What are the arguments against global warming

Global warming is just one of the results of anthropogenic-driven (i.e., dominated by human-based activities) climate change.

The worldwide yearly temperature has risen by a little more than 1 degree Celsius, or roughly 2 degrees Fahrenheit, during the Industrial Revolution. 

It increased by 0.07 degrees Celsius (0.13 degrees Fahrenheit) per ten years between 1880 and 1980, when good record keeping began.

Since 1981, however, the pace of growth has more than doubled: the global annual temperature has risen by 0.18 degrees Celsius (0.32 degrees Fahrenheit) every decade for the previous 40 years.

What’s the end result? The world has never been hotter. After 1880, nine of the ten hottest years have happened since 2005, with the five warmest years on record all occurring since 2015.

Climate change doubters say that rising global temperatures have come to a “halt” or “slowdown,” however several studies, including one published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2018, have refuted this assertion.

People all across the world are already suffering as a result of global warming’s effects. 

Climate scientists have now concluded that we must limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2040 if we are to avoid devastating events in the future 

Some of the worst, most devastating effects of climate change: extreme droughts, wildfires, floods, tropical storms, and other disasters that we collectively refer to as climate change, will be part of everyday life around the world. 

These impacts affect everyone in some way, but they are felt most intensely by the poor, economically marginalised, and people of colour, for whom climate change is frequently a primary cause of poverty, relocation, hunger, and social unrest.

In this article, we discuss global warming. Furthermore, we discuss the arguments that refute global warming, and explain why those arguments are flawed.

What are the arguments against global warming and how they are flawed

There are many arguments that have emerged against the notion of global warming over the past years. We shall discuss why each one of them is flawed.

No Recent Warming. If global warming science is so “settled”, why did global warming stop 15 years ago, contrary to all “consensus” predictions?

Simply said, it hasn’t. According to the best available measures, global surface temperatures (which is how scientists measure ‘global warming,’ while accounting for just around 2% of the Earth’s heat) have warmed roughly 0.2°C during the previous 15 years. 

More crucially, for the past 15 years, the globe has continued to absorb heat at a rate comparable to four Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations every second.

Natural or Manmade? If we don’t know how much of recent warming is natural, then how can we know how much is manmade?

The IPCC said that people are responsible for 95% of global warming since 1950, with the best estimate being that humans are responsible for 100% of global warming during the last 60 years. 

The IPCC was able to reach this judgement with such certainty because the scientific facts and study all point to the same result.

IPCC Politics and Beliefs. Why does it take a political body (the IPCC) to tell us what scientists “believe”? And when did scientists’ “beliefs” translate into proof? And when was scientific truth determined by a vote…especially when those allowed to vote are from the Global Warming Believers Party?

Every 5 to 7 years, the IPCC gathers the world’s leading climate experts. Those scientists are the ones that summarise the current state of scientific research in their domains of expertise. 

The IPCC report and the 97% expert agreement on human-caused global warming aren’t proof of anything in and of itself. 

They synthesise and represent the scientific evidence; the existence of the consensus is due to this large amount of data.

Climate Models Can’t Even Hindcast. How did climate modelers, who already knew the answer, still fail to explain the lack of a significant temperature rise over the last 30+ years? In other words, how to you botch a hindcast?

Over the last 30 years, global surface temperatures have risen by more than 0.5°C. That increase is substantial, both statistically and metaphorically. That increase has been correctly reflected by climate models.

…But We Should Believe Model Forecasts? Why should we believe model predictions of the future, when they can’t even explain the past?

Let’s set climate models aside for a while. They have properly represented the past. Climate models aren’t required to forecast future global warming.

We know from previous climate change events that the enhanced greenhouse effect of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (the ‘climate sensitivity’) will cause the globe to warm between 1.5 to 4.5°C.

In a business-as-usual scenario, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would exceed 900 parts per million by 2100, nearly tripling from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million.

As a result, we know that continuing business as usual will result in warming of between 2.5 and 7.5°C (most likely 5°C) assuming carbon dioxide levels do not rise over 900 ppm.

This is based on simple maths and what we know about the physics of the climate – no fancy models needed.

Modellers Lie About Their “Physics”. Why do modelers insist their models are based upon established physics, but then hide the fact that the strong warming their models produce is actually based upon very uncertain “fudge factor” tuning?

Leaving aside the charge that hundreds of climate modellers are all lying, the truth is that their models are based on well-established physics. 

The question most likely pertains to the amount of the cooling effect of aerosols, which is unknown. That is, nevertheless, a physical uncertainty. 

Unfortunately, the rocket carrying NASA’s Glory satellite, which carried equipment to investigate the climatic influence of aerosols, crashed two years ago, so we don’t have very strong observations of this effect. 

Nonetheless, climate models account for their effect using current data, and their estimates contain the inherent uncertainties.

Is Warming Even Bad? Who decided that a small amount of warming is necessarily a bad thing?

If we continue on our current course, global surface temperatures will rise by around 5°C over pre-industrial levels by 2100. 

The difference in average temperatures between now and the previous ice age is 5°C. By any stretch of the imagination, that isn’t “tiny.” 

Climate experts studying the effects of climate change are the ones who concluded that a certain degree of warming is a negative thing.

Is CO2 Bad? How did carbon dioxide, necessary for life on Earth and only 4 parts in 10,000 of our atmosphere, get rebranded as some sort of dangerous gas?

Carbon dioxide isn’t “bad” in and of itself. Water is also required for survival. You can drown if you drink too much water. Carbon dioxide emissions are too high, resulting in hazardous climate change. 

Greenhouse gases were ruled to constitute pollutants under the Clean Air Act of the United States. The (politically conservative) US Supreme Court made this decision.

Do We Look that Stupid? How do scientists expect to be taken seriously when their “theory” is supported by both floods AND droughts? Too much snow AND too little snow?

The temperature differential between higher and lower latitudes is reduced as the atmosphere warms, especially at high latitudes.

Storms tend to move more slowly as a result of this. Storms drop more precipitation in specific places as a result, causing greater flooding in some areas and droughts elsewhere. 

Evaporation increases as temperatures rise, aggravating droughts and adding more moisture to the air, allowing for heavier storms. These ideas should be understood by a climate scientist.

Selective Pseudo-Explanations. How can scientists claim that the Medieval Warm Period (which lasted hundreds of years), was just a regional fluke…yet claim the single-summer (2003) heat wave in Europe had global significance?

There is no conflict here: a localised occurrence can have global implications, such as economic consequences. In any event, the Medieval Warm Period was a localised occurrence, and the world was generally colder than it is now.

Just How Warm is it, Really? Why is it that every subsequent modification/adjustment to the global thermometer data leads to even more warming? What are the chances of that? Either a warmer-still present, or cooling down the past, both of which produce a greater warming trend over time. And none of the adjustments take out a gradual urban heat island (UHI) warming around thermometer sites, which likely exists at virtually all of them — because no one yet knows a good way to do that.

Ironically, most of the adjustments to Spencer’s own satellite temperature data set have been in the warming direction, so this question may be an example of psychological projection. 

Scientists also recently identified a problem in Arctic temperature data analysis that’s leading to an incorrect adjustment in the cooling direction, and there have of course been other cooling adjustments in the surface temperature record. 

The urban heat island effect has also been demonstrated over and over to have no significant influence on the surface temperature record.


Global warming is just one of the results of anthropogenic-driven (i.e., dominated by human-based activities) climate change.

When carbon dioxide (CO2) and other air pollutants accumulate in the atmosphere, they absorb sunlight and solar energy that has bounced off the earth’s surface, causing global warming.

Many arguments exist that refute the ever-growing issue of global warming. However, there are arguments that can easily be made in order to disprove these arguments.


Is global warming already happening?

Yes. Based on scientific evidence and observed changes in modern day climate, global warming has already begun. Month after month, year after year, record high temperatures are set both locally and worldwide.

Temperatures, on the other hand, are only one of several indications of global warming. Warmer temperatures bring a slew of changes, all of which hint to a planet in flux.

What are some examples of climate change?

The following are the example for observed climate change:

  • Since the pre-industrial period, the global average surface temperature has risen by around 1°C.
  • In the second part of the twentieth century, there was a decrease in snow cover and sea ice extent, as well as the retreat of mountain glaciers.
  • Global average sea level rise and ocean water temperature rise.
  • Average precipitation is expected to rise across the Northern Hemisphere’s middle and high latitudes, as well as over tropical land regions.
  • Extreme precipitation events are becoming more frequent and intense in various parts of the world.

The following are the example for physiological and ecological changes that are linked to climate change:

  • Permafrost thawing
  • In the middle and high latitudes, the growth season is lengthening.
  • Plant and animal ranges are shifting poleward and higher.
  • Some plant and animal species are on the decline.
  • Trees begin to bloom earlier.
  • Insects are emerging earlier.
  • Birds deposit eggs earlier.


Leave a Comment