How much accuracy are there in the so-called reports on global warning?

Answer 1

None. Look at the link, and view the videos.

Answer 2

Funny you should ask that. I was thinking about a similar question. On the news the last few days, including Yahoo, there were multiple reports saying the past few decades have been the hottest in 2000 years. On my desk is an environmental science magazine proclaiming the last few decades have been the hottest of the past 400 years.

I think we'll all take for granted that the weather has been cyclical, hitting highs and lows throughout the millenia. It had to have been very hot when the dinosaurs were alive because they were cold-blooded lizards and would have relied on more than just the sun to regulate their body temps. And we know that a few thousand years ago there was an ice age, so it was very cold.

I am aware of the hazards posed by pumping CO2 and green house gasses into the air, and the way deforrestation is affecting the greenhouse effect. But taking the obvious cyclical temperatures of the earth and a constant barrage of conflicting information from environmental groups it is hard to determine fact from fiction.

So in light of that I would have to question the accuracy of the reports, but not the hazards, of global warming.

Answer 3

Unless all the climate scientists are secretly plotting to fool everyone (and have been doing so for the last 20 years), from my research (I was a science major and have read many of the papers pertaining to global warming) the threat is very real. The only scientists who question global warming at this point are being paid by the oil companies, who obviously benefit from having us all dependent on their product.

Some people who don't believe the threat of global warming is real say that warming has occurred in the past and that what we are in now is part of a natural cycle. While warming periods have happened in the past, they progress at a MUCH slower rate than what is going on right now. Natural changes (like the formation of river valleys) take place on a very long time scale. Warming one degree in 100 years (what is happening now) is, in geological time, very very fast.

Basically, it's like if you took a picture of the Grand Canyon 10,000 years ago and compared it to today. Yes, there would be significant changes, and yes, they are natural, but because they occur over such a long period of time, the surrounding land, watershed, animals and plants adjust. Nuking a big hole in the ground in one day and saying "well, the Grand Canyon is a big hole in the ground too, so it must be OK" misses the SCALE of the natural systems on Earth.

Global warming is happening, and we're causing it. If all the scientists, who dedicate their lives to studying this believe it, then I don't know why I'd take the word of some think tank or oil company over them.

Answer 4

There is no disputing the fact that global warming is occuring. Even the US government has given up and accepted this, although they are very quiet about it and prefer to talk about how they are not the cause. I read an article recently about how common it was to believe in global warming. The article was based upon a rather thorough survey that showed, astonishingly, that they could not find a single person within the relevant scientific community that didn't believe global warming was a fact. Even more interesting, 99 in 100 was certain humanity was the cause.

Answer 5

Is the earth warming? Yes. Is it our fault? We don't know. No matter what anyone says no scientist has proven that the earth is warming due to a large human influence. And in regard to an earlier post, no matter what scientists "believe" it should not be taken as hard evidence. Scientific communities have been very wrong on many important issues. So just because the scientific consensus is such and such does not make it a proven fact.

Answer 6

Lots. We're releasing, in a very short time, carbon that was sequestered millions of years ago. That's causing climate change on a massive scale. There have been climate cycles in the past, but this is out of scale and caused by humans. Besides, do you want to live through a massive die-off or ice age?
Guy from NJ, your link is to the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" which is just a front for corporations who don't seem to understand that the next growth industry is alternative energy.

Answer 7

It's scarry just how accurate. Our global temperature has risen more than 1 degree in less than 200 years. at this rate, another 100 years, and our coastal cities will be under 10 feet of water. The permafrost will not be "perma" and areas that were white and therefore reflecting the suns rays, are now bare warmed now by the sun. It is feeding on itself. Even if we stopped using fossil fuels this instant, it may be too late to save our planet as we know it today..... Scarry.

Answer 8

Are you referring to the accuracy of the degree of warming or the cause of the warming?

There appears to be a great deal of accuracy to the fact that the earth is warming.

The degree to which this is due to greenhouse gases and to what degree it because of normal cycles is not as clear. But in either case mankind should be doing what it can to minimize the portion we are causing. The problem is the biggest portion of mankind has no incentive to do this. The biggest portion of mankind is of course China, India and the third world countries.

Answer 9

A great deal of accuracy.

Answer 10

Very little. Many of the temperature readings are coming from the heavily populated areas where concrete and asphalt are more predominant and higher temperatures are recorded.

Answer 11

very much. all you have to do is look at the increase in global temperatures over the past decade (or whatever time frame you want to look at).