I am a man-caused-Climate Change (Global Warming) skeptic. Where should I start looking for evidence?
Thanks for the question. Skepticism is the basis of science, so I somewhat* respect your point of view.
Note: I’m an adaptation specialist and I manage parts of USAID’s climate adaptation program in over 25 countries. This means I help governments around the world with policies that deal with inevitable impacts from climate change. Basically, I help with natural disaster planning using a bit of climate science, city planning, and environmental law. So, if a city is going to flood, I help a government plan to prevent the flood. If a country’s farming economy is going crash due to drought, I help the government shape a response to prevent crop losses. See what I do, here. Thus, I do not work on carbon or energy policy. I am not an activist. I do not advocate for emissions policies. I’m about as interested in “preventing climate change” as I am interested in becoming the next Dali Lama. That said, this is a very rare instance where I answer a question about carbon, GHGs, and energy. Ok, on to anon’s nice question:
Without these gases, the earth would be like the moon - a dead rock that’s freezing and boiling at the same time: +253F (+123C) during the day; -387F (-233C) at night.
There is no disputing this (deniers [unwittingly] admit this when they make arguments about cycles). When there are more gases in the atmosphere, more of the sun’s radiation is held within the atmosphere, creating a warming effect (and very strange changes in weather events).
In sum, your starting point is: Why is the earth warm? It’s warm due to GHGs in the atmosphere. And humans are adding a never before seen amount of carbon into the atmosphere, which in turn will wreak unbelievable havoc. Deniers bear the rather obscene burden of showing that GHGs do not keep the earth warm, and that increases in carbon do not influence climate.
I hope those links above help.
All the best,
*A legitimate skeptic applies critical thinking to systematically pick apart arguments. Skeptics do this by analyzing evidence. No one disagrees that GHGs cause warming (even all oil companies on earth admit this, and are searching for solutions to lower GHG emissions). The burden is on you and other deniers to show that greenhouse gases do not influence the earth’s atmosphere. Frankly, in my opinion, this is a rather boring subject. The more interesting subject is that deniers actually do not comprehend their own arguments. In fact, they’re really arguing against *the solutions* to reducing or preventing climate change, which are to raise the costs of fuels and not pay for environmental harm. This gets into societal ethics, personal responsibility, and market capitalism.
Although scientists as early as Aristarchus of Samos knew the relationship between the sun and earth around 270 BCE, it wasn’t until 1543 that Nicholas Copernicus published his masterwork De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), published the same year that he died that the heliocentric model received wide distribution. Perhaps his death and inability to defend his thesis led to the very slow spread and adoption of his idea, so that by the year 1616 a group of cardinals and bishops under the direction of the Vatican met to denounce Galileo Galilei, who was using the results of his observations made with the new technology of the telescope to re-introduce the heliocentric model of the solar system.
A decade and half passed before Galileo was dangerous enough to draw a trial, which commenced in 1633. Galileo was furious with the philosophers, theologians and scientists who denounced his idea, complaining to his friend and fellow astronomer Johannes Kepler,
My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.
He lost the trial and spent his last eight years under house arrest, working on his theories from his home in Pisa.
The word heliocentric comes from Ancient Greek, a combination of the words ἥλιος (helios) meaning sun and κέντρον (kentron) meaning center. It would take another three centuries for scientists to understand that not only is the Earth not the center of the Universe, neither is the Sun.
Happy Birthday Galileo Galilei, born February 15, 1564.
Painting of Galileo Facing the Roman Inquisition by Cristiano Banti, 1857, in the public domain.
Image from Copernicus in the public domain.
There is a further reason which explains the slow spread of Copernicus’ idea. De revolutionibus, for the non-experts, is very hard to understand —and virtually unreadable. The heliocentric theory is introduced in the first book (of six), but everything else is composed of complex calculations and schemes that were comprehensible only to mathematicians and astronomers. Moreover, to avoid the risk that the book was accused of blasphemy, who understood Copernicus’ reasoning had no qualms about describing the work as a fictional exercise of mathematics. On the other hand, many understood the writings of Galileo, which aroused the interest of all the scientists/philosophers of the time, including the Jesuits of the Roman College. The popular style was Galileo’s fortune and his sentence.
Small note, Galileo Galilei spent his last years at his home in Arcetri (Florence), where he resumed his early studies about motions of bodies and wrote Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences.