To many people, global warming and climate change is a well-packaged lie concocted by a group of influential folks with hidden agendas and being forced down the throat of the common man such that it has now become a household term. I happened to have interacted with a few climate change deniers on social media on a couple of occasions and each time, I usually gave up due to my intolerance to their line of reasoning. Just like flat earthers, there are different arguments climate change deniers use to back up their claims. The popular ones among these arguments include:
This line of argument is genuinely funny because the data are out for everyone to see. Unless you are saying that an establishment such as NOAA, ETHZ, our world in data and climate.gov is part of those involved in shaping the narrative to support the hidden agendas of the left.
As one can see from the graph above, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was relatively stable between the 17th and the latter part of the 18th century. It started increasing astronomically from there and this period happens to coincide with the era of industrialization. The graph terminated at year 2020 but you and I can guess what the trend would be like between then and today.
A picture, they say, is worth more than a thousand words. The graph below should suffice as a counter against this argument, but trust these deniers to try and deflect. First, there are no proven records that the earth has witnessed the kind of extremely hot temperatures that we currently witness. Even if there are, it proves absolutely nothing.
Tons of research has proven beyond all doubt that greenhouse gases are absorbers of reflected radiation from the earth. Some of these research can be accessed online with just one click of a button. What makes carbon dioxide the most notorious of them all is the rate at which the natural balance is being disrupted through anthropological emissions. Fortunately (unfortunately for deniers), the increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide happens to have a significant correlation with an increase in the mean global annual temperature. Even though other greenhouse gases such as methane and water vapor have a higher capacity to absorb radiation, their concentrations in the atmosphere have remained relatively stable over time.
This line of argument is the most common among climate change deniers. At what level will the available evidence be sufficient? I genuinely feel this argument line was taken from some inconclusive empirical studies carried out by some scientists. Agreed that there are instances in which research may be inconclusive. However, inconclusive research may be due to several factors that are not related to the availability of evidence. The most important thing is that there are more than enough research that has proven the existence of global warming and climate change. Beyond that, the two phenomena are obvious to the common man - those with enough consciousness of their surroundings.
There are many more lines of arguments that climate deniers throw around. Just like I get tired of them in real life, writing to disprove these arguments is also tiring. Thus, I am limiting myself to debunking just the above 3 arguments. If anyone remains unconvinced after the explanations above, I can only wish them the best of luck.
What do you think?
