I am writing a short [extremely sarcastic] speech, in which I argue that climate change is being faked.
I am trying to use skeptics’ arguments against climate change, but in a way that will show how stupid those arguments really are.
Any ideas on what the best arguments to include would be/ones that sound the stupidest?
Just say that all deniers of anything are always right no matter what the argument is, no matter what facts are proving the deniers as wrong.
Just say that:
Deniers are always right in all cases because they have the best opinions backed by their own nonsense. Just like those who deny that our country is in financial trouble. We can deny that and it will go away also.
Just like our health care system being in trouble because the rich people in charge of the systems (health maintenance organization (HMO’s) , and insurance companies) lobby to keep their companies in charge of how everything is run.
Why would they do that if they weren’t making themselves rich (at our expense).
Deniers ….. You can give me a million thumbs down, but you are still wrong, denying that there is a problem will never get it fixed.
The “end game” is to control the masses. When you have a dubious topic like climate change that can’t be proven and convince the population that this or that will happen if you don’t do this or have that you have control. It is not surprising the party who loves more government is on the side of the people who believe that global warming cannot be a natural occurrence but that it is man made. Can we control the weather? These people say we can . What do you think?
The natural world is constantly changing without any help from us and the world has seen ice ages and warming periods before. Global warming ended in 1998 or at least the meterological organisations of the world tell us it was the warmest year on record. There is global warming on Mars as the Martian ice caps have been melting since we’ve been able to photograph them. The Arctic may have lost some ice over the last 30 years, but the Antartic has gained ice over the same time. Global warming from CO2 doesn’t use science that everyone can agree on. If you were to have a glass bottle of CO2, it would be clear and allow all light to pass except for three frequencies of infrared which it stops completely. If you double the amount of CO2, exactly the same thing would happen, all light would pass through except for the same three frequencies which would be stopped completely.
Climate is always changing, what is fake is the segment of the population trying to blame it on man.
But I don’t see how picking the most stupid arguements would get you a decent grade. After all, every subject has its lousy supporters, and many of the stupid arguements are usually not supported by facts, science or data. Thus making it easy pickings to discredit.
Speaking of discrediting. Its a wonder how all the supposed great scientists that declared global warming and climate change is happening have been shown to be frauds, liars or inaccurate in stating the truth. But the global warming believers that were so willing to believe the theory are now ignoring those very same scientists when they tell them that their data was manipulated, the ‘hockey stick graph’ was a fake and that there hasn’t been any warming since 1995.
This show’s more how fickle and stubborn the human race is rather than any proof of a theory. And the global warming people had it easy, all they had to do was prove or make it look like the data proved that the planet was warming up. Just who is arrogant enough to think they can plug in a few factors and think they know EXACTLY what the climate should be doing, and of these failed scientists, who can claim they know exaxtly how the climate is different from normal and what portion if any that man is responsible for ?
Climate change is simply the fall back potion for enviromentalists to take so that if there’s an increase or a decrease in temps or change in weather or unexplained phenominon…oh..then it just has to be climate change, it just has to be abnormal and it just has to be mans fault.
Until scientists can actually come up with a theory that not only makes sense but is provable, you won’t get more than a small percentage of people to support the panic.
I could go through all the data that proves GW is a hoax, but why bother, the climate change whacko’s believe what they believe without proof, and most are to irrational to discuss any real factors in a reasonable belief.
Have climate change advocates been able to explain yet why the ozone “hole” was the largest during a 1956 expedition ? That was before the use of CFC’s, yet we banned them because that’s what the egg heads told us to do. Real scientists at the time theorized the hole was due to the extreme cold weather of the region.
And how about that ice age the planet had, that was before man’s interference, and it went away without mans help too. Proving that the planet has had natural swings from hot to cold and back again without man’s help. yet arrogantly people think that the tainted 130 years of temp data we have is supposed to be what is “normal” for the planet.
We won’t even go into the discussion about how 90% of the temp stations do not meet the governments set standards, how they are housing electrionics which adds to heat and painted with latex paint rather than white wash which adds 1/2 a degree to the temperature.
But, do go on with shooting down the low hanging fruit for an easy grade.
The problem is, they use the usual debating techniques, so it is hard to spot.
1) conflate global climate change with the hole in the ozone layer.
2) show how little effect one person can have on his environment, ignoring the *huge* support staff that serves to keep that one person alive.
3) talk about “cow farts”, and distract the audience from any sort of serious consideration.
4) show how there are still areas of the planet we have not denuded or trashed for the few-days-worth of fossil fuels beneath them.
5) warn how civilization will come to an end if fuel prices double to support any sort of green energy conversion
6) point out how many jobs will be lost if we switch from fossil fuels to something else.
Lately I have been told that trees are the main source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These out of context statements are used to attempt to minimize the industrial pollution of the past two centuries, multiplied by the exponential increase of human population (nearly nine billion).
And the idea that politicians are desiring to provide increased drilling for oil production here (benefiting the corporate world but not creating enough supply to lower prices) benefiting the speculators and military contractors (who willingly serve to guarantee our safety here at home) by creating increased need for base establishment and support for the corporate agenda.
Talk by politicians of energy independence goes back to at least the Nixon era, when fears of $20 a barrel oil on the world market would be disastrous for our economy. Project Independence was the result. The peak oil theory was also becoming a factor at that time. And despite the glaciers retreating, and massive icebergs adrift, politicians push the corporate agenda to increase carbon fuel supply.
First off, don’t call them skeptics. Skeptics are scientists, and the vast vast vast majority of scientists in climatology accept human-caused climate change as an unfortunate reality. I think the folks you’re talking about are usually called “climate deniers” or, more accurate in my opinion, “climate conspiracy theorists.”
So. There’s a bunch you could use.
– “The recent reports that two scientists in England fudged some of their figures calls the ENTIRE 20+ year body of climate change research and science into question.”
– “Climate scientists and the people who push for action on climate change are just in it for the bucks — you know, those giant no-strings-attached ‘research’ (ya right!) grants and those fatty non-profit sector salaries they use to fund their extravagant lifestyles.”
– “Climate change theory is a massive conspiracy that has been masterminded by Al Gore, who has swayed millions of fickle college students (not to mention countless scientists, politicians, business leaders and insurance companies all around the world) with his irresistible charisma and his legendary oratory skills.”
Oh, and my favorite:
– “Al Gore is a hypocrite because he has a big house.” (OK. And? What does that have to do with climate science again?)
But I think if you really want to lampoon the climate deniers, this argument is the best (worst) of all:
– “For over twenty years, thousands of the world’s most esteemed scientists have been telling us that we’re most likely changing the climate. And in the last few years, those thousands of scientists have told us that we are most likely now very close to triggering unstoppable self-reinforcing climate feedback loops that could decimate water supplies and global agriculture, destroy critical ecosystems, and flood most of the world’s major coastal cities by the end of this century…. But it would be kind of expensive to do anything about it, and there’s a chance they might be wrong — therefore we shouldn’t do anything and just hope for the best, la de da!”
Global warming is a political tactic being used to exert control over businesses and individuals for the purpose of writing laws and collecting taxes. Carbon credits are one of the greatest scams in modern history. Global warming is a complete fraud that was invented to steal freedoms. The truly sad part is that many of the supporters of global warming are good people with their hearts in the right place but they are being used by politicians and don’t realize it.
There are people who think the term global warming just means that the earth is heating up. So people will say “we’ve had some of the coldest winters so global warming can’t be happening,” when really global warming effects weather by making it more extreme either way.
here’s one article i found talking about this:
A lot of the belief about conspiracy theory started after an even where people hacked into the emails of the leading scientists of global climate change research:
Here’s a sight that talks about that and you could really get a lot from
One of the best arguments against climate change is talking about the “Ice Age”. If global warming and CO2 is making the icebergs melt then how did they melt before the Industrial Age?
Icebergs melted before cars, factories etc. proving you can’t say the melting of icebergs now is caused by mankind and CO2. It is mostly natural cyclical weather patterns. Ice melted hundreds of years before the increase in CO2.