What really makes Global Warming a valet truth?

Question

Janurary 25 (news) - Alaska city (Junnau) being over rough by snow.

Answer 1

To "Jim Z" who is bothered by psudo-scientists: Al gore is only reporting what the scientists have been tryiing to tell us for years.

“CapNemo” likes to go to all the global warming questions and paste in a statement pooh-poohing the threat.

Often, he says it’s only increased by 1 degree (F) in 125 years. This is a misleading number, because it is a global average: land and sea. We don’t live in the middle of the ocean and that’s not where the polar ice caps are melting. The temperature change over land surfaces has been twice that, and most of it in the last 40 years.

The truth is that those 2 degrees are HUGE in the scale of average weather change. But the real problem is the speed of change and that it's accelerating. Scientists are predicting a temp 4 to 8 degree (F) increase over the next 75 years. “This may not sound like a great deal, but just a fraction of a degree can have huge implications on the climate, with very noticeable consequences." (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/U/ukweather2080/5_predicting.html ). Yes, scientists predict, that's their job. They've gone to school years more than we have and spent their lives studying this stuff. This representrs humanity’s BEST GUESS at where this is all going. Of course, you can believe it snows in hell, or any other stupid thing you want. No one can stop you from believing what you'd rather hear, than what is the most probable outcome.

From a book published by Harvard University Press: "In 2001 a panel representing virtually all the world's governments and climate scientists announced that they had reached a consensus: the world was warming at a rate without precedent during at least the last ten millennia, and that warming was caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases from human activity." (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/WEADIS.html )

NASA says, "the general consensus among scientists is that global warming is real and its overall effects are detrimental" (http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/Global_Warming.pdf , page 6 )

In fact, it is so detremental that the Attorney General of California has filed suit against the 6 auto manufacturers and 5 utilities here in CA. (http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/cms06/06-082_0a.pdf?PHPSESSID=bcafe4e63eecea93153f25e6fe5bc9ba , http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=709&year=2004&month=7&PHPSESSID=5fa0700eb86a845983a94e26ab86a46e ) for ignoring the IPCC statements, stating in the lawsuit, "Defendants knew or should have known, and know or should know, that their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and to the resulting injuries and threatened injuries to California, its citizens and residents, environment, and economy."

"CapNemo" is touting “A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism” compiled by United States Senator James Inhofe, as a reason to ignore the global warming threat. "The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe There really is very little controversy in the scientific community on this issue. There's a small handful of vocal people, many of whom have strong ties to the oil industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics ) who are keeping the debate alive.

Here's a documentary showing "how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences”. (The Denial Machine: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html )

About the bogus volcano issue, "Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!” http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

Average Northern Hemisphere Temperatures for last 1000 years:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/0_CO2ScienceB2C/images/subject/other/figures/mannetal_nh1000.jpg

=====================
EDIT: "CapNemo" is so dishonest. He misquoted the wikipedia entry (moving a quotation mark, so as to give the impression that the Senator's words were wikipedia's words. The whole paragraph reads, "In a July 28, 2003 Senate speech, he "offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists." He cited as support for this the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal and the Oregon Petition (1999), as well the opinions of numerous individual scientists that he named (although most climate scientists, as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), now believe that climate change is an existing phenomenon)" -- Please note WIKIPEDIA'S conclusion at the end that it is NOT a hoax!

Nope, I don't think I know everything. But I did support myself in college as an undergraduate by grading physics exams and I do have a lot of respect for the scientists that have spent years studying this and very little respect for those who have sold out to oil money. I'm not sure what your motive is, but mine is that I have 2 kids that I'm going to leave behind after I'm gone and I want them to be able to enjoy life.

Yes, "capnemo". As you as you continue to present lies and half truths, I will continue to follow you with the facts. Get used to it, buddy.

But don't feel singled out. Wherever I discover the lack, I'm doing my best to hold people to a standard of intelligence, honesty and substantiation.

Answer 2

It's not a valid truth. Read this if you don't read anything else... http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6345050%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdfh.

It's from the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and it'll answer any questions you have about what "they" are not telling you.

Edit:
I see ftm is following me around again. He just loves to chase me around telling everyone what I'm doing. I don't know why, but he does the same thing every day. His temperature data is from the northern hemisphere. This is GLOBAL warming not northern hemisphere warming and I'm not pooh poohing anything, I'm just showing where you can go to get the some facts in this matter and allowing readers to make up their own minds if it's true or not. Just go to the sites I mentioned and it will answer all the global warming questions you have. Yes, even ftm will learn something. He thinks he knows everything already, but I'll bet even he could learn a thing or two.

Here's an excerpt from ftm's wipikpedia site talking about Senator Inhofe: "In a July 28, 2003 Senate speech, he offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists." So the very site he uses to discredit my source discredits him.

Edit: ftm talks about taking in the money, if you want to see who's getting the money by keeping global warming an issue... Here's who's getting big money:

The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.

Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6 million annual budget.

In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)
They want all the skeptics of global warming silenced and they'll go to any length... I wonder why? Source: http://epw.senate.gov:80/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528&IsTextOnly=True

You can fool some of the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but you'll never fool all the people all the time.

Answer 3

Here's some hard data for you from the NCDC in the form of the average of all the reported temperatures in the entire United States.
"Annual 1901 - 2000 Average = 52.79 degF
Annual 1895 - 2006 Trend = 0.11 degF / Decade"
The linear trend crosses this average in 1949, so the trend equation may be written as
T = 52.79°F + (0.011°/yr)(t - 1949)

The only similar attempt at recording CO2 levels Is from Mauna Loa observatory:

Mauna Loa, Hawaii, U.S.A.
Barren lava field of an active volcano
19°32' N, 155°35' W, 3397 m above MSL

Trends
The Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 measurements constitute the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations available in the world. The Mauna Loa site is considered one of the most favorable locations for measuring undisturbed air because possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal and any influences from volcanic vents may be excluded from the records. The methods and equipment used to obtain these measurements have remained essentially unchanged during the 47-year monitoring program.
Because of the favorable site location, continuous monitoring, and careful selection and scrutiny of the data, the Mauna Loa record is considered to be a precise record and a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere. The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004. The 1997-1998 increase in the annual growth rate of 2.87 ppmv represets the largest single yearly jump since the Mauna Loa record began in 1958. This represents an average annual increase of 1.4 ppmv per year. This is smaller than the average annual increase at the other stations because of the longer record and inclusion of earlier (smaller) annual increases.

Answer 4

Al Gores movie is a pile of inconvenient $#!T!. Water vapor is the primary green house gases but Gore inconveniently cannot blame that on humans so he focuses on CO2. He is a POLITICIAN, not a scientist. Jeese Louise, these psuedoscientists are going to drive me nuts one day.

Answer 5

view Al Gores movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" and it might clear up some issues. There is much scientific datat there that is surely hard to argue against.

Hopefully the earth can compensate and cause thicker cloud cover or do something to reverse the warming or we are all in for a rough time....

Answer 6

The short version of the above. Lots of scientific data, and the opinion of 99+% of all climate scientists who are well aware of the arguments of the skeptics above, and think the skeptics are dead wrong, and are using bad data and making bad conclusions.

Answer 7

Too many people driving around parking others' cars?

Answer 8

Al Gore says so.