90% chance humans are causing global warming, do you accept this?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change;_ylt=Alty1gb56DEvxWTleo0SfgPMWM0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-

These are scientists who have forgotten more about global warming then I will ever know. They say there is a 90% chance that humans are causing global warming.

What do you think about this report? Do you accept this scientific standpoint? Do you think that since it isn't 100%, we should wait for more research? Do you reject their findings?

Answer 1

As someone who has been educated in the scientific community and who understands scientific method and the peer review process, it is amusing (although disheartening) to read some of these comments here.

Although I'm not a Christian, I agree completely with what Ben Witherington III, a prominent evangelical Biblical scholar, had to say about it last week:

"The Smoking Gun--1600 Page Global Warming Report Out Soon

1600 pages is a big report. Trouble is, it is only the first of four parts, the result of an enormous and some have said definitive report demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that there is human causation of several sorts when it comes to global warming. The first part will be out in early February. America's top climate scientist, Jerry Mahlman joined with Canada's leading climate scientist, Andrew Weaver in saying the evidence is now compelling and beyond dispute. In fact he says of the report: 'This isn't a smoking gun,climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missles.' You can read the AP story here at the following link---
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16760730/.

I will not belabor the point since we have been talking about it already this week. I will simply say this report is written by 600 scientists reviewed by 600 others from 154 countries. That is what we call definitive and compelling. And one important thing about scientists. They tend to be very cautious as a group. They use words like maybe, possibly, or probably. They hardly ever say something is definitive, or beyond argument. This is what makes this peer reviewed detailed report so remarkable.

... perhaps we had better pay attention and see what a proper Christian response should be to this crisis, especially for the sake of being a good witness."

This isn't to say that Ben is a climate scientist or is qualified to review the science in the report. But he understands peer review and lives and breathes academia. He does know scientists and he does know (as I do) enough to listen up when they say things this strongly.

Yes, indeed. Perhaps we'd better be paying attention.

Answer 2

While a warming trend is undeniable, it is not possible to say with certainty whether it is due to man-made effects, natural causes, or a combination of both. We simply do not understand the planet's climate well enough to say what causes it to warm or cool. All we can do right now is make the measurements and observe what has already happened, and speculate on (not predict) what the future will be like. The most difficult thing for most people to accept is that sometimes we just don't know. Unfortunately, that is the reality right now, with respect to the causes of global warming. We can speculate, and we can create models that might or might not be accurate, but we cannot be sure of anything. Human beings are often too proud to admit when they don't know the answers, and that includes not only the average man on the street, but also scientists, even though they should know better. It really doesn't matter how many commissions are convened, or how many speculative programs are run through computers, or how many celebrities speak out, or how many scientists say whatever the grants they receive want them to say. The only certain is uncertainty. Throughout history, human beings have asserted (sometimes at gunpoint) that they've known it all, that they've understood everything, that their conclusions were perfectly accurate and incontrovertible, only to be proved egregiously wrong again and again. Perhaps the species will never learn. Fortunately, human beings regularly and dramatically overestimate their own influence on the planet. The planet hardly notices human presence, and it will be what it will be, with or without human help. Ironically, your own essay betrays more intolerance than tolerance. You've made up your mind, and then you wonder why others cannot be "open-minded enough" to not simply agree with you. It's a good illustration of the concepts I've discussed above.

Answer 3

I was so saddened to read this question and all the answers to this question denying that global warming is caused by humans, until I with great relief reached ftm_poolshark's and my2boys answeres.

I also understand the process of science and peer reviews like ftm_poolshark's, and like my2boys I think it is common sense to think about how different our planet is compared to 150 years ago, and how much we are abusing it.

Well, I can't say it better than ftm_poolshark's and my2boys.

I would just like to add that American scientists have been bullied into omitting words like "global warming" from previous scientific reports, and at the moment the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is offering money to anyone who can dispute the findings of the report on global warming.
It is hardly a big surprise that AEI is funded by the big oil company ExxonMobil, who has everything to loose from these findings - and has close ties to the Bush administration. USA haven't even signed the Kyoto Agreement! If you don't believe that humans are linked to global warming, it is because your government doesn't want you to think it is.
What a catastrophe it would be for the big oil companies who run the American government, if the American people start to demand that laws are put into place to save energy! Or worse: people and companies start using less energy.....

Answer 4

Actually the only way I see humans involved in this is by them cutting down half the trees in the rain forest. Maybe they should plant seeds to grow back that which man has destroyed. The absorbtion of greenhouse gasses and carbon monoxide are done by trees. These people have so insisted on that lumber for building and paper products that the industry has gone crazy.

Much of the issues also rest beneath our oceans. The global warming is not just from emissions in the atmosphere, but also is caused by the rifts and underwater volcanic emission of gases from beneath the surface as well. However, it never makes the news because no one wants to understand how it works. However, on CSPAN they had the members of the National Oceanic society there who are now underfunded for their studies; but from what these people say, much of our problem lays beneath the surface and not in the atmosphere only. There isn't enough greenhouse gases to warm the oceans as significantly as the temperatures are rising for the past year. But scientist who want to ignore those possibilities do, because they are funded with millions of dollars more then for the complete study of what's going on beneath the surface of the water.

So, unless people are really paying attention to what's been going on with earthquake activity and volcanic activity from beneath the ocean, they will only think to listen to these scientists saying it's all above ground. Nothing can be further from the truth. If you get a moment, go into USGS and look at the earthquake activity that no one ever hears about because it's beneath the oceans and does not do surface damage to homes or take lives. Much of this activity is beneath the water. Every time the ocean floor spreads out, gasses are leaked into the water, more small volcanos are forming and the more it's heating the water. Also, heat rises and since people are also saying that the level of the oceans has dropped 4", where do they think that water is going? If the earth (ocean floor) spreads out, they're certain tons of water also sink into those openings, and the rest of the heat emmission from within, is heating the water. You be very surprised when you start searching their site. You can annimate the world map and watch the lights blinking as each quake hits, or hone in on them individually. There are about, on the average 145 per day...some strong, some not as strong, but still significant. The Alaska shoreline, where there's a string of volcano's has several hundred per month. They also keep experiencing low intensity volcanic activity since Augistine blew her stack last winter.

Answer 5

I'll wait until I have actually seen the text. What we are seeing in that article is rumors about what is in the report. I have actually heard that there is a line in the report that says the "90% chance" is an opinion of certain key UN bureaucrats (not scientists) and that it goes on to say something to the effect that this is the bureaucrats' opinion and they won't be influenced by discussion from scientists. If that's true, it is VERY telling about the agenda of the report. So as I said, I'm waiting to see what the report REALLY says.

Answer 6

First, you should always be skeptical of any "scientific" report created with significant input of bureaucrats. That should be a red flag that there is a significant probability the conclusions of such a group would be more politically driven than scientifically driven.

And, you should suspect, quite rightly, that the only scientists invited were those who believe the global warming theories. So, of course, those "dozens" of scientists would come to the same conclusions.

However, there are also dozens of respected scientists in the same field who disagree with the global warming theories, who were NOT invited to the meeting. Why no debate? Why not hear all the sides?

I don't reject these scientists findings, but I do also consider the claims of scientists who completely disagree with them.

Let's say I'm more in support of open debate and scientific inquiry than getting steamrolled by a highly biased bureaucracy.

Answer 7

I think 90% is a conservative guess. It probably IS more like 100%. There is NO dispute among the scientific community about who's causing GW and how. The only doubts are political ones and they get shot down as fast as they're brought up with FACTS. They can buy a few scientists to make compromised reports that include doubt, but the credible scientific community has conclusive proof whether it sits well with some politicians or not.
******************************************
Update for the skeptics who I'm sure know much more than all the scholars of the international scientific community:
February 2, International scientific community unanimously agrees that there is no doubt we're causing global warming. Read the entire report (five pages):
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2845499

Answer 8

Global Warming is a Theory, just like Evolution. Neither have ever been proved, and neither will ever be proved. I really don't think that Global Warming is really as big of an issue as Al Gore and his Hollywood buddies are making it out to be. There has been proof that the hole in the Ozone layer is naturally occuring and that it is part of a naturally occuring cycle but nobody talks about that. It goes through cylcles of getting holes and repairing itself. Really the whole global warming thing is just much ado about nothing.

Answer 9

My thoughts on Global warming (GW) vary. I don't like to hear people (including my husband) say it is totally not true and I don't like to hear people say it is doomsday! Here is my arguement from both sides.

The board has only been active since the 1960's, a mere flee compared to the age of our planet. How far back does our worldwide climatic records go? Can't be too far as Ben Franklin actually discovered amd mapped the Gulf stream starting meteorology as we know it today. So two to three hundred years, again a mere flee in the history of Earth.

We are still actually coming out of an ice age. How fast we should be coming out of it is the scientists tough job. And putting a percentage on how much man influences this is relative.

Now, for pro GW, it is hard to imagine how many people there are in the world. Every single person requires heat, food, energy and that means the burning of fuel wether it be wood, coal, oil...Now add in the extravagant recreational aspect of modern humans being automobiles, planes, electricity...This is a phenominal amount of energy as heat being released into our atmosphere. How can this not effect our environment? It most definately impacts our world! How? That is for the scientist to try to predict. A huge undertaking with the aspects of human error, skeptism, individual perceptions, and the inability to predict the future. Saying GW is happening and that man is 90% responsible can be disputed but why? Okay, maybe some facts are disputable but we have to look at our world and amount of people influencing it. It is happening and it has been in the past 100 years that life has excelled in number and ease at an incredible rate. We are 'civilized'. No more hunters and gatherers, horse and buggy, living off the land. The industrial revolution has made life easy while increasing our birth and survival rates and decreasing our death rates. We consume, consume, consume!!! For every action there is a reaction meaning that for every ounce of fuel burnt there is an emission. It's form has changed to something else. This happens with everything and as a new person is born more and more carbon is utilized, or changed into something else.

Back to the flee theory. Our Nanna just passed away at the age of 99 years and 1 week. In her lifetime she went from walking and using horses as transportaion to automobiles and jet planes. WOW! She had seen so much change in only 100 years! Such a small and (may I dare say), insignificant time in the Earth's life.


Look at satellite images of our world on google. How much more space is left that is untouched, uninhabited? Not much! We have pretty much consumed the world! We are busting at the seams. How much more can the Earth take? It has its way of regulating itself and that is what scientists are trying to predict. How is our planet reacting to our actions?

It is something no one wants to hear. GW is happening b/c of our actions. Wether we are 10%, 90%, or 100% responsible for GW is irrelevent. Instead we are 100% responsible for our Earth and the actions that affect it! It is a play on words.

I lean toward GW happening at an ACCELERATED rate b/c of our actions BASED upon COMMON SENSE! How fast and what will happen to our world is for the scientist to try to predict! Good luck!

It is freightening just to think of what each one of us will have to change in our comfortable lifestyles! I don't want to hear it but it is better then to hear we overheated, changed, and destroyed our planet. Maybe I won't see it but my boys may or their boys.

Answer 10

I think at this very moment I am listening to some scientists who don't agree with that statement...there can be no "consensus" in science because science "IS", if you find a scientist who disagrees that E=MC squared, then you've found a moron, not a scientist..if there is any question at all about the conclusion, it's a "theory" that can have no consensus BY DEFINITION....