The Favorite Arguments of Global Warming Skeptics

For those of us who believes that scientists are generally more right than wrong, it is relatively unsatisfying task to discuss with the so-called global warming skeptics. While some arguments can be made to counter the scientific arguments in favor of the global warming theory, skeptics tend to make the wrong ones. Below, I will list some of these arguments - and why they are wrong.

1. Earth has not warmed the last decade.

When we look at graphs of temperature measurement, the image is quite clear: The temperature has increased. For some skeptics, however, it has decreased. The reason they find this to be true is that temperatures has fallen since 1998. By showing only those years, it appears that the temperature is falling, not increasing.

The scientific problems with this claim are multiple. The most important counter-argument is clearly that the skeptics offer no reason why global warming should best be measured in short-term trends. They should simply be asked why the year 1998 is so special, and why they do not look at other years, like 1988, 1978 or even 1997 and 1999. The reason they do this is, after all, quite clear.

2. The last winter shows it is getting colder

Whenever there is a cold winter with lots of snow, global warming skeptics tend to argue that it is evidence that the world is actually cooling - and by that attempt to offer substantial evidence that earth is in fact not warming. The problem is that global warming by name is assumed to be global, not regional. Regional temperatures can unquestionably be quite high even if global temperatures are low or vice versa. The winter of 2010 was the coldest in 50 years in Europe, for example, it was among the warmer ever globally. The same picture adds up when older data are looked at. The medieval period was warm in Europe, and Greenland was inhabited at that time, but globally, it was no warmer than the immediate post-war era. Regional temperatures can therefore not serve as substantial evidence against global warming.

3. Politicians see this as a way to make money
Some global warming skeptics argue that global warming is an issue driven by politicians and scientists. Global warming is supposedly something politicians will benefit from. This argument is very questionable. For one, there are very few elections where politicians have ever benefited from making environmental arguments. Rare examples include two elections in Scandinavia in the 1980s: Norway in 1989 and at least in a few countries following the Chernobyl incident. The latter examples were, however, about nuclear power.

In European and American elections the last two decades, it is difficult to find even one example of an election where politicians benefit from these arguments. Al Gore was, for example, encouraged to not talk about global warming in his election campaign, because it was feared that he would end up losing the election if he did. Elsewhere, parties favoring a more environmental approach tend to face weak showings. Green parties have only become established in a few European countries, while other parties that favor efforts to reduce co2 emissions tend to perform poorly.

To think that politicians can benefit from these policies in any way when they hardly make the arguments with any force is a thought that appears unfounded. It is, however, repeated very often. The reason is, as research has shown, that those opposed to an idea are more likely to make an argument about the person articulating the idea than about the idea itself. This particularly goes for those who are unable to participate in the debate. Making that case may in some instances work to counter the argument very effectively.