Probably the biggest counterargument to AGW is that almost identical warming took place from 1910-40 as took place from 1970-1999. The CO2 emissions in the 1910-40 era were insufficient to cause the warming. The IPCC originally claimed that solar output changes caused it. But, there does not seem to be any proof of that. What this seems to show is that warming can and does take place without any human contribution. Meanwhile, if you do the maths for the effect of CO2, you find that the most warming that could have been caused by a 270ppm-400ppm change is about 1.7C. In practice we have seen somewhat less than that. The relationship is logarithmic, so a further increase of the same amount (130ppm) will cause even less warming than we have seen so far. This is the antithesis of runaway climate change. Then again, the whole attitude and approach of the climate scientists doesn't exactly instil any confidence in them. The original pretext was based on Vostok ice cores showing CO2 and temperature to be related. When it was shown that temperature was the cause and CO2 the effect, instead of admitting they were wrong, they invented some implausible 'explanation' of how CO2 caused temperature changes, which then caused CO2 releases. Climategate exposed the kind of data-massage they were engaged in. Then, when BEST first published their results they deliberately left off the period of little or no warming in this century. When people resort to that kind of deliberate hiding of inconvenient or contradictory facts, I'm inclined to view them as quacks rather than honest researchers looking for the truth of the matter.
Good one It would be more cool when I survived without disease after drowning in a heavily poluted river. By the way, I believe that Global Warming is dedinitely man made.
Flashback to 2007: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/may/05/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment Fail. Also "Climate Change" freaks said that we wouldn't have snow by this year. Another fail.
We have no "measurable impact" on the environment at all!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch
Here's a worthy link that should explain fully and openly, with complete documentation from a true and honest man that is worth the time in taking to just see his points of view and charts and on and on .... to keep up with this Global Warming (as an issue). It's straight to Lord Monkton's website and a Start Page search (or google if you do) to find mega-info. about this guy (Lord Monkton's) work and videos and articles, etc...and one time when he had to parachute from plane in order to gain access to a conference (a mighty one at that) with full scale intent on attending and did, etc....Anyway, can judge for yourself if taking a look and that's just one guy's complete analysis and goes on and on. If G Warming's not real or not popular, it was changed to "climate change." Same plan, agenda and same global warming tactic. But anyway, here's link, if interested: http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/warm-cv_V2.pdf
Some people thinks the earth is so vastly big that it is almost infinite with endless capacity and supplies. But ask any astronaut who has seen the earth from the space, he/she will tell you how precious and finite it is. After flying around the globe a few times, I can appreciate the limit of our planet. We are so efficient at extracting and wasting our natural resources, I have say we will eventually destroy our home. I wish I'm wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure. So I choose to err on the cautious side. That's why I drive an efficient car, recycle as much as I can, save resources, and vote for green initiatives. The choice was simple.
just a side note on some of these links. Why with the brains they have do the pages look like Barney and the Teletubbies put the pages together? anyway, I think its both man and natural. Man is just turning the tide with its industrial puff puff pass, nature has always puff puff passed on its own.
I think the page design is amateurish because the people designing the pages are amateurs at webdesign.
Problem is if you agree with Global Warming being anthropogenic then you're a Democrat, if you disagree you're Republican if you sit on the fence you're Klingon.
They call it climate change now since they have a hard time proving it's heating up. But the failtrain still keep's going on and on and on. What if change is the only constant ? We know of the 11 year sun cycle, what if it has a 50 or a 500 year cycle ? Infact, it is not a rumor that there is a radical environmental movement (funded by NGOs etc) that tries to set ridicolous rules under the guise of environmentalism to selectively shut down infrastructure. In US this is being done by the administration directly, the clean high-tech Thermoelectric power plants are being shut down all over US while China can keep building new dirty ones all the time. Further, other sources and sometimes even NASA, pointed towards that the relation of CO2 and Temperature is vice versa, when temperature changes, that makes the CO2 to change. And wait, i'm not saying this is a direct effect, why do people forget to include the ecosystem and CO2 change would be as a passive consequence of a long chain of events that just happens to be triggered by temperature. Study the talking points, the drama, the message, the tricks, it's a marketing campaing for a global carbon tax. If environmentalists are so worried about it then they should be focusing on nuclear radiation and GMOs, far bigger threats than CO2 could ever be.