global warming another big hoax. whats next?

Question

some democrats, left and socialist countries seem to be placing alot of emphasis on this so called global warming. there is no evidence. it another scare tactic. ask yourself, ice age, mars polar caps melting. why. there is no evidence that it is going to cause a tremendous effect on the earth. Has anyone review what the possible good outcome from global warming, if there is such a thing has manmade global warming. the ocean gives off 100x more co2 than man, should we drain the oceans

Answer 1

If you believe that global warming is not happening, then name one credible scientific body that supports your views. Seriously, can you do it? And conservative think tanks or "Dr. Joe Bob's Institute for the Advancement in Truth in Scientificology" don't count. I'll bet you can't. For your benefit, I've compiled links to the the views and evidence of major scientific bodies and categorized them according to their views.

Human activity responsible for current global climate change:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change : http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration : http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2787.htm
American Association for the Advancement of Science : http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0202ipcc.shtml
American Geophysical Union : http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Institute of Physics : http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Climate Data Center : http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/071801_karl.htm
National Research Council : http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/
National Academy of Sciences (US), Royal Society (UK), Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia), Science Council of Japan (Japan), Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Indian National Science Academy (India), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Academiee des Sciences (France), Chinese Academy of Sciences (China), Royal Society of Canada (Canada), Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil): http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742
The Royal Society of Great Britain : http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619
US Federal Climate Change Science Program :
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
American Meteorological Society : http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research :
http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climatechange/index.jsp
Environmental Protection Agency : http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
World Meteorological Organization : http://uutisruutu.eduskunta.fi/dman/Document.phx?documentId=hp16306121632192



Does not take a strong position:

American Chemical Society : http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf
American Association of State Climatologists:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/aasc/AASC-Policy-Statement-on-Climate.htm
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies *(see endnote) : http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/Global_Warming.pdf


Rejects human influence on climate change

American Association of Petroleum Geologists ** (see endnote): http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/climate_change.cfm



In conclusion, instead of simply believing everything that Rush Limbaugh tells you, try pulling your head out of the sand and reading what the scientists have to say about climate change.

PS Yes, they have reviewed possible positive impacts of global warming (not many), ice caps on Mars are irrelevant, and your belief about the ocean giving off CO2 is just plain wrong. Seriously, try reading a book sometime.


* NASA officially takes an ambivalent stance on global warming. However, NASA’s lead climatologist and the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, is one of the most vocal proponents of immediate action to reduce human influenced climate change (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/DukeEdin_21Nov2006_complete.pdf and http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/). He claims that NASA findings on climate change are being distorted and downplayed by the Bush administration. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

** From Wikipedia: “The AAPG is the only major professional organization in the natural sciences that has formally rejected the finding of human influence on recent climate.”

In response to Bryan:

You seem to be very well intentioned, but I have to say that I think you've been misled. If you think that scientists are trying to silence opposing viewpoints, I suggest you search through the links I've provided to see if these scientists don't take take a balanced approach to their research and their findings. Genuine debate and alternate views are welcomed. However, there are many who are subverting the honest global warming debate with pseudoscience and arguments that intentionally mislead on behalf of think tanks, corporations, etc. Just the other day, I read in a conservative journal a compelling sounding argument about how the ocean wasn't rising. The author had a number of figures about ice melting or freezing at different locations at the world, and he concluded from his figures that the rate of ocean rise was close to zero. It seemed like a scientifically sound argument. However, nowhere in the article did it mention that they have actually measured the height of the oeans (put a stick in water, mark it at the waterline, not difficult science), and we know without any doubt that the oceans are rising at a rate of 2-3 mm/year, 30 times the average rate of the last 2,000 years. These people put false science next to real science and say, "well, I guess it's just a matter of opinion," trusting that the average American can't tell the difference. ExxonMobil, for example, has been criticized by the Royal Academy, among others, for paying groups to produce false anti-global warming arguments. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0920-04.htm ) Exxon had a revenue of $100.7 billion last year (larger than the GDP all but 38 of the world's nations), and they spend millions on lobbyists and donations to conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise, etc. in order to buy public opinion and public policy favorable to the oil industry. Ask yourself this: Who really stands to gain from distorting the science of global warming? The climatologists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Exxon?

You can always find some scientist to support an argument (global warming, intelligent design, moon landing hoax, etc.), but gaining the support of the credible scientific organizations requires a strong and compelling argument. If there is legitimate doubt about the science of global warming, why is there no one (except the petrolium geologists) disputing the global warming case? Trust the scientists; they are the experts. The evidence is real, it is compelling, and it speaks for itself.

Answer 2

True, Mars is also undergoing global warming with melting ice caps and violent storms. This makes the recent claim of 90% certainty of man-made GW on Earth hard to swallow.

Having said that I don't think this is a hoax. These scientists are truly concerned about the environment, so I think we are seeing unconscious bias and groupthink, rather than a hoax. I think their hearts are in the right place on this.

Scientists have a responsibility to be openminded and look at all the evidence, but they are human and bias affects how everyone looks at issues.

We should definitely clean up our environment and reduce emissions though. Who in their right mind wants to breathe, eat and drink pollutants and chemicals everyday. I say crack down on polluters sooner rather than later. Why should they get rich by destroying our health?

Answer 3

more common is the view that the world is heating up, but it wont affect us as much as we are led to believe through the use of media, such as documentaries and films (the day after tomorrow, an inconvenient truth, etc.) the day after tomorrow is actually meant to be fiction, but i have found it is often used in classrooms to shock and frighten kids into believing in disaster caused by global warming. over 'an inconvenient truth' al gore was been taken to court in the uk, the high court declared there were about 12 proven inaccuracies in the film (pretty major ones too - search on google or visit the london times website.) all in all, global warming is, in my opinion, over-hyped, and people use scare tactics to frighten us into 'belief.' it has become almost like a religion; all who believe and act will be saved but non-believers and sceptics will be damned. masked masala says there would be too many people involved for it to be a hoax. an interesting point, but surely if almost all of these people were led to believe they were telling the truth (and were taken in by this) then this would be possible.

Answer 4

Sir, without being disrespectful.....there is no evidence that what you say is true either. In my 65+ years here on earth I have seen the differences in the climates and the weather. When I was a child the winters were much more severe . Now as an adult I rarely see snow of more than a few inches. The summers are 3 digit numbers now and the humidity is a soaring factor in discomfort. Yes, it is true that I am older and cannot tolerate as much as I use to. My mind is still valid and my memory is still good and I remember the winters with so much snow and drifts that people could not get out for days.

If you have a solution to this then by all means share it with the rest of the world not just Yahoo! Answers.

Answer 5

Kyoto cost...


Since February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost US$ 294,772,969,729 while potentially saving an undetectable 0.003056905 °C by the year 2050.

Malaria cost US$ 258,263,274,018 in lost GDP and 5,305,913 lives over the same period.

http://www.junkscience.com/

"Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.

Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye." (Lawrence Solomon, National Post)
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0

Warming is real - and has benefits
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1d78fc67-3784-4542-a07c-e7eeec46d1fc&k=0

Answer 6

Yeah good idea, drain the oceans! Then the planet has no way to cool itself down because rainfall wouldnt be made! Where the hell would you drain it to? whereever you put it it gonna start another ocean! If Global warming is true then it could cause major problems such as if the overall depth of the ocean changes it would change the pressure and the tides! If the tides change then that could cause major coastal damage and also wildlife would change posistion and probably die due to feeling unwelcome in a new place!

Answer 7

The scientific debate about whether global warming is real and caused by man is over. This is not some treehugger Commie conspiracy to control people.

Scientists agree it's real and caused by man:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1995348,00.html

Business leaders agree it's real and caused by man:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/22/news/companies/climate_emissions/index.htm

Republican leaders agree it's real and caused by man:

"We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican, Governor, California

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

John McCain, Republican, Senator, Arizona

"These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment - and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

President George Bush, Republican

The global warming deniers are exactly the same type of non-science believers as the people who don't believe we landed on the moon.

I would have added "or those who believe the Earth was made 6000 years ago". But I can't. Evangelical Christians believe it's real and caused by man:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243801,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/naturalscience

The full IPCC report will be available in a few weeks. It will cost money, it's 1600 pages. But someone will put it up online at some point. It considers all the sceptics arguments, solar variations, volcanoes, etc.

The IPCC report is the biggest scientific paper ever, with the most data, the most authors, and the most peer review, in the history of science. It is the very pinnacle of hard scientific research. The last paper to hold that title was the last IPCC report in 2001. You can look at that one here.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/online.htm

Science does not get any solider than this.

The scientific debate over whether global warming is real and caused by man is finished. Yes and yes.

Answer 8

I think it wrong to say that Global Warming is not happening, but I also think it is wrong to say it absolutely is either. Scientists make me nervous when they start talking about consensus because science is about facts not compromises. There is some evidence to show that temperatures are warming. The real question is this a consequence of man, or is it a natural earth cycle. If man is contributing to it, what is the true net effect? There are a couple of things I really dislike about the Global Warming debate in general.

1) If you deny global warming, the adherents paint you as being anti environment. This is not true by any stretch of the imagination.
2) Scientists who believe in global warming are making every effort to silence any debate on the issue. If their findings are so conclusive and factual why are they worried about alternative debate on the issue? Surely the facts will speak for themselves.
3) The newest contention from the global warming crowd is that people who deny it are like the flat earthers of old. I say they have it backwards. People who ask reasonable questions and call for legitimate factual proof would be more in line with the round earthers because science is supposed to be about asking questions as part of the discovery process.
4) My biggest problem with the debate is that we have not been studying climate for long enough to make such broad predictions about earth changes over geologic timescales. Ask questions about previous warming and cooling periods through the course of earth history and the answer comes back that's not relevant. Ask questions about environmental damage from natural causes and again the answer is that this is irrelevant.

In my opinion global warming is about money and control. Scientists get funding for this type of research by creating a need. In short it is too their advantage to keep us scared to keep the money rolling in. The control factor comes from governments. If global warming is real they can tax us and dictate how we can live our lives in general in relation to the environment. We should all strive to be environmentally friendly and do our part, but we do not have to subject ourselves to unnessary fear mongering to accomplish these goals.

carmenl_87: Consensus is not science. Scientific theories have to be amended all the time because of new evidence. Why do we have this evidence? Because people challenge the accepted norms. Let's use Mr. Hawkings for an example since you brought him up. He wrote a fascinating book called "Black Holes and Baby Universes" where he made his case for black holes based on theory and observation. Today Mr. Hawkings has amended his position and does not believe that black holes exist. Why you ask? Because his model changed. Global Warming is based on a scientific model. Scientists cannot prove this model is correct and future observation might change it dramatically. We should not accept consensus as proof because it does have the weight of fact. People should and will continue to ask these questions and they are not wrong for doing so.

Bob: Your argument is exactly the one that bothers me. There are still many scientists who dispute the model and the methodolgies used to make these determinations. Here again you do not have to deny global warming is real to support the questions being asked, but these scientists are saying no one should ask any questions anymore because they have decreed it is real that should be all she wrote. Everytime this argument is used it leaves me asking one basic question. What do these scientists fear from people asking these questions and properly disputing the methodologies? If their facts are correct they will stand on their own merit and yet they try to destroy anyone who disagrees. These are the actions of people who have something to fear or hide, not people who consider themselves right beyond dispute. Everyone must accept or deny what is presented for themselves, but I state again consensus is not science.

Answer 9

It may not make any difference in your country, where the climate as already relatively hot, but in my country we don't have snow anymore. Instead it rains a lot and we get massive floods and earth slides. Thousands of people left homeless and few crops because of droughts during the summer, that is enough evidence for me.

Answer 10

President Bush announced his plan to deal with global warming.
He is sending 20,000 troops to the Sun. - David Letterman

Answer 11

wow, you know more than the 2500 scientists that have built the IPCC report published yesterday

i heard that Stephen Hawking is researching about black holes and other things related to the universe.Poor ignorant guy, please, tell him the truth, he will thank it to you, sir.

What do you think about Albert Einstein? was he an ignorant too?

Please, enlighten us sir, how cancer and other sicknesses can be recovered?