Why Don't They Tell Us The Truth About Global Warming?

Question

If global warming is true why doesn't doesn't Al Gore and the other global warming people stop driving cars? Why don't they ride bikes or walk if they can't practice what they preach then don't talk about global warming to me. Stop driving your fancy cars and flying in your private jets then I'll listen! Global Warming is a lie!

Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic Environmental Problems. Proponents of the theory of human-caused global warming argue that it is causing and will continue to cause all manner of environmental catastrophes, including higher ocean levels and increased hurricane activity. Reputable scientists, including those working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate warming, reject these beliefs.

Conclusion. As scientists expose the myths concerning global warming, the fears of an apocalypse should subside. So rather than legislating in haste and ignorance and repenting at leisure, our government should maintain rational policies, based on science and adaptable to future discoveries.



http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

Answer 1

I was born in the late 60's and grew up in the 70's to early 80's and I vividly recall these same "scientists" spazzing out about the "coming ice age" and how we were all gonna freeze blah blah blah.

I guess they have not grasped the concept that the climate changes, goes through cycles. Cooling and warming periods.

I guess ManBearPig has chosen this as his life's work.

Answer 2

I am really getting tired of two things in particular coming from the global warming naysayers:

1) Totally bogus pseudo science lies. You people spout all kinds of BS statistics but you clearly have no clue whether they are right, wrong, or even relevant. You all need to go back to school and study the facts. I could list at least 20 "facts" that you all quote that are complete rubbish.

Take for example your foolish claim that: "Reputable scientists, including those working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ... reject these beliefs."

Do you support that with the link to the real IPCC site? No. You support it with some bogus but official sounding site financed by the oil industry. Below I have included the link to the real IPCC site. I invite anyone to go to that site and see if they can find any reputable scientists rejecting global warming. I assure you that you will not.

2) The totally foolish argument that people that believe global warming are somehow hypocritical for using modern transportation. That is so absurd. Our civilization as it is currently constructed leave you no choice. If you want to travel 100 miles and do it in any less than a few days you are forced to use modern transportation methods whether you like it our not.

It would be hypocritical to say drive a Hummer if you are an environmentalist, but only because you have the alternative of driving a Prius. There is nothing hypocritical about flying on a commercial aircraft to visit another continent ... BECAUSE THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.

What exactly is so hard to understand about that?

Answer 3

It's all about what is financially feasible and practical. Everything is relative, and an issue like global warming is a long-term problem that is viewed from a distance. So while finding environmentally friendly alternatives are a great way to mitigate global warming effects in the future, some of these alternatives are not practical in the short-term and will have to be implemented little by little over the long haul. Getting the message out as fast as possible now will allow more time to address the situation as it approaches. Delivery of the message is overshadowed by the actual message, since the message is usually more important. Al Gore touring the country on a bike would be awesome, but not practical and feasible. So it's between Gore taking a calculated, hypocritical stance or looking like a complete idiot trying to tour the country on a bike where conservatives would just run him over in a semi truck. I think he's taking the lesser of two evils. There seems to be more proof that global warming is true than false.

Answer 4

There isn't really an argument about whether global warming is happening or not. Temperatures have climbed and are climbing further around the world, which is really what global warming means. It is also a fact that the greenhouse effect aids in the process of global warming. What politicians like to argue about is whether what we do affects the environment to the point that it changes the temperature of the Earth.

You can find a scientist or two who'll tell you differently, but there are crazed scientists out there who'll tell you anything you want to hear, if you give them enough money. The TRUTH about global warming is that industrialization has changed and will continue to change our climate, in ways that are outside the natural scope of things, and it is happening far more quickly than Mother Nature could ever manage on her own.

And it isn't very hard to figure out that changing the entire planet in ways that we cannot comprehend, when we don't have any other planet to move to, is a big mistake.

You shouldn't base your conceptions of the world about you based on what the spokesmen do. You should be able to figure out the worth of what they're saying on your own.

Answer 5

Transportation systems in their cities are bad or for Gore their is a good chance that he could be attacked by some right wing nutball. Why should Gore or why should I be forced to live a more expensive of difficult lifestyle to pay for YOUR supidity or selfishness. I am willing to live in the city, give up my car and all that jazz to help save are planet, but I won't do it just to see others destroy the world for a morally comfortable position.

As for bad science. The most haranged evidence supporting global warming, the "hockey stick graph" which every right wing pundit attacks was recently (like a couple weeks ago) "essentially upheld" (paraphrase from Nature) by the NAS (National Academy of Science),

If people here believe that scientists secretly disagree with Global warming then why don't you post a link to a credible journal paper.

Answer 6

I believe that whilst 'global warming' is a fact, it's causes are theoretical, presently. For sure, don't trust the all powerful multi-nationals and their politician underlings, to tell the truth. It's likely to be their endless post-war 'nuclear testing' that's to blame; it's certain to have drastically disturbed the earth's
geo-thermal plates and this is now being excerbated by massively dangerous fracking for shale gas. These multinational and corporate giants have no loyalty to anyone except their share-holders and chairmen. Last on their list is future generations' safety and quality of life!

Answer 7

I'm a scientist.

I know global warming is a fact (its been measured for over 100 years now). I know sea levels are rising (25 cm in the last 100 years alone). So the facts of warming are undisputed, even by the most skeptical.

I know there is controversy about the role of CO2 emissions in the effect. I also know its the most likely causative factor by process of elimination. I know science and technology has no magical answers to solve it - even the most ardent Bushite would admit this at present.

And I know people like you would rather pretend it had other causes. So I drive my car - why should I suffer inconvenience to save you. We will all go together when we go.

Answer 8

I had heard somewhere, prolly on TV that, 20 years ago we were all worried about Global Freezing, now, 20 years later we are all worried about Global Warming. You gotta stop listening to the politics of the "global warming" read up on your science, although there might not be enough conclusive evidence to prove one way or another given our short time here on earth as human beings. Those of you who are older have prolly seen the HOT summers and the harsh winters come and go just to be replaced with a streak of mild summers and and so-so winters. It's all a numbers game, the question is, whose numbers are you gonna believe?

Answer 9

Check out a good book by Michael Crichton "State of Fear". It will tell you why. It's a self perpetuating lie: almost all climate research has to support GW in order for the scientists to get funding. So they do because it is politically correct. And the ones who don't, like Bjorn Lomborg, get labeled as industry sold-outs, etc.

Answer 10

The US emits more, absolutely and per head, than any other country - although it also produces more wealth. When Kyoto was agreed, the US signed and committed to reducing its emissions by 6%. But since then it has pulled out of the agreement and its carbon dioxide emissions have increased to more than 15% above 1990 levels.
For the agreement to become a legally binding treaty, it had to be ratified by countries which together were responsible for at least 55% of the total 1990 emissions reported by the industrialised countries and emerging economies which made commitments to reduce their emissions under the protocol.
As the US accounted for 36.1% of those emissions, this 55% target was much harder to achieve without its participation.
But 141 countries banded together and the protocol came into force in February 2005.
President George W Bush said in March 2001 that the US would not ratify Kyoto because he thought it would damage the US economy and because it did not yet require developing countries to cut their emissions.
He says he backs improvements in energy efficiency through voluntary emissions reductions - rather than imposed targets - and through the development of cleaner technologies.
Most climate scientists are convinced they are right to warn us the prospect ahead is alarming unless we act soon.
They accept there are uncertainties but say human activities are having a clear effect on natural climate change, and that the Earth could warm dangerously.
Their critics say the evidence so far is not conclusive, and think the human impact is so small as to be negligible.
But recent findings suggest there are real causes for concern at the speed with which the Earth is now heating up.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is starting work on its fourth assessment report, which should ready by 2007. We've reached the point where it's only by including human activity that we can explain what's happening
Dr Geoff Jenkins, Hadley Centre.One rapidly changing phenomenon is the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas given off by human activities. Analysis of an ice core drilled from the Antarctic shows the level fluctuated over the last 500,000 years between about 200 parts per million (ppm) during ice ages to more like 270ppm in warmer inter-glacial periods. Before the start of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was around 270-280ppm. Peat bogs are rich in carbon and methane. It reached 360ppm in the 1990s and recently climbed to a high of 379ppm. The year-on-year average rise is currently 2ppm. There is concern that Greenland's ice sheet could disappear within the next 1,000 years if global warming continues at its present rate. Studies forecast an 8C increase in Greenland's temperature by 2350, and researchers believe that if the ice cap melts, global average sea level will rise by about 7m (23ft). Even if global warming were halted, they say, the rise could be irreversible. This is because it can take decades or even centuries for actions to produce effects. Another worry is whether peatlands could release vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The release, triggered by the higher atmospheric carbon levels, would be an example of what is called "positive feedback", when warming itself causes a further temperature rise. Scientists say the rate of release is accelerating at 6% a year, which they think means that by 2060 the peat could account for greater carbon emissions than the burning of fossil fuels. The permafrost of northern Europe and North America is known to contain large quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which could also be released as global warming thaws the tundra.The part clouds play is still unclear. Professor Mike Hulme, executive director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, told BBC News Online: "The evidence that feedbacks are occurring is one of the most striking recent findings. Other pieces of evidence are last year's heatwave in Europe, and the suggestion that climate change could mean a million species will be at risk of extinction by 2050. Dr Geoff Jenkins, of the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, told BBC News Online: "Over the last few decades there's been much more evidence for the human influence on climate. We've reached the point where it's only by including human activity that we can explain what's happening. The feedbacks mean that by the end of this century we'll have lost a lot of the free buffering that nature provides. As wetlands grow wetter and hotter, for instance, by 2100 they'll probably account for as much methane as human activities. Both he and Professor Hulme agree, though, that many uncertainties remain. These include the role played by clouds and solar radiation.