What genuine arguments can be used to oppose the theory of global warming?

None that I am aware of. Skeptics have hundreds of arguments. Many people find that fact impressive and the fact that they do have so many is great material for a Gish gallop. Over 170 have been debunked in this link alone. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php Many denialist claims are outright lies, such as statements to the effect that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans, that global warming has stopped and that the Hockey Stick has been debunked. Other denialist claims are non-sequiters, such as "CO2 is plant food," or "CO2 lagged temperature." Such claims may be true, but do not mean that CO2 does not absorb infrared. (Although "CO2 [past tense] lagged temperature" is often expressed as "CO2 [present tense] lags temperature," which is actually a lie.) Still other denialist claims are uncertainties, such as claims about climate models not being reliable the uncertainty of climate sensitivity. While uncertainty arguments are often true, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere just because of such uncertainties sound like a dangerous game of Russian Roulette to me. Denialist also often resort to ad hominem arguments, often by slandering climatologist James Hansen, paleoclimatologistl Mann and activist Al Gore. Ad hominem arguements are completely unscientific. The way to test or challenge statements, claims and theories of climatolgists and advocates is to use the scientific method. In scientific testing, even a scoundrel can turn out to be right and even a saint can turn out to be wrong.can be wrong. OM Yes, unless your falling leaf is in a vacuum, it is effected by forces other than gravity. But it still hits the ground. Mintie B I think that you are talking about the unfalsifiable alternative hypothesis. Every scientific "fact," "law" and theory has one.

I don't think there are any really good arguments to oppose the theory of global warming, but I think it is reasonable to say that we don't have any sort of precise number for how much warming will come about due to a certain level of increase of CO2. The ranges quoted from various models are really quite large and more precise answers will have to wait until we have a longer track record at forecasting climate as well as more detailed models. Models rely on various parameterizations and will for some time to come. There are no cloud resolving global climate models and we need separate parameterizations for different types of clouds (stratus, cumulus, cirrus). The global models are just beginning to include atmosphere-ocean coupling. There are still great data voids of the world's oceans (although those are to some extent being filled in by satellites) and to a lesser extent there are also data voids over land masses, particularly for those variables that are not routinely measured, like soil moisture. Perhaps most importantly, climate models need to be run faster, so that the ensemble techniques that are currently being employed for routine forecasting can also be used for climate forecasts. All that being said, I believe that climate models are getting better every day, researchers are working very hard on them. I think when they give us estimates of temperature increases expected from global warming, and changes to precipitation patterns, we need to pay attention to them. Reality will undoubtedly differ in some important respects from what the models tell us, but future climate will almost certainly be closer to what the models are telling than to our current climate, and denying that we are bringing about changes in the Earth's climate is not just short-sighted, but potentially disastrous.

"More research is needed" because we aren't completely sure yet. This barely (stretching hugely) "valid" or "genuine" argument has little appeal for deniers here because (a) the con artist sites they use don't like it and (b) the con men on those sites don't like it because it strongly suggests that there really is more to climate science than just the mighty socialist conspiracy of Al Gore and his amazing technicolor time machine.

Trevor, you of all people should know that the only sound argument opposing the current AGW theory is to propose another alternative that both explains existing evidence and makes accurate predictions better than AGW does. (Such as, but not limited to, cooling predictions made relative to Pinatubo in 1991.) The only sound response would be an alternative. And anything worthwhile wouldn't fit here. Of course, there isn't an alternative... yet. No one has conceived a comprehensive and predictive alternative. If they had, it would be framed in lights and there would be a Nobel issued soon enough.

My previous answer to you is probably directly applicable to this question as well so I'll cut and paste the pertinent parts: Quantum mechanics is not the only issue in understanding a system as complex as the climate of the Earth. There's especially the physics of thermodynamics. While we understand the three basic laws of thermodynamics, it is not a simple task to apply them to a chaotic, non-linear system. This is where the role of feedbacks comes into play along with several variables that not fully quantified like clouds. Simply stating that an increase in a greenhouse gas concentration would cause a rise in temperature is ignoring many other factors in the climate system. A good example is a falling leaf. In a perfect vacuum it would land directly below where it fell and in a calculated time. In nature, it would rarely do so as predicted. That is the problem with trying to apply QM and thermodynamics directly to a natural system with multiple variables, many not well understood and probably several not even known. Edit@david b: "For AGW theory to be incorrect several scientific laws must be violated, which is "impossible."" For my falling leaf analogy, if the leaf does not fall from a 20 foot tree and land directly below its drop point in precisely 3.2234 seconds, did it violate the laws of gravity?

Please state the theory of global warming you'd like us to consider

==== Maxx -- >>All these points and evidence have been posted a hundred times<< Your ignorant and/or irrelevant talking points are "genuine" Bullshit – not genuine evidence. ===== Mike -- >>A good example is a falling leaf. In a perfect vacuum it would land directly below where it fell and in a calculated time. In nature, it would rarely do so as predicted.<< That is a false because the vector of a hypothetical leaf falling in a perfect vacuum would not be the "predicted" outcome of a real leaf falling in the real world. The predicted result would be a probability function based on the morphology of the leaf, wind, air resistance/friction, etc., as well as what we know about the velocity of free-falling bodies - and the empirical model would be more accurate. >>For my falling leaf analogy, if the leaf does not fall from a 20 foot tree and land directly below its drop point in precisely 3.2234 seconds, did it violate the laws of gravity?<< It, of course, violates neither Newton's Law or Einstein's Theory - nor does it address david's point or have any relevance to climate science and AGW.

I agree with Dook. Statistically, the theory cannot be "proven" much as smoking can't be proven to cause cancer. More work can certainly be done to refine the theory and improve forecastability by marginalizing uncertainty. Regardless, the physical framework upon which the theory is built can be and are the basis or myriad scientific laws. For AGW theory to be incorrect several scientific laws must be violated, which is "impossible."

Hi Trevor 1 1.5 kW – tech: legal limit of power output of an amateur radio station in the United States 2 50 kW to 100 kW – tech: highest allowed ERP for an FM band radio station in the United States 3 10 MW – tech: highest ERP allowed for an UHF television station I did some maths and found this as reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_television_broadcast_stations One thing I didn't do was add all the repeater stations and satellite links I just used the main stations which came to 27,190 x 10MW= 271GW of accumulative ERP (Effective radiated power) 4 Radars are also on my list to search ERP levels (weather,shipping and aircraft radars) and lets not forget space research 5 The mobile phone network is also a problem and needs to be calculated 6 The military will be the hardest to calculate no power restrictions when it comes to war, the one with the most power wins . I recon by adding all the above ERP there will be over 2 terawatts emitted per hour 24/7 night and day and it's all this energy that is disrupting the natural cycles of the atmosphere and oceans. There needs to be a push to make the electronic industry put some infrastructure in th ground and stop pumping GW of energy into the oceans and atmosphere I wounder why Australia is spending billions on putting fiber optics in the ground when the wireless networks are already set up?