If mankind is causing the alledged "Global Warming" and we know this has happened before?

Question

Then how do we know that this time around we are to blame??? If the earth has gone through several warming / cooling cycles, all of which predate mankind or at least industrialized man...why do you tree huggers blame US??? The science is terrible but even if I grant you that we are in some sort of warming trend...what caused the last four or five of them??? And how do you KNOW that this one is caused by man??? Wake up Dopey! You are being suckered in to believeing in Earth Religion!

Answer 1

CO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years. Methane is 130% greater. These are two of the main pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in excess, and they are two of the primary greenhouse gases.

Look at the 'hockeystick', which shows a dramatic warming since 1950 after a fairly stable climate for 1000 years. In fact, the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1990, with 2005 being the hottest.
(see links below)

How's that for proof of man's fault in this? There is ample proof, any real scientist will tell you that.

There has NEVER been an article doubting man's influence on global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal. A recent study of almost 1000 proved that.

Yes, the earth naturally heats and cools, but the rate and amount we are warming now is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. We are doing this, and we must stop it. This is not some political statement or rhetoric. This is science trying to educate a crass, ignorant public of the damage they are doing. The magnitude of temperature increase ALREADY is about 10x that of the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, and rate and amount are only going up.

Just to be clear, glacial and interglacial cycles are mainly controlled by astronomical fluctuations, but we have a detailed record of the last 7 cycles, and what the climate and CO2 is doing now is way different and extreme. The rate of increase is much higher than in the past AND the value itself is much higher.

HI CO2:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm
HOCKEY STICK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109188.stm
General climate stuff:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897061.stm

Answer 2

I completely agree with you. I believe that all of this climate change is natural. There was been instances where in the bronze age mass settlements where made on Dartmoor in England. Archaeological evidence has shown that there hasn't been anymore mass settlements built on this area before or since.

This proves that some parts of the world warm up more than others and this time it is just on a much larger scale. If you speak to some scientists then they would agree with you.

I am not saying that we should disregard the amount of carbon dioxide into the air as this can have other effects on our health and the health of the environment around us but don't believe it is too blame for global warming.

Also there was no dramatic increase in temperature when the industrial revolution had been going for 30 years and that pumped a hell of a lot more carbon into the air.

This I believe is more than enough proof that climate change is natural and that we take things too harshly on ourselves as a race.

PS. Why don't we kill all the cows as they are the main contributor to the methane in our atmosphere!

Answer 3

The data shows that the current warming is on a scale much larger than anything that has happened before. So for those who want to believe in the theory that this is strictly cyclical the burden is on you to explain why this particular cycle is so much warmer if not due to man's impact.
And what harm comes from trying to reduce emissions? ExxonMobil makes less money? Any losses in revenue or jobs in the petrochemical industry would be more than offset by gains in alternative fuel companies. Working to reduce emissions and finding out later we were wrong about the cause of global warming sounds a lot better to me than doing nothing and finding out after New York City is under water that we were right.

Answer 4

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm

Graph of Historical Trend of Warming Temperatures
Carbon Dioxide Increasing in Atmosphere
Methane Also Increasing
More Frequent Extreme Weather
Disappearing Glaciers
Melting Arctic Sea Ice
Melting Antarctic Sea Ice
Greenland's Ice Sheet Melting
Tropical Diseases Spreading
Oceans Warming With Coral Bleaching & Disintegration

Answer 5

CO2 is barely a measurable reason if the IPCC's version of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with huge water vapor comments amplification is particularly the way that climate purposes, there is even nonetheless no information of that hypothesis. Idso's climate sensitivity function is in simple terms as in all probability to be actual, which might make doubling of atmospheric CO2 tiers reason a pair of 0.2 C strengthen in international temperatures. EDIT: hundreds of climatologists eh, specific i'm specific climatology one 0 one became the nice and cozy direction to take ten years in the past, a daft fact. EDIT: JS A a hundred,000 isn't something, i could have confidence Exxon any day on any project over the U.N., your straw guy physique of techniques is quite telling of your character.

Answer 6

I found this article interesting, man "created" the myth of global warming for sure, but only the myth.

Media Shows Irrational Hysteria on Global Warming

"The Public Has Been Vastly Misinformed," NCPA's Deming Tells Senate Committee

12/6/2006 5:57:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Sean Tuffnell of the National Center for Policy Analysis, 972-308-6481 or [e-mail]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma and an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), testified this morning at a special hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The hearing examined climate change and the media. Bellow are excerpts from his prepared remarks.

"In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.

"I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. ... The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."

"In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph. "Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.

"There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed."

---

The NCPA is an internationally known nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute with offices in Dallas and Washington, D. C. that advocates private solutions to public policy problems. NCPA depends on the contributions of individuals, corporations and foundations that share our mission. The NCPA accepts no government grants.

Answer 7

just look up the statistics. the increase in the rate of warming, not just the average temperatures, are higher than at any time in the last 100,000 years. even the ice ages and melts didn't have temps changing this fast.
species that adapted over millions of years, or several hundred thousands of years, are in danger because they can't adjust to the rapid change.
all of this is new and never experienced before in mankind's recorded history.

Answer 8

I quite agree that man's actions cause very little difference to the global warming phase and it's unlikely that any action on our part will affect it.However our pollution of the Earth's oceans and atmosphere is disgraceful and mostly unnecessary so it wouldn't hurt to clean up our act somewhat.

Answer 9

correct. mankind pollutes/interferes enough to ruin local and even regional ecologies, but does not even come close to producing enough airborne gases/particulates to significantly alter, much less cause the millennial warm/cool geocycle.

Answer 10

join the fight to prevent it, join Green peace and don't let your anger be in vain, and if something bad happens at least you know you were doing the right thing.