It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum than it is today — without any human influence.

the cause is understood (orbital forcing), just as today’s cause is understood (CO2 emissions), and these causes are very different.

One hundred and some years of global surface temperatures is not long enough to draw any conclusions from or worry about anyway.

The reliable instrumental record only goes back 150 years. It is possible to make reconstructions of temperature much further back. These include things like tree rings, ocean sediment, coral growth, layers in stalagmites, and others. The reconstructions available are all slightly different and provide sometimes more and sometimes less global versus regional coverage over the last one or two thousand years. We can reasonably conclude that it is warmer now than any time in at least the last 500 years.

Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.

Global warming is not only an output of computer models. It is based on observations of many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places that have records going back several centuries, major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.

So 2018 was a record year. Records are set all the time. One really warm year is not global warming.

This is actually not an unreasonable point — single years taken by themselves can not establish or refute a trend. A specific year being the hottest globally averaged temperature on record is not convincing.

You can check: The ten-year mean global temperature in 1900 was about 1 degrees Celsius lower than the ten-year mean in 2015.

Every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992, the ten hottest years on record occurred in the last 15 years, every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976, the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25

Climate models are based on parameterizations. How do you know that they are valid for climate change scenarios?

Can we trust proxy records as they tell us only indirect evidences?

Resolution of climate models is not enough to make any reliable projection of local climate change!

Pros and cons of anthropogenic global warming, as well as other opinions are suppressed by scientists in order to get more money for their research

What we do in Germany and Europe is irrelevant. Look how many people live in China and India.

Before we shall make any political action, we need better science. Feedbacks with the ocean, land surface are not well understood.

Any climate prediction is useless. The weather forcast is already a problem for the next days!

During the Cenozoic we had already warmer climate than today. What is the problem?

Adaptation to climate change would be much cheaper than a complete change of our global energy cycle.

In contrast, most cultures in the past had a positive development for warmer than for colder climates.

We still have time and can trust in the innovative ideas of scientists.

Without CO2 the climate would be too cold, CO2 helps us to live on the Earth.

Climate scientists are not reliable. They are traveling a lot and emitting CO2. If they would trust in their own predictions, they would not buy houses in Northern Germany for instance.

Some arguments

In the 1980s, scientists warn the world of climate change’s threat. Over more than 30 years since, as scientific consensus grew, the research community butted heads with deniers, as companies and industries poured money into denial and disinformation campaigns.

Yet there are still plenty who deny climate change exists, suggesting that snow proves the planet’s not getting warmer, or that climate change is nothing new, so we’ll adapt as we always have. Others claim that volcanoes, or the sun, or heat coming from below the earth’s surface - anything but humans - is responsible.

Exxon’s public position was marked by continued refusal to acknowledge the dangers of climate change, and its continued financial support for climate denial. Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial. Exxon said that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups. Some climate campaigners have likened the industry to the conduct of the tobacco industry which for decades resisted the evidence that smoking causes cancer.


“There is a lot of psychology involved in this, whether people accept things or not … We’ve been attacked by so-called sceptics about things, who just clearly don’t want to believe, and don’t want to understand the science, who can’t do the maths but aren’t prepared to accept anything we tell them," he says.


No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect


Climate is complicated and there are lots of competing theories and unsolved mysteries. Until this is all worked out, one can’t claim there is consensus on global warming theory. Until there is, we should not take any action.