How can anyone believe this global warming crap??

Question

There is no proof that mans activities on earth cause global warming. This planet has heated up and cooled down many many times in the past. The global temp has went up .06 degrees in the past 10 years. One huge volcano can drop the temp by 2 or 3 degrees world wide (discovery channel). There is evidence of the ice caps melting on mars ... do martians drive SUV's. How can policy be made on such inconclusive studies? Why do schools teach our kids global warming and not teach real science?

Answer 1

Plus Ça (Climate) Change
The Earth was warming before global warming was cool.

BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST (Wall Street Journal Online)

When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.

Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.

During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.

Many things are contributing to such global temperature changes. Solar radiation is one. Sunspot activity has reached a thousand-year high, according to European astronomy institutions. Solar radiation is reducing Mars's southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants anywhere on the Red Planet. Back on Earth, a NASA study reports that solar radiation has increased in each of the past two decades, and environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg, citing a 1997 atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, observes that "the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming."
Statistics suggest that while there has indeed been a slight warming in the past century, much of it was neither human-induced nor geographically uniform. Half of the past century's warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now. And while global temperatures are now slightly up, in some areas they are dramatically down. According to "Climate Change and Its Impacts," a study published last spring by the National Center for Policy Analysis, the ice mass in Greenland has grown, and "average summer temperatures at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet have decreased 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the late 1980s." British environmental analyst Lord Christopher Monckton says that from 1993 through 2003 the Greenland ice sheet "grew an average extra thickness of 2 inches a year," and that in the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has grown as well.

Earlier this month the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its fourth five-year report. Although the full report won't be out until May, the summary has reinvigorated the global warming discussion.
While global warming alarmism has become a daily American press feature, the IPCC, in its new report, is backtracking on its warming predictions. While Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" warns of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling effect.

The IPCC confirms its 2001 conclusion that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes the world will experience, but it does not note that there has been a steady decrease in the number of global hurricane days since 1970--from 600 to 400 days, according to Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Peter Webster.

The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic.

Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.
Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.

As we have seen since the beginning of time, and from the Vikings' experience in Greenland, our world experiences cyclical climate changes. America needs to understand clearly what is happening and why before we sign onto U.N. environmental agreements, shut down our industries and power plants, and limit our economic growth.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

Answer 2

Let's assume, for instance, that our earth is heating up. Let's assume that it is heating up for reasons beyond our control or comprehension. Maybe the sun is getting hotter, maybe the "solar constant" isn't so constant. Maybe we entered a warmer region of our galaxy. If we have no control over the alleged warming, no one can make any money from it, no one can get any political gain from it, no one can blame 1st world countries, no one can scare us into giving them monetary grants to "study" global warming. Global warming could be a fact. It has happened before. It will probably happen again. Global warming needs to be studied, like all things scientific, because we need to learn the mechanisms, effects, and normal cycles. Nobody gives grant money to study mundane stuff. To get grants, you need to propose some problem to be solved, then study it, and study it, and study it, etc. Honest scientists tell you the results of the study, then propose and participate in a solution. Others, just take an issue, divide it in smaller parts, study the parts, then make more parts to study, etc. Since we don't know if global warming is real, anybody can come up with any scare tactic they want to come up with, blame it all on affluent humans, extort their grant money, and then blow the problem up even bigger. The dishonesty of this all is that the average Joe Citizen does not have the scientific training, understanding, or investagatory tools needed for them to independently verify what they are being scared of. The average citizen just knows that nature is "sacred" and humans are an evil cancer on the land, and that since we do have to live in our environment, then by golly we better do something before we all incinerate in runaway greenhouse gasses. It's all b.s. and those scientists that are participating just to get funding or to further some political or guilt agenda should be ashamed of themselves. If they are doing it to subvert our government and economy, they should be asked to leave or stripped of their scientific credentials. Then they could all go be lobbyists or unethical journalists. Sorry, I'm as torqued over this topic as I ever have been over anything in science.

Answer 3

You'll be wishing you took global warming into consideration once it comes to its peak. Does Global Warming really have to slap society in the face for it to be taken seriously? You really don't think the human race has caused a huge impact on this planet? You believe something you hear on the Discovery Channel yet you don't believe the scientific evidence on global warming? Have you seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? Global Warming may not be a HUGE problem (at this very moment), but it's definitely something that we shouldn't put off until the last minute. Why is it that we have to wait until the water gets unbearably hot before we think to pull our hand out? Global Warming isn't about whether or not people should believe in it, because it's real. The question is WHEN will people take action?

Answer 4

The question is how can you neglect it so easily. You can see with your own eyes how the production of carbon dioxide increases every year with tens of millions of new automobiles are made for their new happy owners. You can see with your own eyes how the air around big cities at day seems gray with smog. And still you think that nature will take care of this?

Sure it will take care of this, but by killing everybody and starting over with some single-celled organisms.

Now, you can really find some evidence if you just google this subject for a half an hour. Just try to see it with the eyes of a person who is willing to learn new things, lay aside your ignorance.

P.S. The ice caps on Mars are frozen carbon dioxide, not water.

Answer 5

Theres natural global warming and man made. Are you telling me that there's no way that we at least are causing a small portion of this warming?

Answer 6

I cant believe that someone who has enough brains to get to Yahoo answers can be asking such a stupid question. Just because you have a problem with believing that global warming exists, doesnt change the fact that it does. Are the weather patterns shifting? yes! Could it be possible that there are man made influences as well as natural weather shifts? Yes! But you really show the depth of your ignorance with your little "martian" statement! Duh!!!

Answer 7

yeah dude there is. watch the weather, discovery, or history channel.

i just saw a show on how much anartica and the north pole has melted. It was amazing and horrifying.

you need to do some research and come to your own conclusions, but I can tell you, this isn't a myth anymore like it was in the 80s.

Answer 8

because snow is melting..oh nooo..runnn...

How about global cooling? Snowball earth?

Maybe....the Tasmanian Gateway caused it all.

Runnn....