to those that deny that humans are the primary cause of global warming?

Question

how much research have you done that suggests/proves that current global warming is just a natural cycle?

Or do you just take the skeptics word on in? Do you compare/contrast evidence from both sides and do you have a thorough understanding of historical global climate patterns?

I mean no offence in my question ...I've just seen so many arguments on here from those who refute it but clearly don't show any understanding of global climate patterns past-present

compare/contrast the opposing arguments is what I asked, not comparing/contrasting climate differences in the past and present

I asked if those that oppose the view that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming had a thorough understanding of past climate patterns

ok, I will admit that any "detailed" understanding of climate variations in the past is poor for obvious reasons however, past climate variations can be reasonably explained...I wont go into too much details as the purpose of my question was to find out how much research was done by those that refute human influenced global warming


Steve, we are currently in the interglacial period of the last ice-age. The axial tilt of the Earth is decreasing, meaning that the current interglacial period is expected to be replaced by a glacial period

global climates in the past have been reasonably explained as I mentioned

The Earth's orbit around the sun and the axial tilt of the Earth explain why we have ice-ages...climatologists are very much aware of this, of course they are, it would be a ludacrous assumption to refute current consensus on anthropogenic influence on atmospheric greenhouse gases based on past ice-ages!!

I might also take the opportunity to mention that scientists are also aware that positions of continents, mountain heights, ocean shapes, solar luminosity, changes, short and long-term in atmospheric conditions all account for past variations in the GMST.

However, there is a definite strong link now with increasing levels of c02, a year on year increase since the dawn of industry

In 1996 the level of carbon in the atmosphere was measured at approx 760 x 10^12KgC, that measurement was about 30% higher than pre-industrial levels of about 590 x 10^12KgC estimated from ice-cores.

Answer 1

The trouble comes because 'global warming' was so exagerated over the years. A recent TV programme suggested a rise in sea level of 30 metres! The generally agreed predicted rise by the end of the century is set at 58cm!

The United Nations report this year put it in perspective with the following facts and predictions:

If atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases double compared to pre-industrial levels, this would “likely” cause an average warming of around 3°C.

The world’s average surface temperature has increased by around 0.74°C over the past 100 years (1906 - 2005). A warming of about 0.2°C is projected for each of the next two decades.

The best estimates for sea-level rise due to ocean expansion and glacier melt by the end of the century is 28 - 58 cm. However, larger values of up to 1 m by 2100 cannot be ruled out. (Definitely not 30 M!).

Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Large areas of the Arctic Ocean could lose year-round ice cover by the end of the 21st century. But research shows that whilst the arctic ice is melting the Antarctic is actually thickening.

Whilst it is widely accepted that man has an influence on warming it is the extent of this that is in question. Because environmentalists so exagerated Global Warming the majority of scientists politicians and pundits now use the term 'Climate Change'.

Many factors affect and effect climate change.

The suns rays and the power of the sun varies substantially and does directly effect temperature and atmosphere.

It is well documented that wind patterns have moved Westerly and this is a large factor in ice melt in the arctic.

The earths magnetic field is slowly changing and becoming more complex. This also has direct effects on the atmosphere and warming. Magnetic anomolies are growing and the magnetic pole is moving 14 kilometers a year leading scientists to conclude that the poles are in the early stages of a magnetic flip.

The sad truth is that whilst there are many factors involved most of what has been said up to now has been very one sided and extremely bad science. It has set out to prove a theory rather than test it and together with the wild exagerations has produced many sceptics.

We really do need not only good scientific research and interpretation, but also some level headed thinking and open and honest debate. The effects being debated as being bad are only a small - possibly minute change in temperature. If we over do the changes it would be easy to effect the reverse and plunge the world into another ice age.

The carpenters maxim of 'measure twice, cut once' needs to be applied.

The eco warriors have damaged the debate. That said the UN has instilled some common sense and good base figures and that gives everyone something to work from.

To what extent man has had in the warming is open to debate but what is now widely accepted is that mankind is living beyond it's means in the way it is wasteful and polluting. Much good will come from that.

Answer 2

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Global warming is at the fore front because politicians found how to use a new platform to get re-elected. The world leaders use it because they found ways to make money at it. This is a made up problem just like Global Cooling in the 1970's. Wake up people. I agree we need to be more efficient with our resources, and we should fine and jail companies who are dumping into our rivers maliciously. I want to stop the raiforest destruction, but to say that global warming is a serious man made issue and we need to destroy the American economy and bow down to the rest of the world certainly does not float my boat. Follow the money on this one and you will see that it is all for political gain and grant money for those scientists who profit off of the government if global warming stays at the front of the issues. Look deep into the Keoto (sp?) Treaty, first of all they took jets to a non-central resort location. Not very environmentally concious. THen in the parameters of the treaty they have a clause that makes it so you can buy or sell polution credits. This is all about shifting wealth and breaking down the United States. This is painfully obvious, just look at peoples agenda. The earth's mean temperature has risen .6 degrees C in the past 125 years. Greenland's icecaps have gotten colder in the past 10 years. The Scientists who do not gain anything on their posisition will tell you that the earth has a natural progression and this is what we are seeing. The UN report is made up of POLITICIANS not a good spread of scientists. THere are as many or more scientists who believe that man in NOT the reason and it is over hyped, but their voice is not heard in the LIberal Mainstream Media. This issue is 99% political, and an attempt to make the USA a socialist nation, and eventually communisim. WAKE UP AMERICA, IT IS TIME TO BE AMERICANS. FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE. STOP THE LIES

Answer 3

I could go on forever on this, but don't have the time... So I'll keep it brief with my biggest points.

1st of all, the world is billions of years old, about 4.5billion.
4,500,000,000 years old

Man has been taking temperatures of the world for only around 300years. The is 0.000006% of the Earth's lifetime. The blink of an eye in a human life!

300years ago, there were no electronic devices. A man with a flame torch had to go walking, sometimes miles at a time in freezing temperatures to go to the weather recording post. Don't you think sometimes maybe he thought he couldn't be bothered, and made it up based on previous?

The world often goes through climate change, it is natural, what do you think carved out the Grand Canyon? ICE!

Today we are actually coming out of a MINI ice age, which has been going on for approximately 60years.

When people quote these heat waves, its always, "hottest day for 100years" or "hottest day since the 60's"... well that isn't really long ago is it! Which means it has been hotter within the time we have actually taken temperatures.

SOME ice caps are melting, the ones you hear about. Some are actually expanding in northern Europe! It takes a LOT more than just temperature to change Icebergs, research it!

Europe used to be tropical! USED to be, what made it cold?
We've also had many IceAges, what warmed the world up then? Did the Ice Age Men use too many aerosols?

Basically the list continues.. there is loads of evidence far outweighing the Global Warming so called "evidence". It just doesn't make good news, Global Warming is fasionable!

Global Warming is exaggerated by governments to keep people undere control... The people of the world "need" things to campaign against & worry about. It also takes their minds off more serious matters like war, disease and poverty.

I am not denying that Man needs to do their bit to "help" the planet, but we are not "helping" the planet, we are helping ourselves. Man lives on this planet, if the planet changes its because it's natural. The world will not die because of us, it will happily continue its life! WE may die because of it though...

These facts CAN be backed up, the research is there, but like I say, no one wants to advertise it, its not fasionable news!

Answer 4

Ok I will make one point that is undeniable. One active volcano in one day puts out more CO2 than all (yes ALL) cars EVER built! Take into consideration that at any one time there are hundreds of active volcano's on earth right now. So our contribution to these CO2 gases is minimal at best.

I am not saying we have not caused local warming. Just look at Phoenix Arizona. The addition of concrete and black top has caused a mini heat dome over the city. But the primary cause is heat retention due to the concrete and black top. This is exaggerated by the fact Phoenix is in a valley and the heat is not able to dissipate.

Answer 5

Personally I was a believer until I read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". While it is obviously a work of fiction, the claims that the characters make are based on real scientific research, and Crichton gives the source for each quote.

This book opened my eyes and made me start looking a bit deeper into the subject.

My first recommendation is to look at the following link. It is a speech by Michael Crichton where he talks about how disasters get exaggerated. Read it first to open your eyes about how we have been mislead in the past.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html

Even the climate scientists themselves are saying that there is a lot of scare-mongering going on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_6115000/6115644.stm

What finally turned me into a full-blown non-believer was this series of articles by Christopher Monckton. He was an adviser to Margaret Thatcher on science scams. His basic technique was to look at the actual scientific data itself and then judge how it had been represented. If the reported version was about middle-of-the-road compared to the scientific data, then it was deemed to be fair. If, however, the reported version always gave the most extreme figures possible, and in only one direction, then it was not to be trusted.

Here are his conclusions...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/12/nclim12.xml&page=1

Be sure to read his references and detailed calculations. Important stuff in here too - especially about the infamous "hockey-stick" graph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=H3KSZ4QC21GOXQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0

Interestingly, Al Gore, of "An Inconvenient Truth" infamy, wrote a letter to the Telegraph trying to dismiss Monckton's views. Here is Monckton's reply...
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

Any open-minded person who reads all of the above will have what they 'think' they know about global warming shaken to the core. They will suddenly realise the following...

All scientists agree about global warming? - Not true.

It's been proved that CO2 is the cause of global warming? - Not true.

The Earth has never been this warm before? - Not true.

The Arctic is warmer than it's ever been before? - Not true.

The Antarctic ice is melting? - Not true.

Polar Bears are dying due to global warming? - Not true.

New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina were caused by global warming? - Not true.

Etc, etc.

For me, the big turning point was the "hockey-stick" graph. You take one look at that graph and you can't help but think; "Wow! Look at that! We *must* be causing global warming!"

But when you learn the truth about it...

That the medieval warm period and pre-industrial little ice age were deleted so that the graph from 1000AD to 1850AD would look flat.

That the data that produced the shape of graph they were trying to make was given 390 times more weight than any other data.

And that the computer model used to create the graph will produce hockey-stick graphs even if random data is put in. (See page 9 of Monckton's references that has a beautiful graphic showing 7 random data graphs and 1 with the real data - see if you can spot the "real" one.)

... you suddenly realise that you've been lied to.

Oh, and it's probably worth pointing out that, in the IPCC's 2001 report, the "hockey-stick" graph was the *only* graphic shown *six* times. And they have still not apologised for the fact that it's flawed.

Now, I don't know about you, but when I find that someone has been lying to me, I tend to be a bit suspicious of them. Especially when they want to use those lies as an excuse to tax me more!

Answer 6

As there is no data on global temperatures going back more than a couple hundred years, what can we compare it to?

Do I believe that global warming is real? Yes.

Do I think that we can do much about it? No

Do I believe that the US and Europe will continue to implement stringent measures to "fix" it while ignoring the two biggest sources of pollution on our planet? You bet your butt.

If you want to help combat GW, then quit buying goods manufactured in countries that have NO controls on pollution: China & India. They are the ones that will doom our planet.

Answer 7

Nobody denies that global warming has been caused by human activity.

What we do deny is that it is a bad thing.

Personally, if our climate in the UK become much warmer then I am all in favour of that.

Instead of having to go to places like Egypt in the middle of winter in order to get some heat and sun I may be able to get it by staying in Canterbury, Kent.

Wheres the problem in that?

Answer 8

1

Answer 9

Bravo!! There is intelligent life out there. Any one that can research read and interpret data for themselves would understand the crisis of global warming. Hang in there.