|
Bottom line, as most people here have pointed out, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic activity has had a significant effect on the global increase in temperature since the 1970s. There is virtually no disagreement about this among the scientific community.
Every "scientific" argument the deniers make (that I have seen) is very easily debunked, just as every "scientific" argument the creationists make is easily debunked (or the Holocaust deniers, or the HIV/AIDS deniers, or the smoking/cancer deniers, or the round earth deniers, etc.).
For example, the argument that there have always been climate cycles is certainly true, but the causes of those cycles (e.g. periodicity in the earth's rotation or sunspot variation) cannot explain the recent warming.
It should also be pointed out that the scientific community in general is inherently conservative. A consensus of this kind takes many years to develop, after all the counter-arguments have been addressed in all possible permutations, in great detail in the peer-review process. This in fact is one of the criticisms of the IPCC and other formal bodies, namely that they strive to be so careful in their conclusions that they end up about 5 years behind the science, which currently is implying that the situation is a lot worse than previously thought.
Global warming denialism logically is a form of conspiracy theory, since it has to explain why thousands of scientists all over the world and international scientific bodies have all come to the identical conclusion. If that conclusion were wrong, then there must be a grand, global conspiracy of some kind that involves just about every climate science laboratory in the world.
|