by Bob Lloyd

Created on: January 13, 2010   Last Updated: February 08, 2010

It is currently fashionable to attack global warming claims as either hoaxes or conspiracies, or more charitably, as media hype and junk science.  Some deniers reject the idea of global warming altogether whereas others accept the fact of climate change but argue that it is not caused by human activity.  Yet others accept global warming as fact, and agree that humans are causing it, but argue that it isn't serious enough to warrant any action.

Some see that because both sides seem to have things to say, that therefore they both have a reasonable case.  Without evaluating the arguments and looking at the evidence for ourselves, it is easy to think that because there is a lot of noise, both cases must have merit.  In addition, it can seem that the international politicians seem to let some countries off the hook, applying different criteria to them from the advanced economies.  There is an understandable suspicion that the advanced economies are being unfairly blamed.  Indeed, it seems as though these countries are being penalised for not understanding global warming a hundred years ago!

It is undeniable that the evidence for global warming comes from diverse sources and that it is difficult to take it all in.  Evidence from earth, sea and air temperature sits alongside measurements of ice cores, observations of the Arctic and Antarctic, isotope measurements, biodiversity measures, satellite images, and the output of assorted climate models.

But, some say, we have been here before.  Back in the late 70s, we were told that we were on the verge of catastrophic climate change when scientists identified the growing hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic.  Somehow, we recovered.  Surely we will do so again?  Of course, last time we listened to the scientists, took their advice, banned CFCs, and we are now seeing a recovery in the ozone layer.

These days we are given information about carbon sinks, the pH of the sea, greenhouse gases, cooling effects, Malenkovich cycles, solar radiation, and a host of other influences on the climate.  Then we are given a conclusion and we are asked to choose whether we believe it or not.  The science is difficult and the models involve the atmosphere, the oceans, the ice sheets, the land and the biosphere.  The IPCC itself considered thirty-five scenarios. It is no wonder that some people don't work through the evidence and just come down on the side of denial.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next Page >>