Global Warming...scare tactics to further aid an out-of-control eco-political agenda?

Question

There is something inherently wrong when the data used is incomplete, obsolete, and when taken out of context, is overexaggerated and misunderstood.

Any one agree?

either way, back yourself up...

I'm not here to confirm my ideas...but merely to see what information is out there, and why i may be wrong.

but i've done enough research (and still am) to come up with some of my own conclusions...i just want to know both sides of this argument.

i don't disagree with climate change...that wasn't the question.

i agree that the climate is changing, i just disagree as to global warming being the cause...

History has shown that the earth and it's climate is VERY cyclical, and all signs point to an increase in temperature (remember, the jungles of the jurassic?)
followed by a "rapid" cool down, bringing us into a long overdue ice age...

oh, and actually the data goes further back...to the late 1800s (for accurate records...actual records can be found dating to the EARLY 1800s)...

and if you look at the actual data, and not just the summaries that are taken out of context, some places have increases in avg temp (like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago) and some places have DECREASES in places such as albany and des moines, and nome alaska. and this is just in the USA....parallel data exists around the world...

you have to ask yourself how these temperatures are measured...

Thermometers in the ground. Ok. fair enough...but what do the first cities have in common with each other, but makes them different than the second group?

the first are concentrated metropolitan areas...who have seen RAPID growth in their urban centers since the 1950s...when scientists credit the beginning of the "decrease" in avg earth surface temp...

what happens when a city gets bigger and more concrete is laid down?

(cont.)

The surface temp goes up...almost exponentially with the increase in size of the city.

Meanwhile, places that have remained relatively the same since the 50s, and 70s, report little to no change, or a decrease.

so...the information is, while maybe not incorrect, definitely not used appropriately.

The point is....if you take ALL the data, you would seethat the earth is in a trend, alright.

But its a DECREASING trend.

Yes...the Earth is in Fact getting colder.

There is more ice now then ever...but that isn't reported...

only that certain large glaciers and ice caps (like Mt. kilimanjaro) are melting...

you hear THAT, even though the information can be, and, well...IS...misleading.

to be fair, all my information leads up to the late 90's...before Bush stepped into office...

and its from the actual reports done by individual scientists...not the summaries that environmental agencies agreed upon...

Answer 1

No, sorry, climate change is real. How can it not be when Mount Kilimanjaro has not snow on its peak? How can that not be when the polar icecaps are melting? How can it not occur when the waters are polluted with sewer, garbage and oil? How can it not happen with acid rain fall, now don't tell me that is a natural occurrence of the earth heating up naturally? Oh and acid snow fall. We have seen the pictures and heard the testimonies of residencies as far back as the seventies. There are greenhouse gases that damage the ozone layer. Polar bears are getting skin cancer and starving to death. Climate change is real, it is now, and we all better do something about it rather tan saying "Does it exist?" it does, now people stop it from getting worse fast!

Answer 2

A recent study by the Harvard School of Public Health has found that global pollen levels have increased in recent years. Scientists have long attributed this to global warming because of longer growing seasons.

I remember watching the discovery channel 15 years ago concerning paleo-biotic chemists. These guys drill miles into the ice in Antarctica to analyze the amount of pollen in air bubbles to determine paleoclimates.

Issues concerning the environment have been attributed to a solely liberal platform, as if conservatives and moderates do not care about the environment. While the data concerning global warming was clearly inconclusive a decade ago, there is a growing consensus, now in the majority, that we are facing a problem. Unfortunately, there are quite a few people of a more conservative nature who believe that this change in the scientific community is an attempt by liberal political ideologues to gain control of policy. This is unfortunate because there is a hidden premise and conclusion: liberals came up with this idea, liberals are wrong, therefore there is no global warming. This is not good science. Good science is the forming of a conclusion based on the evidence, submitting it to the scientific community, and coming to a consensus through discussion.

To determine whether global warming is fact or fiction, it is necessary to remove the issue from political affiliation. No one can seriously disagree with the notion that pollution has a negative effect on the environment. Should it not be a societal goal to curb those effects?

There are an alarming number of studies and conclusions conducted by the elite scientists of the world from such places as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and MIT. The standard of excellence and the advances that have been made at these institutions speak for themselves. We can not dismiss it all as politics. No one should make a political conclusion based on a scientific study.

Answer 3

I've answered this question before, so I'll be really brief here--especially since you're just looking for different points of view.

Yes, scientists (I am one) agree that global warming is taking place, and that (you're right) it probably is part of a natural climatic cycle. BUT, and this is the thing, we're not sure to what extent human activity may be modulating the natural cycle into one that is leading to excessive warming rates. That is, we should be warming up, but we may be warming up faster than we should.

The consequences of a much faster warming RATE are difficult to model when we need to know the "normal" rate for purposes of comparison. The smart move, most scientists will agree, is to continue research efforts (of course!), but in the meantime, assume the results tend toward the worst-case scenario and act accordingly. This is only being safe. Bear in mind, we're trying to play "catch up" here...we didn't do any preliminary experiments or modeling first, THEN start the industrial revolution. No, we just took off and are now (150 years later) trying to figure out what we may have done.

It's frustrating, I know. All politics aside, I still think we should've signed on with the Kyoto Accords.

Answer 4

The one piece of information that nobody disputes is that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now growing at a rate, and has reached a level, that is way out of line will all natural variations in the last 400,000 years, as measured by ice cores. And there is pretty universal agreement that the cause is the burning of large amounts of coal, oil and natural gas.

Answer 5

Do you believe in nature, science or your own political ideology?

While global warming issue is such a hot topic nowdays, lets not forget about 'GLOBAL DIMMING' as well ( do your reasearch further). It is also caused by global warming. It is interrelated and cause- and- effect of mother nature! Thats why some places are experiencing low tempreture! Why Houston is considered the most polluted city in the USA? Go and see yourself. Do I agree with you.....please read!

In addition, the global warming is quite alarming that if we humans are not doing anything about it and tend to overlook what scientists around the world have suggested (not in 5 years.. maybe in 50-100 years time), you wont realize how dangerous it is. The emissions of gas from the industralization jeopardize the future of later generation/grandchildren and the environment.

The data used never incomplete but the attitude of developing countries and the Administration especially in rewriting/editing the fundamental facts about global warming. I suggest you read the independent/various studies carried by the scientists in Europe or the Artic, not relying on mainstream media especially those who protect the ruling party's cronies and their automotive/oil industries!

The US admits, absolutely and per head, than any other country - although it also produces more wealth. When Kyoto was agreed, the US actuallysigned 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. See!

He says he acknowledges/backs improvements in energy efficiency through voluntary emissions reductions - rather than imposed targets - and through the development of cleaner technologies. Is he serious? He;; no!

However, as a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to say them anyway.

Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But this imminent scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science. But he didn't hold back speaking to Pelley, telling 60 Minutes what he knows.

Asked if he believes the administration is censoring what he can say to the public, Hansen says: "Or they're censoring whether or not I can say it. I mean, I say what I believe if I'm allowed to say it." What James Hansen believes is that global warming is accelerating. He points to the melting arctic and to Antarctica, where new data show massive losses of ice to the sea.

Is it fair to say at this point that humans control the climate? Is that possible? "There's no doubt about that, says Hansen. "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."

Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen says his research shows that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message.

"In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," says Hansen. Restrictions like this e-mail Hansen's institute received from NASA in 2004. "… there is a new review process … ," the e-mail read. "The White House (is) now reviewing all climate related press releases," it continued.

Why the scrutiny of Hansen's work? Well, his Goddard Institute for Space Studies is the source of respected but sobering research on warming. It recently announced 2005 was the warmest year on record. Hansen started at NASA more than 30 years ago, spending nearly all that time studying the earth. How important is his work? 60 Minutes asked someone at the top, Ralph Cicerone, president of the nation’s leading institute of science, the National Academy of Sciences.

"I can't think of anybody who I would say is better than Hansen. You might argue that there's two or three others as good, but nobody better," says Cicerone. And Cicerone, who’s an atmospheric chemist, said the same thing every leading scientist told 60 Minutes.

"Climate change is really happening," says Cicerone. Asked what is causing the changes, Cicernone says it's greenhouse gases: "Carbon dioxide and methane, and chlorofluorocarbons and a couple of others, which are all — the increases in their concentrations in the air are due to human activities. It's that simple."

But if it is that simple, why do some climate science reports look like they have been heavily edited at the White House? With science labeled "not sufficiently reliable." It’s a tone of scientific uncertainty the president set in his first months in office after he pulled out of a global treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"We do not KNOW how much our climate could, or will change in the future," President Bush said in 2001, speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House. "We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it."

DUH! See and think with your eyes/head not your knee!

Answer 6

It's all the cars. DUH! You ever see those morning traffic copter shots, bumper to bumper biomass sitting on its *** in car after car, pumping exhaust gases into the air? Day in, day out. All across the planet. I don't think you need a science degree to know when it's time to clean the goldfish bowl. Hopefully before the goldfish dies. But here we are arguing whether or not the goldfish looks a little green around the gills. We'll probably end up totally poisoning the air long before the runaway greenhouse effect kicks in and our oceans start to boil.

Answer 7

The evidence proves over and overwhelmingly that global warming is a HOAX!! The evidence proves it yet there are to many uninformed and ignorant american suckers that they are able to get away with this scandal

Answer 8

Where did you get the data that shows we have more ice than ever before?

White house leaks!.

Global warming is real. It is not based on white house data. Based on Real unmanipulated data

Answer 9

go to Northern China ,or Central Africa ,or Mexico .
or India
very easy to have a opinion from an airconditioned apartment in some city.
tell all the dead people that the research is biased.

in North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss and desertification


in recent times thousands of people have died because of exessive heat,usually old people.in India ,Mexico and France,
deforestation causing desertification,the desert conditions causing very cold nights and scorching hot days

in china, thousands of what used to be farmers are running for their lives from the dust storms that have burried their towns and turned their lands into dessert,the globe where they were got to hot for them .
and instead of producing food they are now needing it from some where else,and they will drastically effect the world food prices when they start buying water in the form of grains ,at any cost destabalising governments, in some countries ,could be the result
(are you seeing more Chinese around interested in agricultural lands ,we do here in Mexico)

this was man made global warming because of over grazing and fertilizers, and they are not the only ones
collectively this planet is drying up ,the Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year
and all of the desserts we know are a results of mans actions ,and they are increasing ,not getting less ,in the dinosaurs days ,there were no desserts.

so as far as the food production is concerned Global warming or some of its effects are serious,rising seas result in landloss

each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss

more landloss because of desertification every year,we have less areble land to produce food ,for an extra 70 million people ,

and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate this production ,
and there are less and less farmers to do it..
who are overpumping deep carbon aquifiers
who are plowing more and more unstable lands because they have lost so many million hectares to desertification ,
because of bad farming practises ,such as using fertilizers and heavy machinary or over grazing

RISING SEAS
The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.
this does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,are another matter.

Global warming is in theory reversable,but it will mean global co operation between all countries ,and taking into account human nature and the world politics ,it is unlikely that this will happen,

At least not untill we are all in the middle of planetary disastres and it becomes a battle for the survival of humanity every where.

SOLUTIONS
if you want to help the planet ,plant a tree every week ,if everyone on the planet did we we would be able to reverse the destructive processes

reduce carbon emisions,and they are already working on that by alternative forms of energy and regulations on carbon producing materials,aerosol cans,burning rubbish,industrial chimneys,powerplants etc.

the capture of carbon and the production of water and assist the aquiferous manta.

the world bank pays large subsidies for reforrestation to capture carbon and the best tree for this is the Pawlonia

Waterharvesting projects ,such as millions of small dams.to redirect over ground waterflows from the rains into the ground to supply subteranian water supplies.

the protection of existing forrests.

stop building more highways,urban planning to include vegetation stop building cities encourage people to return to the land to conduct their business from there which now has become possible thanks to the internet.

education to motivate people to auto sufficiency by building more home food gardens.

education on environmental awareness
education on family planning to curb over´populaion

Agricultural education and improvements to follow the principals or sustainability and soil management.

more environmental or land ,design to prevent bush fires,such as--fire breaks

,more dams.regulations and control for public behaviour

alternative effeciant public transport to discourage the use of the internal conbustion engine

recicling wastes,limit water use

i am a Permaculture Consultant for the department of Ecology for the regional government in Guerrero Mexico
http://spaces.msn.com/byderule

Answer 10

,
No you not correct, they don't spend millions on research thing they spen millions on research,its happing and they said other day up 10 times faster than at first thought.