-
1934 is the Hottest Year on Record
-
Incorrect. The claim is based on the temperatures in the United States, not the global mean temperature.
Located in
Projects & Resources
/
…
/
Global Warming
/
Myths vs. Facts: Global Warming
-
31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence".
-
31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. What is the significance of these statistics?
Located in
Projects & Resources
/
…
/
Global Warming
/
Myths vs. Facts: Global Warming
-
40's to 70's cooling, CO2 rising?
-
This is a fascinating denialist argument. If CO2 is rising, as it was in the 40's through the 70's, why would there be cooling?
Located in
Projects & Resources
/
…
/
Global Warming
/
Myths vs. Facts: Global Warming
-
Lord Christopher Monckton
-
Rebuttal to Lord Monckton: Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. His bio includes receiving a diploma in journalism from the University College, Cardiff. He performed as a policy adviser for Margaret Thatcher. He has spent a great deal of energy lately attempting to establish himself as offering 'scientific' perspectives on human caused global warming. Rebuttal to Lord Monckton's arguments: his perspectives largely contain facts out of context, non sequitur and red herring arguments, as well as straw man constructions that are anything but scientifically sound when examined in context of the relevant science.
Located in
Projects & Resources
/
…
/
Global Warming
/
Myths vs. Facts: Global Warming
-
CO2 Lag
-
Does CO2 Lag behind warming and climate change in the natural cycle? Yes. Is it lagging today? No. CO2 normally lags in the natural cycle unless some abnormal perturbation occurs. If we were in the natural cycle, CO2 levels would be around 280ppm. We are now over 387ppm and therefore CO2 is now leading in our current warming scenario, above natural cycle.
Located in
Projects & Resources
/
…
/
Global Warming
/
Myths vs. Facts: Global Warming
-
CO2 is Plant Food
-
Another interesting myth because it sounds logical that if CO2 is good for plants, more CO2 must be better. Some scientists have already begun to look at this assumption. Initial examinations indicate that more might not be better when it comes to food and nutritive quality. The US department of agriculture and interested scientists will likely be looking more deeply at this question.
Located in
Projects & Resources
/
…
/
Global Warming
/
Myths vs. Facts: Global Warming
-
CO2 is Not a Pollutant
-
That depends on whether it is generated from the natural system or from industrial waste. The dictionary is a good source for understanding words... Let's take a look at what Webster has to say.
Located in
Projects & Resources
/
…
/
Global Warming
/
Myths vs. Facts: Global Warming
-
ClimateGate
-
The goal here is to provide a reasoned context and rebuttal regarding distorted views of the 'ClimateGate' emails. This is simply done by providing relevant context to statements of interest. The crime: A hacker illegally broke into a computer server at the University of East Anglia involving the Climate Research Unit (CRU). As always, context is key. Once the real context is understood, the emails make sense and the idea of conspiracy, scientific malfeasance, or fraud, is revealed to be unfounded.
Located in
Projects & Resources
/
…
/
Global Warming
/
Myths vs. Facts: Global Warming
-
The Copenhagen Distraction
-
Rebuttal to Bjorn Lomborg on Global Warming: Bjørn Lomborg intentionally or unintentionally obfuscated the political will to mitigate climate change and certainly gained recognition and made money on his assertions. He put together his own conference and called it the Copenhagen Consensus. He wrote a book called 'The Skeptical Environmentalist ' for which the Denmark Ministry of Science found him guilty of 'scientific dishonesty'.
Located in
Projects & Resources
/
…
/
Global Warming
/
Myths vs. Facts: Global Warming
-
Denialist vs. Skeptic
-
Denialist vs. Skeptic: What's the difference? As usual, context is key: Those skeptical of established science are not skeptics, they are denialists. Science is skeptical by it's nature because science doubts opinions and science is not based on opinion or belief, it examines evidence and physics.
Located in
Projects & Resources
/
…
/
Global Warming
/
Myths vs. Facts: Global Warming
