Does science really support the theory of human-induced global warming?

Question

Many people, including Leonardo Dicaprio (in a recent Yahoo Answers question), believe that the scientific community holds no reservations in endorsing a human-induced global warming theory, which predicts an imminent catastrophic demise of most life on earth as we know it. Yet large bodies of scientists disagree:

http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/climate_change.cfm

http://dpa.aapg.org/correlator/2006/globalwarming.cfm

Also see Michael Crichton's 2004 book, State of Fear.

I am a physicist and chemical engineer by training, a nuclear engineer by work experience, and a geophysicist and seismic engineer by career. I've read many scientific publications, including this one from my fellow geologists (who ought to know the earth's historic climate better than anyone), and the evidence against human influence seems quite compelling to me.

First, the "imminent catastrophic demise" quote comes from Leonardo Dicaprio's recent global warming YA question and video.
Secondly, geologists are scientists, independent of oil companies, even when their specialty is petroleum geology. I hold strong desires for the development of alternative energies, hybrid, and fuel cell technologies.

Answer 1

Global warming is sketchy at best. Below is a link taking you to a NASA chart showing the temperature change from 1880 to 2005. Since 1880 the earth's temperature has risen less than 7/10 of 1 degree C. See for yourself here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif

There are numerous charts all over the internet showing the same. The fact that people choose to ignore the facts of these charts shows that they have an agenda to convince the masses of something that really is not happening.

In fact here's a link to a secular scientific article that shows the earth was actually warmer in the past than it is today.
http://www.msu.edu/course/isp/203/raeburn_old/fulltext/class9.pdf

And here's an article from a Harvard University study that says: "Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today."

The full article is here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886197/posts

I hope that helps...

Answer 2

Do you really consider the American Assn. of Petroleum Geologists to be a 'large body of science' ??? This is an industry lobby group that is probably the most biased group of people voicing an opinion on the topic - not exactly a group with much credibility in fields outside petroleum geology.

However, I have to agree that people who are not familiar with climate research seem to think we know enough enough about climate change to reach a definitive conclusion about the future, or people stand on political beliefs. Groups on both sides of the issue seem to do this, and the the AAGP articles you cite are a perfect example of confusing a political position with science.

When you look at primary scientific literature, most evidence supports the contention that greenhouse gasses have increased in the last century, and scant reason to believe otherwise - but even this is not definitive, and climate researchers keep finding more complexity and more questions. There is only one thing that the majority of climate scientists are certain about: we are tinkering on a global scale with climatic factors we know nothing about, and the results are unpredictable. Right or wrong, a rational person would not gamble this way with the only Earth we've got.