in incoming solar radiation paired with a relative absence of volcanic activity. (Aerosols expelled from volcanic eruptions have been shown to block a portion of incoming sunlight.) The combination of both phenomena would contribute to an increase in air temperatures. Some scientists have also attributed warmer air temperatures in the North Atlantic region to the delivery of warmer seawater (heated by solar radiation unimpeded by volcanic aerosols) by the Gulf Stream and other currents.

The counter argument

The medieval warming period was not caused by Milankovitch cycles or concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. What we are seeing today isn’t being caused by the same factors, and the impacts are much longer lasting. We know that if the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere remains at this level we will continue to warm, and unless we stop producing CO2 then the affect will become worse.

1 Like

Here’s some more beautiful responses we’ve got to our promotion of the transport challenge.

What do folk think of these and what would you say in response? We’re finding that the line ‘keep telling yourself that, it probably will make the reality more confortable’ is a good line.

If climate change was in any way,shape or form real then explain to me why one of the biggest scammers pushing the Myth of global warming and rising sea levels one Barack Obama why would he spend $15 MILLION on a beach front condo FFS ? After all ! According to him and the other scammers we only have 11 years left before most of the world is underwater or burnt to a crisp

there is no long term trend in UK rainfall despite the globe warming.

yeah lets stop America, India, China the list goes on it will never happen but good luck … us little people can do are bit but building electric cars isn’t helping the issue its causing a bigger one its like sweeping the mess under the carpet!..

did you know the weather has been engineered longer than i was aware of it, much longer , go to the people whom control the SBX1 SYSTEMS AND HAARP SYSTEMS ,nexrad dopplers and many other amongst these and stop feeding this world climate change ,al gore has become a wizard at it raking in billions do you too want to become billionaires,???

If there’s zero Co2 we’ll all become extinct, as it only makes-up 0.04% of our atmosphere and essential for all life to survive. We only contribute 3% of total World production, so how’s that going to stop anything.

An average Cruise Liner burns as much as 80,000 gallons of diesel a day, every day. That would be enough to power an average diesel engined car some 4 million miles. The diesel they burn is not refined automotive but stinking low grade fuel chucking particles and soot and all sorts of rubbish into the atmosphere of the World. No one seems to wantto curb them.

40,000 years ago the Polar Ice Cap extended as far South as Germany. Evidence has been found showing it had receded to Yorkshire 15,000 years ago and is still receding. Was that the motor car? Maybe they should look at the real reasons that cannot be altered without changing the way the planet rotates on it’s axis or the ‘wobble’ of it’s axis.

limate change is a result of pollution, so you would think if we tackle pollution, we will tackle climate change? Wrong! We need to tackle the reasons for pollution, not pollution it’s self. Humanity has always polluted it’s environment but never in the scale we have today.

Carbon dioxide - a harmless, invisible, odourless gas - has nothing to do with ‘climate change’ ! And nothing to do with ‘transport emissions’, either ! Instead it is a vital gas, in tiny trace amounts, that is vital to the invigoration of plant life.

1 Like

This is just depressing. I’m not sure it’s even worth arguing with people like this!!


Watch out it looks like the Milankovitch theory is being used to peddle fake information about climate change. Check out this article. Of course no actual link to NASAs press release on this and NASA has published plenty of information supporting the climate change theory (even in links to this topic).

1 Like

Some counter evidence:

1 Like

A few more:

Climate denial argument

Having admitted, at length it seems, that the Milankovitch cycles and solar activity control the Earth’s climate and weather, the argument is then ruined by saying that Man’s CO2 emissions tend to override all this !. There is no discussion of the physics of CO2 to prove this, which must involve some understanding of the radiation bands of CO2, and the convective processes that underlie meteorology. Further, most of the ‘scientists’ on the IPCC panel were not climatologists or meteorologists: most of them had Ph.Ds in other subjects…

Our response

It really is quite simple. Man has disrupted natural carbon cycles by taking millions of year old carbon (oil, gas, coal) and burning it, therefore increasing the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere. As CO2 in our atmosphere absorbs UV more energy is stored and results in heating of our atmosphere and more severe weather events.

This has happened before after peaks in temperature (every 100,000 years), when locked in carbon is released (mostly methane). But we have not just experienced a peak in temperature, this is MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE, not influenced by milankovitch cycles or the such like.

We’re dangerously close to tipping the balance of the climate through our burning of fossil fuels.

1 Like

Had this from an XR colleague;

I spend a lot of time on denier-related forums – which actually have little to do with climate and are mor dominated by Brexit/liberarian/culture wars issues – basically because I like to study them so I can pre-empt their arguments in my work.

What the page above represents is a good factual summary of the science. That’s not going to work.

Most denier-related sites are nihilist in nature, denying not just climate change, but the validity of any critical analysis that doesn’t conform to their largely right-wing/white/male viewpoint.

Nihilists don’t respond to scientific arguments. Instead you have to pick apart the cultural and historical basis of their own viewpoint, showing the obvious inconsistencies.

Right now the XR-basher-in-chief in Britain is Ian R. Crane – a right-wing conspiracy theorists with strong links to the similar lobbyist-funded groups in the USA/Australia. He’s also proudly ex-oil-industry.

You can’t just present the science and expect them to believe you.

Instead, listen to them, listen to their views and perspectives, then play with factual basis of their viewpoint, not yours. When you can get them to admit their own inconsistencies, then you’re in a position to suggest alternatives they might like to consider.


Linking these:

1 Like