Why is Global Warming considered scientifically proven?

Question

Science believes that no theory is 100% and is always looking for a better answer. Than why is Global Warming is held in religious regards by some, to the point that Oregon's governor wants his state's climatologist removed from office for stating that global temperature changes are naturally occuring.

You could also go with global warming supporters removing the Medieval Warming Period from reports, including the UN panel which listed it in its 1996 report, but not in subsequent 2001 and 2006 reports.

There is also the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research's 2004 report that the sun has been at its warmest in the past 60 years and that this may be affecting temperatures.

You could quote Al Gore in an interview, "Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is."

Why has science finally stopped looking?

Answer 1

Science has not stopped looking at this. Thousands of scientists are working on it right now.

What has happened is that the vast majority of scientists agree on three things.

It's real, it's caused by man, and it is likely to be very harmful, flooding coasts and damaging agriculture.

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

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/16620307.htm

There is much hard data which shows the present warming is far more rapid than anything that happened in the past.

People have analyzed hard data concerning solar variability. That contributes 0.12 watts per meter squared and man contributes 2.6 watts per meter squared. So scientists conclude it's not solar variability.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Al Gore isn't driving the science. The science is, and there is hard data to support the scientific consensus. Which is why people like these accept global warming. You wouldn't expect them to be fooled by bad science.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

"The overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientists around the world and our own National Academy of Sciences are in essential agreement on the facts of global warming and the significant contribution of human activity to that trend."

Russell E. Train, former environmental official under Presidents Nixon and Ford

"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

Look at the science, not the politics. It's out there.

For example, the guy below says it's impossible to push up CO2 because the ocean sucks it up. Here's the data, proving that's wrong.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

That's from Hawaii. There's a little bit of ocean around there too.

Answer 2

On the contrary, "Science" has not stopped looking. Most scienctists are convinced that the pro evidence outweighs the con. I'm not going to get into the weeds with you on this one, but I would like to comment that last week the radio news brought on a proffessor who was a skeptic on global warming. The interviewer was very biased, but even allowing for that, the interveiwee gave a poor performance. His objections were not logically consistant, he gave no data of his own, and refused to give any alternate hypothesis, but contented himself on simply attacking global warming. I have to give you credit, at least you gave examples in your question. this guy was a PHD and couldn't even do that. Most of the other skeptics I've read or heard from are even worse than that proffessor, with horrible mushy arguments that make little sense. Even if they are right, it's probably for the wrong reasons.

So let me put a little thought experiment in front of you. You are a climate scienctist. Your are studying warming, and am somewhat concerned that warming is real, and caused by humans, but you aren't 100% sure, and are trying to keep an open mind. You turn on the TV that night, and have a congressman saying that warming is all a hoax. His arguments are weak, and you know some of them are flat out wrong. You turn to another news show, and there is an "expert" giving a skeptical review of the recent warming report. You did some of that research yourself, but the so called expert (who you have never heard of in your fairly small field) is mischaracterizing your research. Finally, you turn on yahoo answers and see that you are accused of being an extreme liberal whacko alarmist who is part of a conspiracy to destroy the US economy.

Now, how do you think this person will feel? Maybe backed into a corner? Maybe a bit on the defensive? Perhaps he will become a little less likely to entertain alternate hypotheses and will instead tend to try and bolster the research he or she has already done? Scientists are people too, and they react the way anyone would in this situation. They take the hardline to defend their work from what they see as uninformed and unfair attacks. Now, disagree all you like,but it is easy to see why science has "stopped looking".

Answer 3

I love the people that site the ipcc.ch as a source (that would be the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). If you go read their reports from 1996, 2001 and the newest release, you will notice that the Medieval Warming Period has indeed been removed. This conveniently makes our modern warming period seem "unusual". How scientific is it to "cut out" 400 years of temperature readings just because they were higher than current? The National Academy of Science's 2006 report
“Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2000 Years” shows the Medieval Warming Period and debuncts Michael Mann's "hockey stick graph". Forgetting to mention a 400 year warming cycle when discussing global temperatures for the past 1,000 years would seem to be a rather big error. Many scientists would love their results if they could omit 40% of their data.

"What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real...we will be doing the right thing anyway."
-Timothy Wirth, President Clinton's Assistant Secretary of State for Global Affairs

Have we forgotten that world temperatures DROPPED in the 1940's, 1950s, 1960's and 1970's? "Newsweek" published an article in 1975 entitled "The Cooling World". Exceprts read, "The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down." The good news? "Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century." Wouldn't that be our current warming trend since 1979?

Don't you wonder why global warming backers don't site this almost 40 year cooling trend? They say man is warming the planet, then what was cooling it for almost 4 decades? That would be a natural cooling cycle that they simply admit to, but don't discuss. How can the Earth cool naturally, but only warm artificially?

Please, please, please...everyone go read the data on global temperatures, ice core samples and sea bed samples. We have had an estimated 600 temperature cycles in the past million years. Read the numbers, read the reports, educate yourselves!

History also documents temperature cycles. The Romans write of growing grapes in Britain, during their occupation ending around the year 450. During the Dark Ages (476-1000), the climate was too cold. However, the Britains themselves write of growing grapes during the Medieval Period (900-1300). Afterwards, the temperatures dropped again and grapes would not grow. Historically recorded warming and cooling cyles.

Gore's overstatement of facts, the IPCC removing a 400 warming cycle from 1,000 years of data, and no one talking about almost 40 years of cooling in the 20th century. The warmest decade in the United States? The 1930s. The warmest year in the United States? 1934. Please read everything; in science, no issue should be without debate. Closing your mind to information, statistics and knowledge is never a good thing.

Answer 4

It is considered scientifically proven only by nonscientific enviros. The enviros are hysterical people, probably descendants of the Salem witchhunters of the 1600's. They know nothing of science. Science being the ability to think and solve real problems by certain testing methods. This is all foreign to enviros. The 2500 scientists of the IPCC came together recently and presented their studies.
The findings were reported by the moderator, a non-scientist. In the earlier report there was a 'hockey stick' CO2 curve up for the recent years. In the 2006 report this strange graph of the CO2 rise seems to be NOT THERE!!! Also there seems to be some sort of 'tampering or slanting' of the software such that no matter what values are fed into it, it spits out 'global warming'.
Interestingly, there is never any mention of the huge CO2 sink that is the oceans water. Since 85% of the earths surface is covered by water and water takes up CO2 instantly and buffers it in unlimited quantities, it is a virtual impossibility to push the CO2 levels up any measurable amount, at least on the surface of the earth. The colder the water the more CO2 it can take up. Plants are, in comparison, a very minor 'carbon sink'. They can take up CO2 only when the plants are growing. Therefore, not at night and not in the winter. Apparently, snow does take up CO2. The only source that nature has no experience with is the CO2 produced by JET engines above 30,000 ft. How is that cleared?

Answer 5

Science has proved that the temperature of the earth as increased 0.7 decree C in the last 100 years.
How can you have an "...over representation of factual", if you're telling the truth, of course if you're lying, its easy. The cause of global temperature, all 0,7 degrees, increases has not been proven by Gore or anyone else. Politics needs to be completely removed from the cause of climate change.
Why did the last Ice Age end 15,000 years ago? And don't blame mankind!

Answer 6

The jig is up for all the ignorant global-warming denying parrots.

Even Exxon-Mobil has had to face up to facts in the past 2 weeks.

Try to catch up to the rest of the class.

Exxon-Mobil public statement on global warming: Because the risks to society and ecosystems could prove to be significant, it is prudent now to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. This includes putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions, while understanding the context of managing carbon emissions among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health.

http://www2.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/NewsReleases/corp_nr_mr_climate_ipcc.asp

Answer 7

Don't know. Don't care.

I will do my best to keep the environment clean because clean air and water are good things regardless of what is causing global warming.

The way I see it, it is a win-win situation when we keep our environment, food supply, and water supply clean and safe. If it helps to stop global warming, we win. If it just helps us to live healthier (breathing clean air, etc.), we win.

From this stand point, I don't much care what science has to say about global warming, pro or con.

Answer 8

Its for real, and human caused, anyone denying this simply has their head in the sand.

Look at the pictures in the site below, I don't thing the scientists are using adobe photoshop to make the glaciers vanish...

Answer 9

They found the answer, Man is making the Earth
warmer.

Answer 10

it depends on what scientists you talk to. if the scientists are the beneficiaries of government grants, then yes. if they are independent then probably no.
actually, global warming is proven. its just not very likely that it was caused by humans.