Does the recent study prove that humans are responsible for global warming?

Question

The evidence seems overwhelming. They say that a panel of 25 scientists are 90% confident that GW is to blame on humans. However, we must look between the lines. It is standard in studies to use a 95% confidence interval, this study uses a 90% CI. This shows that this study is not credible. What most likely happened is they used a 95% CI, the data was not statistacally significant, and they did not get their desired outcome. Therefore they could not conclude that global warming is man made. If they decreased the CI, it is then likely they employed other methods such as eliminating unwanted data, or substituting data, in order to get the desired results. It would be OK to use a 90% CI if the results at 95% CI are also published. It is common practice, though, to use only a 95%CI. Also, the panel of scientists were politically appointed, so it is likely they have a political agenda. Global warming may very well be man made, but this study does not concur with that hypothesis.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250059,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus#Global_warming_is_good_for_human_society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus#The_Earth_is_warming_but_mostly_due_to_natural_processes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus#The_Earth_is_warming_but_the_cause_is_unknown

That's the study I am talking about, the UN study. It is full of holes and is not credible.

Answer 1

This report citing a conclusion was only a summary, the final report is to be released in 6 months. Now this is where it gets tricky, I have seen sections of the full report, and guess what, they point to evidence that contradicts the summary findings. Findings that must be reported because the data was legitimately compiled. Welcome to the world of 'Scientific Spin'. Agenda driven science is bad science. Tragically most non-scientist can't make that distinction. Never look at just a summary report. Because all the facts are not in evidence in them especially with a hot topic issue like Global Warming The real culprit in "global climate change" is the sun: Long-term studies (since 1760) document that fluctuations in the intensity of solar radiation are closely correlated with warming and cooling trends in the Earth's temperature. Anthropomorphic (man made) cause of global warming has not been conclusively established
And yes there are agenda driven Global Warming alarmists these were the same people that were screaming Global Cooling in the 70's 10 years before Kyoto there was the Rio Conference on Climatic Change. at that conference scientist using the computer models predicted a rate of warming twice of that under Kyoto. The media did not hype it so it went largely unnoticed yet in the decade between Rio & Kyoto CO2 emissions skyrocketed. & when the models were tested anew the predicted rate of warming was cut by 1/2, why because models are just scenarios, they are only as good as the parameters & data that they are given.

Answer 2

First of all, algae and plants do not emit CO2 they absorb it to grow. They emit oxygen. Ice core data has shown CO2 levels are higher now than they have been in the last 650,000 years. What the ice core data shows also is a trend where as the levels of CO2 rise and fall naturally the temperature follows the exact pattern as the CO2. The oceans also help in the absorbtion of CO2, but eventually it will head back into the atmosphere. A lot of people believe that the oceans and trees will absorb all our CO2, so we can pump out as much as we like. CO2 though can remain in the atmosphere for an average of 100 years unlike methane which only remains in the amosphere for a decade or so. Rising carbon concentrations largely reflect increasing use of fossil fuels. All together globally we pump out 6 billion metric tons of carbon. This figure increases by 2% each each year. So the billions of ton of CO2 that we pump into the atmopshere each stays there for a very long time before getting absorbed. Now if thats how much CO2 is being pumped out at the moment imagine how much will be emitted when countries like India and China which between them hold 1/3 of the earth's population become industrialised and need the same amount of energy. The reason why the US hasn't signed the Kyoto proptocal is simply because India and China havn't and it will also damage their economy (obviously). India and China's arguement is well hang on why should we sign this thing when the gases that are up there are not our gases they are your gases. Thats fair enough, but what happens when those countries become as industrialied as the US and others. The US says well hang we need some assurance that when you guys do become industrialised you will jump on board with us. If The US is using 23% of the world's energy with 300 million people, how much energy will India and China need with over 2 billion between them.

Answer 3

But recent reports from a group of scientists brought together by the United Nations say it's true: over the next 100 years, the Earth's average surface temperature will increase by 3 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Day by day it's hard to tell if the temperature is really rising worldwide, so what are the scientists talking about?

The problem, say the scientists, is that rising temperatures -- even slight rises -- could seriously disrupt current weather patterns, ecosystems and agriculture. And the data gathered from old temperature records, computer models, glaciers, and tree rings all point to a global warming trend. What's more, the scientists suspect that pollution from human activity is responsible for much of the warming.

Across the world, people burn fossil fuels, like coal and oil, for energy. The energy created provides electricity and heat for our homes and businesses, but the burning process, called combustion, also releases gases into the air. Some of the gases can trap heat near the Earth instead of letting it pass through the atmosphere into space. These gases are known as greenhouse gases because they reflect heat and warm the Earth the same way a greenhouse creates a warm environment for plants to grow, even in the middle of winter.

The most common greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, which is an odorless, colorless and naturally occurring compound. It also spews from our power plants, factories and cars. It doesn't hurt us directly like pollution that can cause cancer. But the structure of its molecules creates the greenhouse effect, and the scientists say the effect is building up enough to warm the Earth.

The scientists who put together the U.N. report think the warming spells trouble. Even if we still have cold days and winters, an overall increase in average global temperature could change the Earth's environment as we now know it. As a worst-case scenario, some predict the polar ice caps will melt, raising sea levels and causing floods that spread disease and force millions of people from their homes

Answer 4

The fluctuations in global temperature are due to cyclical events. Just as the waves that wash up on the ocean shore are influenced by the tides, wind and local boating, so are the temperatures recorded by man.

We have only been keeping track of temps for a couple of hundred years or so, right? Well, how old is the earth according to scientists? The one thing that is more certain than global warming is global cooling. The past proves that Ice ages come and go over time. Early records show that it was colder in Europe just several hundred years ago (tail end of the last ice age), so the theory is that Man is causing the temps to go up. (False thinking based on flawed therories)

What they don't tell you is that the last Ice age is still getting over and the heating up is just the preliminary to eventually freezing over again. Man is not causing this, It is a natural state of things. (That doesn't mean we should just pollute everything anyway!)

It will get hotter for now and the places to go where it is cool will get crowded. We should prepare now, instead of bitching about it. Just think, real estate in Alaska and Siberia are going to be prime farm land in the future.

This place is going to slowly thaw and refreeze as it has done in the past. Because we are just blips on the solar timeline, we are missing the big picture:

WE ARE NOT IN CHARGE OF THE WEATHER, WE CAN'T STOP IT AND WE CAN'T CHANGE IT. THE WEATHER IS A PRODUCT OF SO MANY INTERWOVEN PARTS OF THE GLOBAL WHOLE, WE CAN'T EFFECT IT! ALL WE CAN DO IS GET IN, STRAP DOWN AND HOLD ON BECAUSE THIS PLACE IS TAKEN US FOR A RIDE!

Answer 5

Check out Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth". It's pretty convincing.

Answer 6

You got it! Government committees are only 'needed' when legitimate science has not concurred with politically correct perceptions.