The reality of Global Warming has produced alarmists; and over the years their increased popularity - coupled with the money that is to be made pushing this agenda - has resulted in a media-biased brainwashing of the western society.
"The Greenhouse Effect" is one of the most miss-understood terms ever coined. Most people don't understand how a greenhouse works - let alone the "greenhouse effect" which is very different and not remotely-related to the way that a greenhouse works.
Children are taught the a greenhouse works by converting visible light to infrared (which would then be internally reflected), and then that causes the gases inside to heat. In reality it's much more simple: the air that heats up inside the greenhouse can't escape to share that heat with air molecules outside of the greenhouse.
The greenhouse effect is a response by air molecules to solar radiation (all wavelengths). Each type of air molecule behaves more or less responsive to certain wavelengths of solar radiation than others; and greenhouse gasses (for instance) are simple "more responsive to some wavelengths of radiation). It has nothing to do with trapping heat, or with reflecting radiation. Although the science behind this is well established and accepted, it's far from being completely understood.
So in this sense, I would compare something like asphalt to dirt to illustrate the "greenhouse effect". Asphalt will heat up more than dirt will because it's more responsive to the solar radiation that's heating it up - and it'll become hotter than dirt.
So a sceptical look (or a critical look) at the argument that global warming is being caused by an increase in CO2 levels looks very unlikely just on the surface. But as an established (and somewhat well-accepted theory) we'll have to test it against other competing theories to see which one is more likely.
Firstly, let's look at recent history:
"There are ominous signs that the world is cooling"!
During the 30+ year period covering the mid 40's to the mid 70's the earth experienced global cooling, and there were many alarmists saying "we have caused this, and we have to take action now to tackle this". Since then it has never, ever been established what caused this period of global cooling - but it could not have been increasing CO2 levels as CO2 levels have been increasing since the 1800's and are still increasing today.
So let's say that the more accepted theory today behind the recent period of global cooling is that "we were not contributing to global cooling, and it was caused by natural factors outside of human control". Therefore this theory could also be used to explain the current period of global warming. But which is more likely?
Well, historically it has been established that an increase in temperature over time resulted in an increase in CO2 levels. The current theory tries to reverse this process - claiming that increasing CO2 levels are resulting in increasing temperatures.
So, if we ask which theory is simpler, the answer is simple. Because the CO2 theory cannot pass the simplicity test - it does not use already established contributing factors to climate change, it instead seeks to redefine them. So it's suffice to say that the theory "which uses already established and accepted scientific wisdom" to explain the current trend in climate change is the simpler theory.
A sceptic can only conclude that the evidence isn't there to support the CO2 = Global Warming theory. It's at best a plausible theory, and at worst an alarmist's forced answer to a question he's not qualified to answer.
"The Greenhouse Effect" is one of the most miss-understood terms ever coined. Most people don't understand how a greenhouse works - let alone the "greenhouse effect" which is very different and not remotely-related to the way that a greenhouse works.
Children are taught the a greenhouse works by converting visible light to infrared (which would then be internally reflected), and then that causes the gases inside to heat. In reality it's much more simple: the air that heats up inside the greenhouse can't escape to share that heat with air molecules outside of the greenhouse.
The greenhouse effect is a response by air molecules to solar radiation (all wavelengths). Each type of air molecule behaves more or less responsive to certain wavelengths of solar radiation than others; and greenhouse gasses (for instance) are simple "more responsive to some wavelengths of radiation). It has nothing to do with trapping heat, or with reflecting radiation. Although the science behind this is well established and accepted, it's far from being completely understood.
So in this sense, I would compare something like asphalt to dirt to illustrate the "greenhouse effect". Asphalt will heat up more than dirt will because it's more responsive to the solar radiation that's heating it up - and it'll become hotter than dirt.
So a sceptical look (or a critical look) at the argument that global warming is being caused by an increase in CO2 levels looks very unlikely just on the surface. But as an established (and somewhat well-accepted theory) we'll have to test it against other competing theories to see which one is more likely.
Firstly, let's look at recent history:
"There are ominous signs that the world is cooling"!
During the 30+ year period covering the mid 40's to the mid 70's the earth experienced global cooling, and there were many alarmists saying "we have caused this, and we have to take action now to tackle this". Since then it has never, ever been established what caused this period of global cooling - but it could not have been increasing CO2 levels as CO2 levels have been increasing since the 1800's and are still increasing today.
So let's say that the more accepted theory today behind the recent period of global cooling is that "we were not contributing to global cooling, and it was caused by natural factors outside of human control". Therefore this theory could also be used to explain the current period of global warming. But which is more likely?
Well, historically it has been established that an increase in temperature over time resulted in an increase in CO2 levels. The current theory tries to reverse this process - claiming that increasing CO2 levels are resulting in increasing temperatures.
So, if we ask which theory is simpler, the answer is simple. Because the CO2 theory cannot pass the simplicity test - it does not use already established contributing factors to climate change, it instead seeks to redefine them. So it's suffice to say that the theory "which uses already established and accepted scientific wisdom" to explain the current trend in climate change is the simpler theory.
A sceptic can only conclude that the evidence isn't there to support the CO2 = Global Warming theory. It's at best a plausible theory, and at worst an alarmist's forced answer to a question he's not qualified to answer.