Does it frighten you that so many people believe global warming is due to natural climate variation?

Question

Given that reliable scientific evidence shows that the rate of warming of the atmosphere is faster than at any previous time in earth's history; and that the evidence suggesting this is due to human activity over the last few hundred years is incredibly strong?

Given also that those "authorities" who attempt to promote the 'natural variation' explanation for global warming are subsidised and funded by corporations who see global warming as a threat to their business (oil companies being one source of funding)?

Given that, if we fail to act, or act too little, or too late, our planet is going to become an increasingly unpleasant place to live, and we don't have another?

This may interest you:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875760,00.html

Can you seriously believe that government has anything to gain by trying to 'scare' us with climate change as a way to raise further taxes?

How does that fit with the position of the USA on the matter? So far, the government there would like to deny climate change matters, because it would damage their economy.

I can't see how it can be seriously argued that the climate change agenda can be said to be good for the government. Therefore, why would they promote it? It would be easier and more lucrative for them to stick their heads in the sand, as they have done for several years. If it was good for them to promote climate change, they'd have jumped on that bandwagon to raise taxes ages ago.

The scientific evidence IS a mixed bag; but the papers seeking to disprove human involvement in climate change tend to be less reliable than could be wished.

Answer 1

Don't know about 'frightens' but it does disturb me that so many folk just see conspiracy here - just look at some of the responses you are getting to this question.

It's valuable to have a debate on global climate change but the debate needs to be well-informed and it seems to me that a scary percentage of the public is very poorly informed.

We need to carry on with a broad range of scientific research on the topic so we get a better handle on what's happening. If at the end of the day science tells us that there's not much to worry about then it will have done us a great service. If on the other hand it tells us that we should be worrying - and more to the point taking action - then it will have done us an even greater service. And the whole process will greatly help our understanding of this complex planet.

Oh, and lets make sure that the science is real science and not pseudo-science. Better science education would help so you and I can better assess what scientists tell us.

Answer 2

Since it may well be *true* that global warming is due to natural climate variation, no, it doesn't bother me at all.

Initially I was a believer, I was as adamant as you are that something must be done! That was before the IPCC produced their infamous "hockey-stick" graph. I saw that graph and was as shocked as anybody else and thrust it under sceptics’ noses and said see? SEE?

But then I sat and looked at it one day, in a less subjective mood, and common sense took over. Hang on, I thought, wasn't it warmer than it is now in Medieval times? Where's that warm period on this graph? I did a bit of reading, and what did I find? The IPCC had *deleted* the Medieval Warm Period! I was being lied to! I was being manipulated.

So, while it may be true that Exxon-funded research may give a biased set of results, those suggesting climate change is a problem are not above that sort of thing either!

You say "the evidence suggesting this is due to human activity over the last few hundred years is incredibly strong". The fact that there are plenty of scientists out there who disagree with you, suggests otherwise.

You say "our planet is going to become an increasingly unpleasant place to live". Well, it was 3°C warmer than today in Medieval times and it was still a very pleasant place to live.

You say "Can you seriously believe that government has anything to gain by trying to 'scare' us with climate change as a way to raise further taxes?" What, you mean apart from all the money they'll be able to raise? You then say "It would be easier and more lucrative for [the Government] to stick their heads in the sand, as they have done for several years". So doing nothing would be *more* lucrative for the Government than raising taxes? I think not! Next you say "If it was good for them to promote climate change, they'd have jumped on that bandwagon to raise taxes ages ago". Well obviously they have to get the people on-side first. Hence the recent Stern report.

Lastly you state "...the papers seeking to disprove human involvement in climate change tend to be less reliable than could be wished." This is as opposed to the IPCC, and their now infamous (Medieval-Warm-Period-Deleted) "hockey-stick" graph then, is it? They used a computer model to draw the graph from climate data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "red noise". Oh yes, very "reliable" then!

In conclusion, as far as I can see, the debate is far from over. It is, therefore, far too early to start throwing billions of pounds at a *possible* problem.

Answer 3

No it scares the hell out of me that Global warming is still believed!

Global warming was postulated by Southampton University in England in 1980. Some warming predictions came true but other areas of the world became much colder. This has now been shown to be a part of the planets natural hot/old balance.

Very few scientists now support global warming. Most now refer to climate change. This is because there is still exactly the same amount of rain but it is fgalling elsewhere. Causing floods and droughts.

The ice sheets that melted have been shown to have been caused by a change in the wind patterns passing warm air currents across them.

The hole in the ozone layer has been shown to have reduced and stabilised.

Clear scientific thinking and open and honest debate is needed here. Pushing global warming is likely to lead to the wrong actions being taken and that could push us into the next ice age!!!

Recycycling, alternative energy and the like is a good way to go. Greater efficiency is even better. But consider just two down sides to some of the ecowarrior chatter. CFCs were banned. Great but there was no control on what replaced them and the gas now in use is 10 times more polluting.

Biofuel from corn and sugar cane is leading to an increase in prices, afforestation to grow the crop and removing food from the market when people are dying from starvation.

Whilst failling to act may be dangerous the current trend for precipitant action is far more dangerous and will in all likelihood do far more damage to the environment far quicker and in ways that will be much harder to repair!!!!

Answer 4

No, it does not frighten me. The scientific evidence is a mixed bag at best, so the fact that some people believe it is climate variation, in and of itself, does not frighten me.

Your second paragraph does scare me somewhat, but probably not to the level of fright. It does scare me that someone can make an all-encompassing statement such as that with no basis in fact.

Global warming IS a problem, whether it be natural or caused by man. Diatribes supported by hysteria, not facts, do not help convince anyone.

Answer 5

No, it does not frighten me that so me people believe that global warming is due to natural climate change.
What scares me, is the amount of people who lack so much education they don't realize what our true problem of global climate change is, and that much of it is caused by man misuse of resources, and and lack of concern for the environment.

you can always tell that someone doesn't have a clue, when they start saying things like GW doesn't exist because:
check weather patterns for the last 100 years...
-CO2 in the atmosphere 1000's of years ago....
-prove how man has caused..................
-but it happening on mars............
-its cooler today than it was ......
that is why they started calling it global weather change rather than global warming, because to many people were expecting that it should be getting warmer everywhere.

Answer 6

Do you no longer examine? they do no longer might desire to be meteorologists. examine the survey till now you rant stupid issues to pegminor. basically 28.7% of respondents have the AMS CBM; that demands learn of meteorology yet no longer any climatology. otherwise the AMS and NWA seals of approval are based totally on featuring skills. those are speaking heads. that's why the survey refers to them as "weathercasters"; maximum are actually not meteorologists. heavily, in case you do no longer recognize the adaptation between a television climate presenter and a meteorologist you may desire to stop ranting. Even worse, in case you do no longer recognize the adaptation between a meteorologist and a climatologist or paleoclimatologist then you definately extremely might desire to stop ranting. yet previous that, in case you recognize something approximately surveys you recognize that this one is extremely poorly executed. The pattern is non-random with a drop-out fee at an unacceptable sixty 8%. they have examined basically people who've the time and prefer to fill-out a survey. you may no longer get significant consequences from that. additionally there are actually not any statistical blunders bands, which a survey like this desires. those adult men might have flunked this project have been it undergrad statistics. easily flunked. yet once you prefer to argue the element and declare that that's a real survey created by knowledgeable human beings, then great, take what they say as actuality: "even with the reliable scientific consensus between climate scientists, extraordinarily much 2-thirds (sixty one%) of television weathercasters think of there's a brilliant sort of disagreement between scientists approximately no count number if or no longer worldwide warming is going on." "previous analyze carried out by others, even with the undeniable fact that, has shown that “balanced” information insurance approximately climate replace is deceptive in that it has a tendency to offer purpose marketplace contributors the fake impact that there is a brilliant sort of disagreement between scientists approximately no count number if or no longer worldwide warming is going on." -- The writers are asserting element sparkling, the weathercasters are incorrect and sick counseled. It you prefer to take the author of this survey as specialists then you definately might desire to settle for his or her fact of robust scientific consensus (that's genuine, nonetheless you have got examine too few analyze to recognize that).

Answer 7

Global climatic fluctuations, both warming and cooling, ARE natural phenomenon. There's no disputing that. But our civilization is definitely aggravating the current natural warming phase.

Answer 8

The problem here in the UK is this.. the government, bless them think that our countries output of CO2 gasses are greater than they are. Industry produces more, but we are to be taxed because of this. China on the other hand produce as much CO2 a day as the UK does in a year. In a hundred years.... who cares!!

Answer 9

It frightens me that so many people unquestionablt believe the propoganda of the green pressure groups, politicians and other spin meisters who use it as a way to increase taxes and limit our freedoms.

Any scientists that attempts to publish an article questioning the assumption that climate change is due to man's activities is branded a heretic.

Governements and other bodies will only fund research that seeks to prove that man is responsible.

In the UK it was warmer in the middle ages, roughly 1000 years ago, than it is now. Don't recall there being that many power stations, cars, aeroplanes back then.

I would recomend you read these articles:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/12/nclim12.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=XXDAESOMNH2GHQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0

Answer 10

I agree with you.But who cares about all the things which do not generate money to so many peopls