Global warming/debate

About

The debate over global warming is perhaps the single best illustration of why arguments need to be mapped in order to be resolved properly. The sheer volume of resources which have been allocated by industry (especially the fossil fuel industry) towards defeating public acceptance of the various global warming hypotheses has resulted in some arguments that are very elaborate and difficult to answer without a detailed knowledge of not only the basic mechanisms of global warming, but also its history and politics.

Summary

As of 2013, hardly anyone disputes that global warming is in fact occurring; denialism now generally focuses on the following:

• Humans aren't causing it; the exact mechanism is either unknown or entirely natural.
• Global warming does not pose a serious problem, and may even be of net benefit. ("We can adapt.")

Structured

Human activity is causing an increase in global warmth which is going to cause severe problems within the next century, and humans therefore need to take steps to slow, stop, and (eventually) reverse this trend.

All of the following are true:

The earth is currently getting warmer at a rate which is going to cause severe problems within the next century.

The average temperature on earth is increasing.

The rate of temperature increase is going to cause severe problems within the next century.

The "hockey stick" graph is visually compelling evidence of this.

The hockey stick is a misleading fiction; if the same averaging techniques are applied consistently across the entire range, the effect disappears.

There is no evidence that misleading statistical techniques have been applied.

If misleading statistical techniques have been applied, the scientific community would have rejected the GW threat hypothesis. They have not.

The scientific community overwhelmingly embraces the conclusion that GW is a threat.

Human activity is causing most of the current increase in global warmth.

Humans are capable of reversing the global warming trend.

All of the following are true:

Discontinuing the use of fossil fuels for energy generation would slow, stop, or perhaps reverse global warming.

All of the following are true:

Discontinuing the use of fossil fuels for energy generation would eliminate most of the GW-causing pollutants.

The primary cause of global warming is "greenhouse gases", primarily carbon dioxide and methane.

Carbon dioxide is not a significant factor in global warming.

CO2 levels lag prehistorical warming trends (see ice core data and therefore cannot be a cause of modern global warming.)

All of the following are true:

CO2 levels lag historical warming trends.

The lag in CO2 levels proves that rising CO2 did not cause prehistoric global warming.

This is because in the past, warming periods have been initiated by changes in the earth's orbit. This relatively small change causes an increase in CO2 concentration, which causes further warming, leading to a final stable temperature much higher than can be accounted for by the initial "nudge" from the orbitally-induced warming.

If CO2 did not cause prehistoric global warming, it could not cause modern global warming.

The involvement of a particular cause in one case is not disproved by the existence of other causes in another set of cases.

If CO2 rose and there was no corresponding warming, that would be evidence against CO2's involvement -- but this is not what the data shows.

The exhaust from burning fossil fuels contains enormous quantities of carbon dioxide.

It is now technologically and economically feasible to replace fossil fuels with sustainable forms of energy.

Humans should invest considerable resources into reversing the global warming trend.

Notes

• Points to enter into debate: [1]
• 2012-12-09 20-Year-Old Report Successfully Predicted Warming
• 2012-12-27 Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate