Global Warming

First of all, Global Warming is not global warming. I believe in global warming...that the earth is in a warming trend. That is undeniable. (Although the severity of the warming is being oversold by activists.)

But the earth warming does not begin to prove all of Global Warming alarmists' claims. According to natural science the earth is ALWAYS either warming or cooling. According to natural science (on which Global Warming supposedly bases its authority) Europe was covered in Ice in the semi-recent past. This ice melted long before any of the supposed causes of Global Warming existed. How?

Mars is also experiencing planatary warming. How? Man isn't there polluting anything.

As far as greenhouse gases go...the mere coexistence of phenomena does not indicate causality.

And central to a belief in Global Warming is a static view of the earth's environment. The natural world is not static.

I'm open to belief in Global Warming, but the evidence isn't there. Why?

2007-08-22 08:20:03 · 23 answers · asked by Aztec276 4

the ipcc based their decision (that global warming is real) off thirty years of global warming, and the warming during that period was mere tenths of a centigrade. the earth has been shown to go through periods of warming exceeding the minute amounts of tenths of a centigrade, therefore the temperature raising that little does not serve as evidence for global warming.

check out this link:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png

take note how the anamoly in 1860 was -.4, and now the anamoly is +.4. 1860 is LONG after the industrial revolution began, and long after people starting pumping CO2 in the air -- so why was the temperature DOWN in those years? it's down because the earth goes through cycles, same as now. it gets warmer, then cooler.

2007-08-22 08:03:20 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

do we need to worry about global warming or is it just a freak fake or something?

(personaly, somewhat, i believe that we do need to worry about it...)

if you have seen An Inconvinient (however u spell that) Truth by Al Gore, you can see he believes in the ice ages.. i personally dont though.. but i still strongly recommend this movie.

lil_skillz123@yahoo.com

2007-08-22 06:03:19 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Ok, well I'm 15 and I've heard a lot about global warming and climate change. I wanted to know if that's actually true or not. I watched "An Inconvinient Truth" by Al Gore in Geo, and my teacher said that all of that was true. Is the climate really going to change and be catastrophic in my lifetime? Or is it just a natural thing that we're going through and everything's gonna be alright? Also, if global warming is true then why are the presidents and prime ministers not doing anything? Are they thinking only about their economy and not what's better for the world or do they not care and think, "Oh, who cares? I'm gonna die soon and the other ppl can look after that problem." What if it's too late then?

2007-08-22 05:42:03 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

I'm working on a pamphlet about global warming to hand out at my school and i was going to use some of the facts in that book, but then someone told me that it wasn't a reliable source.

2007-08-22 05:33:17 · 21 answers · asked by ~*Jackie*~ 2

Would you do this to save the planet?

Dr. Jim Hansen (chief US climatologist) was quoted in UK magazine The Economist (like "Time" magazine in the US) as saying, 'We've got a 10-year window to save this planet".

Would you, or not, do this? (The current issue of Scientific American on the newstands right now, with a special article on the global warming, paints a very grim picture of Climate Change.)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqqW6K-sb9E

2007-08-22 05:00:30 · 14 answers · asked by Grasshopper 1

Washington DC - An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analysis, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming "bites the dust" and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be "falling apart." The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
"Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust," declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id=

2007-08-22 04:28:11 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

why doesn't everyone just drink more water?

2007-08-22 04:23:23 · 11 answers · asked by Marie 2

It was cooling, warming-what's next?

2007-08-22 03:50:08 · 8 answers · asked by No Black Box 5

I posted a response to Jello's question about peer review. I'd welcome your comments.

2007-08-22 03:42:27 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

In an effort to raise the level of discourse on these pages, I commend the following sites to your attention:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/table-of-conten.html
http://www.climateaudit.org/

The first site is written by a non-scientist, but he's clearly a smart guy and is thinking rationally about the issues. He makes some good points, although on others he's simply uninformed.

The second site is by a guy who is really looking hard at the data, trying to find flaws in methodology. He is biased: his goal is to debunk anthropogenic global warming, but he is constrained by the scientific process. He tends to a little crankiness about access to original data and algorithms, but hey, that's OK.

So I suggest you deniers read these sites, and let's have some genuinely rational discussions about real issues.

2007-08-22 03:27:19 · 4 answers · asked by cosmo 7

I have no doubt that a group of Chiropractors would review information from their peer and recommend a spinal readjustment over surgery.

I have no doubt that a paper discussing changing water into wine would pass peer review standards of Theologians.

Would ANYONE think that a dissertation that global warming was man made and real WOULDN'T pass peer review of Climatologist? I would be shocked if one was rejected!

Remember - Mann's hockey stick and Hansen's Y2K problem got by their peers. Maybe they were scared to question people of their stature. Their errors were discovered and corrected by a mining engineer.

Science shouldn't be accepted until it's independently verified. Not accepted if your buddy agrees with you. (as long as you peer review his work first.)

2007-08-22 01:56:05 · 7 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

2007-08-21 23:26:00 · 16 answers · asked by g g 2

This is a question that has been on my mind for sometime, and i am doing research on it. Opinions or websites are appreciated.

2007-08-21 22:24:49 · 10 answers · asked by kerozene333 1

We are just passing the arctic tipping point (where the arctic ocean melts down). Economic growth of 8% per annum is a doubling every decade. If Indian, Chinese and other fast growing economies double global industrial CO2 emissions in the next decade ALL the other tipping points will be passed before mid century. Is the only way forward is to plan what to do during and after the global catastrophe?

2007-08-21 21:45:04 · 15 answers · asked by John S 1

i'm a skeptic. here's why:

the IPCC and those who agree with them that global warming is real based their conclusion off of about 100 years of recorded measurements, and base the global warming argument off 30 years of temp. increases (see below for source). they have guesses about what the temperature was before then, but those guesses aren't entirely accurate -- they are simply guesses. the earth has been shown to go through cycles, usually lasting much longer than 100 years. while this argument does not negate the possibility of global warming, it does show that global warming hasn't been proved conclusively.

i would go into why so many scientists believe in if it might not be true, but i don't have enough space. message me if you'd like me to explain. basically, it's if the teacher is all for X, and doesn't state the other side of the argument, the student is inclined to agree.

source for IPCC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#IPCC_Policymakers_Summary_criticism

2007-08-21 16:30:15 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-21 16:27:15 · 0 answers · asked by bamschick 1

Gore pollutes more than the average person..in fact much more than the average joe. But you can't use that to nullify his movie. It’s like saying that Marie Curie’s work on radioactive isotopes should be invalidated because she was infected by radiation poisoning during her experiments. Now I know Al Gore shouldn’t be compared with a brilliant scientific such as Curie. But the fact remains that Al Gore displayed to us information about climate change that is generally agreed upon. So the scapegoatist who use Gore’s lifestyle as an excuse to reject the scientific research he recounts really shouldn’t do so. They’re only focusing on the trivial so they can avoid talking about the escalating evidence that shows that climate change is a reality and is a serious concern.

2007-08-21 15:47:45 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-21 14:09:58 · 13 answers · asked by petite me 3

Where average high is 82 while normal low is 67 deg. One could understand that this is just an anomaly in the local weather, but we're in the middle of a Global Warming Crisis here!

It's hotter world wide with a hurricane in the Atlantic, floods and droughts everywhere, all caused by man! Man pollutes everyday, so temps shouldn't go down.

Maybe the thermohayline conveyor belt changed? Has man just started the next ice age? Now I'm scared.....

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_233143509.html

2007-08-21 14:06:49 · 11 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

I'm not too surprised that this conspiracy has gained so much traction considering the 9/11 conspiracy popularity. Even the man made global warming is somewhat believable to the untrained eye.
Coal and oil burning is right there in your face for everyone to see and hear. What is invisible is the CO2 that is given off by every leaf on every flower, bush and tree as far as you can see when they all fall in the autumn and decompose. Not to meantion all the CO2 that comes out of the ocean every second. All of this is eclipsed by the CO2 that comes out of volcanos.
But lets forget about CO2 for a second. The SUN changes the temperature of any location by 20 degrees or more every single DAY, depending on what time of the day or night it is. It also changes the local temperature by as much as 60 degrees depending on a slight change in angle due to changing seasons. Why is is so hard to believe that a change in global temperature of as much as 4 degrees can possibly be due to Sun activity?

2007-08-21 13:53:43 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-21 11:57:21 · 11 answers · asked by josiepooh35 1

think its real or not?

2007-08-21 11:28:58 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

...reduce the population dramatically through war, genocide, or by some means of birth control that guarantees that no couple can have more than one child?

Think about it - it is not what we do that is making the CO2 worse, it is merely out exisence. Even if we ended civilization as we know it and all live in tribes like Africans, or the Native Americans of the 1600s, we still are going to burn fires every night which not only would contribute alot to CO2, but strip the world's forrests in no time.

My point is that it is not how much CO2 EACH person produces, it is the collective CO2 that all of humanity produces combined. Even if everyone on earth reduced out "carbon footprint" by 10 times, in 50 years the increased population of the world would collectively produce as much CO2 as we are now.

Is there a real, practical, long term solution other than war, genocide, or birth laws of some sort?

2007-08-21 11:18:50 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

As for me I am guilty. What small thing could I do to change things for all of us now? Is it time to admit that the world is one village?

2007-08-21 10:45:04 · 39 answers · asked by kipper 3

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aju0HCEDY..DclwiX4KsL3YAAAAA?qid=20070820163713AAbpVEZ

Notice that I gave this person three links to that "secret" report: from gbn.com, an AMERICAN newspaper and the History Channel.

2007-08-21 10:28:30 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-21 10:18:57 · 8 answers · asked by Granny in KS 3

Back in the 70s people were fretting of the world freezing and now 2007 were scared of global warming Have you people not realized all Democrats want is a stronger GOVERNMENT!! If you take it too consideration this is just like communism! people telling us what to do like buy a hybrid use one piece of bloody freaken toilet paper I mean people get a life do you think in thousands of years we are capable of destroying the earth? I think we should live life not do worthless crap with it all the democrats want is a stronger government so go ahead vote for Hilary but if you do your lives will be hell

2007-08-21 09:37:20 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

I've seen many global warming skeptics/deniers raving about this paper:

"Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System"

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Because it concludes that if the atmospheric CO2 levels double, it will only lead to a ~1°C global warming. However, as a member of RealClimate notes:

"Even if his result is correct (which it isn’t), it by no means “kills AGW theory.” It simply changes the numbers. In fact, Schwartz’s analysis implicitly assumes that the planet *is* warming, and that the primary cause is man-made greenhouse gases."

post #30 here - http://realclimate.org/index.php?p=467#comment-49237

The author of the Brookhaven paper is also pretty clearly skeptical of his own results, and notes that his model is rather simplisic.

What puzzles me is how GW deniers can say that climate models are unreliable, then claim that this climate model's results are the final nail in the coffin?!

2007-08-21 08:42:57 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-21 08:38:06 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous