Global Warming

They both disregard the overwhelming scientific consensus.
They both ignore all evidence contrary to their belief.
They both lack any papers in peer reviewed journals.
They both quote mine experts opposed to them for any statements that taken out of context appear skeptical of the consensus.
They both rely on a public misunderstanding of science.
They both use the media to sensationalize the fictitious "debate" in the scientific community.
They both use lists of experts opposed to their viewpoint to attempt to change public opinion.

I could go on....

2007-12-22 15:52:14 · 12 answers · asked by Weise Ente 7

Some people have argued that global warming has slowed or stalled because we haven't had a year hotter than 1998.

However, the average temperature this decade has been 14.531 deg. C. The average temperature in the 1990s was 14.3206 deg. C. The average temperature in the 1980s was 14.1685 deg. C. Not only is this decade warmer than the 90s (by 0.21 deg. C), but it's a bigger difference than the warming from the 80s to the 90s (0.152 deg. C).

http://profend.com/gtr/tables/tempavepage.html

Plus with the exception of 1998, every year 2001-Present has been warmer than every year in the 1990s (and every previous year on record).

Considering all this information, do you think global warming has slowed or stalled?

2007-12-22 10:11:40 · 20 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Considering the scientific facts such as:

The planet is warming more at night than during the day.

The upper atmosphere is cooling and lower atmosphere is warming.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 37% higher than they have been in millions of years.

The surface has warmed 0.5 C over the past 30 years - a rate of 0.17 deg C per decade.

Solar output has decreased over the past 30 years and we're in a cooling portion of the Earth's orbital (Milankovitch) cycles.

Most of the scientific experts think humans are the primary cause of this warming.

In your estimation and considering these scientific facts, what is the percentage likelihood that the current global warming is not being mostly caused by humans?

2007-12-22 09:46:55 · 34 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

I recently asked a question about why those who believe the anthropogenic global warming theory are willing to bet that global warming will continue while skeptics are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are.

In response, several AGW skeptics claimed their cohorts are unwilling to bet because they're too smart to presume to know whether the planet will warm or cool.

This makes no sense to me. The reason AGW acknowledgers are willing to bet is because they're confident they understand what's happening with the Earth's climate. We know solar output is decreasing, we know we're in a cool orbital cycle, we know last year was a cool El Niño cycle, yet the planet continues to warm due to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

I don't understand why skeptics think we don't know enough about the Earth's cycles. My conclusion is that they either don't understand the cycles, or won't accept that they're clearly not responsible for the current warming.

What's the explanation?

2007-12-22 09:36:28 · 11 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Two Russian solar physicists...accepted the wager of US$10,000 that the average global temperature during 2012-2017 would be lower than during 1998-2003. Annan first directly challenged Richard Lindzen. Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years. Annan claimed Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures.

The Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to a GB£5,000 bet of global warming versus global cooling.

Annan and other proponents of the consensus state they have challenged other skeptics to bets over global warming that were not accepted, including Annan's attempt in 2005 to accept a bet that had been offered by Patrick Michaels in 1998 that temperatures would be cooler after ten years.

2007-12-22 05:39:22 · 12 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

I really want to recycle but my apt complex doesnt have any options. Where do i go?

2007-12-22 05:25:22 · 11 answers · asked by hello 3

and also significant effects of global warming

2007-12-22 04:18:39 · 9 answers · asked by Niroshan A 3

I thought global warming do exist. Even if it is a fraud, CO2 isn't good for the health you know. But i'm thinking....why is some people doesn't accept that the Earth is getting warmer and life is threathen? Can i have someone to tell me why are we running away rather than finding a solution?

2007-12-22 01:44:54 · 21 answers · asked by Areef Hadrey 1

Do you think the Senate alarmists will actually read this and take consideration that the world is not ending?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

2007-12-21 18:17:04 · 11 answers · asked by ? 3

2007-12-21 15:52:02 · 6 answers · asked by Jack_Scar_Action_Hero 5

I am on a debating team and thought it would be a challenge to convince people Global Warming is not real. Any suggestions on arguments i can make.

(btw i have not made up my mind on whether i believe global warming is real or not)

2007-12-21 15:33:55 · 11 answers · asked by P4BZ 4

Hasn't the Earth been changing since day one? climates changing, continents shifting, etc. I do agree that there are many things we do that harm our environment but isn't it like trying to stop a speeding train that left the station millions of years before we got here?

2007-12-21 15:33:04 · 34 answers · asked by Nancy S 2

i don't, i have never really seen prove that it's that. but i have seen prove that it just something with the sun,, something called sun spots i think, i don't really remember the name of them.
as fact it has been hotter before.

of course CO2 has a little to do with the heat, like 5-10%

2007-12-21 12:12:33 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

"California met every criteria ... on the merits. The same criteria we have used for the last 40 years on all the other waivers," one EPA staff member told the Times. "We told him (Johnson) that. All the briefings we have given him laid out the facts."

"The Times quoted unidentified EPA staff as revealing that an internal briefing document had advised Johnson that even if he rejected California's request, the state would be likely to mount a successful legal challenge."

"The Times reported that EPA staff believed Johnson made his decision after meetings between auto industry executives and Vice President Dick Cheney, and after a Chrysler executive sent a letter to the White House arguing why neither California nor the EPA should be allowed to regulate greenhouse gases.

"It's a totally different thing. The argument that somehow because we now have a CAFE standard that means we shouldn't be regulating greenhouse gases, it just doesn't hold water, it makes no sense"

What do you think?

2007-12-21 11:53:22 · 11 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Senator Inhofe has a reputation as a mindless right wing idealogue. Even his Republican colleagues have been known to wince at his behavior. Famous Inhofe quotes:

After the Oklahoma City bombing, when asked how many workers were in the Murrah Building, “It depends on how many federal workers played hookey today.”

He claimed that the attack on the World Trade Center was caused by America's weak support of Israel:

One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States was that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them.

In the past he's been considered unbeatable in heavily Republican Oklahoma, with his massive amounts of money from the fossil fuel industry.

Now there's a viable Democratic opponent, centrist and pragmatic.

http://www.andrewforoklahoma.com/free_details.asp?id=48

Can he win?

2007-12-21 09:14:02 · 15 answers · asked by Bob 7

After all, in 2001 they claimed they had 19,000 skeptical scientists who had signed the Oregon Petition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition

Now even scouring the ranks of chemists, mathematicians, engineers, and retired architects, Inhofe can only find 400 skeptics.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

Does this mean that the skeptics have lost 98% of their numbers in just a few years?

2007-12-21 08:42:43 · 7 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Some examples:

Al Gore is a lying politician, but Inhofe is a reliable source of information.

Global warming has stalled because 1998 is the hottest year on record, even though 2001-2007 were all warmer than 1990-1997 and 1999-2000 (and every year on record before that).

Global warming has stalled because 2006 wasn't as hot as 2005.

One supposed flaw in the AGW theory means it's worthless, but numerous obvious flaws in the cosmic ray or solar warming theories are no problem.

Consensus doesn't matter. Except when we can find 400 random people on the planet who are skeptical of the theory. Then the consensus is important, and we disproved it!

30 or 50 or 100 or 150 years of data are not enough to prove anything about global warming, but 2 years of data are enough to prove that global warming has stopped.

What's with all this cherrypicking and double-standards?

2007-12-21 07:42:11 · 9 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

The Climate did not get warmer this year either, so where is the evidence?

2007-12-21 07:05:52 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

I read this report this morning, it seems that more than 400 top scientist from around the world, that Global Warming is not caused by CO2 emissions from people.

How can people so blindly follow the notion that the debate is over, and we must make everyone pay for something that is not really a problem? Does it just make you feel better, like you are doing something good?

Read this and tell me what you think before reading and after reading.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

2007-12-21 05:39:18 · 16 answers · asked by advnturer 6

2007-12-21 03:49:59 · 10 answers · asked by Abraham 1

Given overwhelming evidence such as found here.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report
outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who
participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK)

2007-12-21 03:32:47 · 16 answers · asked by Johnny U 6

2007-12-21 02:33:45 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

should guy who drive car absorb all the exhausted fumes? Becoz he cause it and also global warming.

2007-12-21 02:22:25 · 6 answers · asked by krazzzykevin 1

2007-12-21 02:13:51 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

They were exempt from the Kyoto round and want to continue to pollute at greater and greater levels for the foreseeable future. Is this an acceptable outcome for a future treaty on climate change?

2007-12-21 01:52:36 · 9 answers · asked by typre50 3

all this damage people have done is making me highly stressed!
knowing that things are damaged, and not knowing what might happen in the future is causing this!!

Please tell me if they are or not!!

2007-12-21 01:08:13 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

if greenhouse gasses arnt causing the earth to warm how do you account for the resent trends? what else would be causing warming that is greater then that caused by the earth orbit or the solar output of the sun alone? (and please say more then it is just a cycle)

2007-12-21 00:42:20 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Funny that if the winter had stayed mild the gloom and doom lot would be saying 'its all our fault for burning petrol, rainforest and daring to spray underarm aresols etc.

Now its cold, silence.


The governments must love that lot as they can positively encourage that kind of beleif so they can tax the butt off us on fuel usage etc.

What say you sados who ought to be out Christmas shoping?

2007-12-20 23:52:47 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

Chicken Little said it best.

2007-12-20 18:55:15 · 9 answers · asked by DCKilla 3

If so give me your flawed logic...

2007-12-20 10:44:46 · 24 answers · asked by mcelhinp 4