Global Warming-our fault-show me some evidence?

Question

Thousands of scientists have stated that global warming was "more than likely" caused by man.
I accept that the climate may be changing,but the climate is always changing,it has done since the world was formed.
Surely if global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels then these scientists can come up with some EVIDENCE.not guesses or thoughts.

Answer 1

I get so weary of reading all the BS written by GW skeptics. Let's see. On one side we have an overwhelmingly huge majority of world scientists agreeing that GW is real and caused by man with a greater than 90% certainty. On the other side we have a handful of scientists, most of them with conflict of interest due to receiving oil company funding.

The question is huge. If what the IPCC report s claims is true, it literally means the end of the world AS WE KNOW IT. And we can do something to ameliorate the effects. But, no, people here would rather sit on their duffs and spout denial. You would think that for a question as huge as that it would be worth doing a little reading of the report, right?

You want evidence? Here's your evidence - read the last report. It was convincing enough. Oh, what's that you say? You don't understand it? Well then keep your friggin mouth shut and let the people that do understand the science figure it out for you.

The new IPCC report is out and soon you'll be able to read that too. Will anyone here do that? I doubt it. It's so much easier to just say I don't believe it. If you haven't read the report and you don't understand what went into the making of that report, how can you possibly think you're qualified to open your mouth about it?

Answer 2

Evidence falls into different categories, and predicitve evidence is by far the most difficult.

Look at it this way........

There is a serial killer on the loose, but you don't know who he is.

It is still possible to predict certain things, such as the chosen method of killing, the geographic location of previous kills, a slow collection of circumstantial evidence which enables a possible profile of the killer, the sexual preferences of the killer, whether they were motivated by sexual urges, revenge, mental illness etc etc.

Nevertheless, you do not know who he is, where he is, or what he is called........but you are fairly certain that he exists.

All the scientists are saying, is that the evidence is building, and using various methods, they have released their findings and their predictions. That is their job, and it is why they have to be taken seriously.

Now contrary to what people think, the issue is not a dead certainty. Instead, the scientists have merely said that "We are 90% certain that mankind is contributing to global warming."

10% is still a fair chunk of uncertainty, and the scientists would not doubt this....that is also their job.

"If" the evidence is now pointing firmly in one direction by consencus, then the burden now falls on the sceptics to show that what the scientists say is either wrong or that the methodology is flawed scientifically.

Forget the hysteria and forget the headlines, because that is not a scientific or technological response to respectable scientific research and analysis. That is merely the often ill-informed talking to the even less informed.

From this point on, there can be no further debate about the sources of global-warming. Instead, the matter needs to be handed over to the technologists, who will respod to the challenge.

What we must never allow, is political over-reaction to newspaper scares and strident headlines, and if those who support green issues had any sense at all, they would refrain from political hectoring based on "beliefs" rather than the agreed body of evidence.

If mankind could pull off the trick of permitting economic development, but at the same time, diminishing dependence on fossil-fuels, it would be a staggering achievement.

Let's put it another way......

If mankind turned its attention towards respecting and healing the planet, rather than spending all its time destroying it, where could mankind be in 100 years time?

Conversely, if mankind does nothing, is there a respectable future for anyone?

It doesn't have to be all doom and gloom. It is a challenge....no more and no less.

Answer 3

The following are my own personel comments, and I leave them open for you to decide.

"Over thousands of years this planet has gone through changes in climate. We also (scientists) seem to know what climate change has been over millions of years. The truth of the matter is we do not know for sure. Yes we can look at figures taken over several hundred years, and look at evidence taken from trees and rocks over thousands of years, but we only live sixty or seventy years, so whats to say what will happen in the next fifty years. Fourty years ago nearly every home had a coal fire, pumping smoke into the atmosphere and causing smog and polloution. This has now stopped, or least reduced over 85%.
They say that we are using cars more, and energy more, but I feel as individuals we are not using more, there are just more of us humans on the planet.
If you take an average reading of temptiture over say, five hundred years, there are bound to be highs and lows, we may just be on a high curve at the moment, our grandchildren may experience a global cooling, and if they did not have the technology to understand things, how would they explain it?
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no hard evidence that we are causing these changes. All we can do is err on the side of caution, and try to work with nature, stop being greedy with regard to our own personel wealth, and put money into helping people who have nothing in this world, instead of using money for wepons and creating wars to destroy our own human kind.

Hope this helps, and gives you some ideas.
Regards.

Answer 4

Well you could read all the scientific reports, but i'm guessing you won't.

What you need to ask yourself is, what would be the point of lying or misleading the public about the cause of global warming? Where do the vested interests lie? Who has the most to lose or gain? Respected scientists do not normally stake their professional reputations on a lie. But the politicians don't really want to be the ones to tell us that we have to give up our dishwashers and cheap airplaine flights - now maybe they do have a vested interest in lying. Think about it.

Answer 5

you're fortunate to be on that ingredient of the arguement through fact it incredibly is the main appropriate ingredient. a million) The climate of the Earth has been changingfor thousands and thousands of years, human beings have not have been given any consequence on the overal climate of the earth. 2) Scientists have yet to coach that variations in C02 reason the earth to warmth up. some eveidence factors to the climate getting warmer and then greater C02 being released into the atmosthshpere. 3) The polar ice caps at the instant are not melting. lots of the ice in the north pole may be melting, yet greater ice than ever is appearing in the South Pole. Al Gores's An inconveinent reality is crammed with lies and would not even use actual photos. the main scenes of the action picture used the pretend instruments from The Day After the following day, clarify that Al Gore!!!! properly sturdy success!!

Answer 6

The evidence is there, and in overwhelming abundance. Here's a little 900 page report published back in 2001, in case you missed it.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

Pay particular attention to Chapter 12, Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.

Answer 7

Why do you assume it's an either-or proposition? If global warming occurs naturally, does that necessarily mean it's impossible for human activity to contibute to the effect, one way or another? If the cost of gas is going up because of political unrest in the Middle East, does that also mean that it's impossible that part of the price hike might be due to oil companies making higher profits, too? Just because you've identified one cause doesn't mean you've ruled out all the rest.

Edit: to Pinhead: There's a huge difference between the melting of ice sheets on Earth and the melting of ice in your glass of water: the ice in your water is floating in the water, while many of the ice sheets are actually on land, not floating in the water. That means that if the ice sheets melt, it will return to the sea and raise the level of the oceans significantly. In other words, for a proper comparison, compare the level of the water in your glass when there are several ice cubes in a bowl next to it to the level of the water after you add the melted ice cubes to it. It will definitely rise, and significantly enough to leave many major cities underwater.

If you read science news regularly like some of us do, you would have noticed time and time again that there are regular stories (albeit not ones covered by Fox news) about various peer-reviewed studies of the environment with evidence supporting the hypothesis that human activity contributes to global warming. If you did enough research of peer-reviewed journals on your own, you'd find the same. Or read the report, as the rest of these guys have recommended.

Either that, or else just keep your head buried in the sand for the rest of your life so you don't have to own up to or deal with the mess you selfishly leave behind for your progeny.

Answer 8

Because of the unusually cold winter we’ve been having here in Southern California, I’ve given a good deal of thought to the subject. What I find so fascinating about it is that Al Gore’s disciples are able to explain all types of weather as a result of it. If it’s unseasonably warm, we not only know why, but we know we can lay the blame on those rotters driving their gas-guzzling SUVs to the supermarket. It might even sound reasonable if you were unaware that changes in the earth’s weather occur on an irregularly regular basis, and that just a short time ago these same junk scientists were warning us about global cooling and the impending modern ice age.

As I’m sure you’ve noticed, freezing cold weather is also blamed on global warming! In other words, no matter what the result is, the cause remains the same.

In a way, it reminds me a lot of religion. If you really truly believe, God gets all the credit for everything. If something wonderful occurs, it’s because of God’s inate goodness. But when it’s something awful -- something like an earthquake, childhood leukemia or a holocaust -- the faithful will insist, “God moves in mysterious ways. We can’t hope to read His mind, but we know He has His reasons.”

I am not a religious person, but if I’m going to accept anything on faith, I would prefer to lay my money on an invisible force than on Al Gore. The one, after all, somehow managed to create the seas and the stars, dogs, deer, peaches, sunsets and Man, himself; and also found the time to act as a muse for Johann Sebastian Bach, Thomas Jefferson and, I suspect, the fellow who invented baseball. On the other hand, we have Al Gore, the pumpkin-headed schnook who couldn’t even carry his home state in a presidential election and claims to have created the Internet, but never quite around to getting a patent.


W. Burt Prelutsky February 2, 2007 column

Answer 9

EVIDENCE: I bet you agree that Carbon Dioxide is a Green House Gas. ie.it absorbs heat and (CAN) cause global warming. Vehicles that are driven by men invariably emit Carbon Dioxide. By correllating the rate of increase of vehicles and the average amount of Carbon Dioxide emitted by each vehicle, then using the Carbon Dioxide Equvivalen (C02e) for gasses given out from factories such as methane,nitrous oxide etc, we can clearly say that Global Warming is indeed "more than likely" caused by man.

Latest news also states: In February 2007, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicated that it would release a report stating that it is "very likely" that climate change is caused by human activity. So i guess we have to wait for the report for further evidence

Answer 10

Apparently during the 3 days following 9/11, when virtually no commercial aircraft were flying and creating vapour trails to keep sunlight out, the temperature map across the USA increased by 1-3°C. So by flying less we increase global warming. Green that one.