Is global warming a proved fact or is it mostly theory?

Answer 1

THE GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERICS STRIKE AGAIN

By William Rusher
Thursday, February 22, 2007

The media have recently been blaring what they depict (inaccurately, by the way) as the latest grim warning from the practically unanimous ranks of the world's climatologists concerning global warming. It is time to take two aspirin, lie down and consider the matter calmly.

The global-warming controversy is powered by three mighty engines, which are almost never recognized. The first is the natural human impulse to fear allegedly forthcoming disasters, especially if they are clothed in the raiments of scientific certitude. The media can be depended on to ferret out and wildly overhype any potential negative development that any so-called scientist is willing to predict and deplore. Remember "acid rain"? The factories of the American Midwest are supposedly belching enormous quantities of sulphurous gases into the air, which then drift eastward, pollute our pristine lakes and lay waste the Appalachian forests. We had barely had time to digest this awful news when the same media introduced us to the ghastly phenomenon called the "ozone hole," a gap in the Earth's protective layer of ozone that had developed (thanks to human pollutants) over the Antarctic and threatened to increase hugely the amount of deadly interstellar radiation reaching the planet's surface, causing millions of fatal skin cancers. The subsequent news that the ozone hole was actually diminishing was lost in the gratifying burst of terror over the discovery of global warming.

Forrmer U.S. vice president Al Gore speaks at a news conference for the 'Live Earth' concerts in Los Angeles,, California February 15, 2007. The planned July 7, 2007 concerts will take place in Sydney, Johannesburg, London and other cities to mobilize action to stop global warming. REUTERS/Fred Prouser (UNITED STATES) The second engine (which was also influential in the flaps over acid rain and the ozone hole) is the traditional liberal hatred of "American corporations," which is mobilized whenever some new misfortune can be laid, however speciously, at their door. All sorts of manufacturing operations emit carbon dioxide, which are thus responsible for some uncertain part of the seven-tenths of one degree Celsius by which the earth's surface temperature rose in the 20th century. Actually, believe it or not, cows emit far more greenhouse gases (from their rear ends) than corporations do, but corporations are easier to hate than cows. So the ancient cry has gone up, "Stop the corporations!"

The third and final engine is, as you might expect, money. Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars the United States paid "scientists" (mostly in universities) last year to study this or that aspect of global warming? They are raiding this El Dorado with both hands, and you can imagine their attitude toward any colleague who dares to doubt their warnings.

The latest incitement to panic over global warming is the recently released summary of a 1,400-page report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We won't get to see the actual report till May, but the IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, says "I hope this report will shock people."

Given the media's hype concerning the human causes of global warming, it undoubtedly will. But the actual figures, when compared to those in the IPCC's last report in 2001, are downright encouraging. Christopher Monckton, a British analyst, points out that the new summary "more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches." (Al Gore predicts 20 to 30 feet.) Monckton adds that "The U.N. has cut its estimate of (the human) net effect on climate by more than a third."

Part of the problem is that the earth's temperature is always in motion, up or down. At the moment, it is trending slightly up -- three-hundredths of a degree Celsius since 2001. Before that, in the midyears of the 20th century, it was actually falling -- providing grist for the media's hysterical predictions of a "new Ice Age" back in the 1970s.

Meanwhile, you can count on the liberals to demand savage cutbacks in the output of America's "greedy" corporations (never mind what that does to the economy) and on the opportunistic hacks in the science faculties of our universities to carve still bigger grants for themselves out of the federal and state budgets to finance more justifications for the panic.


William Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy

Answer 2

It is a poven fact that there Co2 controlling our heat our winter and daily lives but it is how much of it is the theory. I believe if we continue our lives the way we used to back in the 90's then there would be extreme consequences that we would be paying right now. The reason why we have been paying so much attention to this issue at hand is beacuse back in 1998 or so; I am not sure exactly; a piece of the antartica's ice cap broke off and I am not talking any small piece, it was the size of rhode island. Now the scientific version of this is stating that 70% of the sun's radiation is absorbed by the earth's atmosphere and 30% is bounced back into space and if we have just 5% of that trapped in the earth's atmosphere the temp. to sustain life would be unbearable because of greenhouse gases that we as human beings can control and don't that us why there is such a big hype on issues like this. Yes there are some scientists who don't know a whole lot about and makes an hypothesis but even though it is a theory it is still an educated theory that we can not prove or disprove that it is not going to happen in this lifetime. Then again there are scientists that do know quite a bit about hte atmosphere and temps and realizes that we have to get people involved and the only way to involve many people is to make a hype over this.

Another thing if you want to know more about the theories that are being made I can give you a websites about this kind of thing so you can make up your own mind.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming.html
what I like about this one is that it gives both sides of the story

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Very informational

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/index.jsp
a lot of images that will help you understand more

and if you want any more information I will give you a couple of book titles to look into...
I have taken global changes Our Climate and enviornmental studies and have a minor in this and have a pretty good understanding about this.

and oh yeah here is something that I found on that 2nd link:

Sunlight brings energy into the climate system; most of it is absorbed by the oceans and land.

THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:
Heat (infrared energy) radiates outward from the warmed surface of the Earth.
Some of the infrared energy is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which re-emit the energy in all directions.
Some of the infrared energy further warms the Earth.
Some of the infrared energy is emitted into space.
AMPLIFIED GREENHOUSE EFFECT:
Higher concentrations of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases trap more infrared energy in the atmosphere than occurs naturally. The additional heat further warms the atmosphere and Earth’s surface.

Answer 3

Twenty years ago, Global Warming was a theory. Scientists saw that the global CO2 level was rising due to humans and predicted a huge rise in temperature. Twenty years later, those predictions were proven correct. The global temperature has risen to a level much much higher than natural... temperatures the world has never seen before (not even in the often-cited time of heating during the middle ages, when supposedly the world heated up like it is now... only in reality, it's dozens of times worse now).
Scientists have very sophisticated tools to predict the future of the earth if the temperatures continue to rise, beginning with the polar ice caps. Once Antarctica and Greenland melt (a phenomenon that has already begun), the water level of the world will raise an extra 20 feet, submerging gigantic portions of Europe and America. Ecosystems that rely on temperate climates will also be ruined.

Answer 4

That question is very open ended and is being heavily debated. Many people, including Al Gore, insist that due to greenhouse gases, that usually result with the burning of fossil fuels, and the addition of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that the ozone layer is being depleted etc etc etc. However, recent evidence suggests that the ozone layer, like much like the earth, is on a cycle. It shrinks then replenishes itself and this cycle goes on and on- this is only speculation. I'm sure this has been a theory for many years; however, recent studies have revealed that the hole of the arctic is replenishing itself-which leads one to speculate a cycling effect. But as I stated earlier everyone has credible evidence supporting their side. If you already don't know, heavily debated issues in science, in which half of the scientific community takes one side and the other the opposing side, we usually find that neither are right. Global warming, I don't think, is a black and white issue. The answer probably is comprised of a mix of both-cycling of the earth and human effects.

Answer 5

It's mixed.

1) We KNOW that global warming is a problem. We can see the results in the air. Smog isn't something natural. Acid rain isn't natural. We can look at that and see that.

2) Is that going to be the reason for our demise? Unknown. We don't know what happened millions of years ago. While pollution and global warming are not helping the process, we may very well be following an ancient pattern.

Answer 6

What a strange question. How can it be a proved fact until it happens (i.e. has been proved!?) Anyway, who cares if it is theory or not - the evidence is mounting up in the 'proved fact' corner and I think it is time to move on from this debate to “lets assume we are the last generation - how can we ensure evidence of all our modern achievements are fossilised for the next lot to ‘discover’ in a million years”.

Answer 7

PROVEN FACT. Since 1996, there have been 936 articles in science magazines that discuss Global Warming. All 936 of them have said that Global Warming does exist and is a proven fact that must be corrected.

Answer 8

Since science is based on empirical evidence, and must be contrasted with other evidence in order to arrive at conclusions, then it would have to be mostly theory when one considers that we do not have records of weathers patterns or temperatures from thousands of years ago.

There is considerable evidence that mankind is speeding the process up, but we alone are not responsible for a natural occurrence of nature.

Click bad answer all you want it is a fact that cannot be denied. A single volcano emits more greenhouse gases in a single month than every every factory, car, or man on earth does in 50 years.

Answer 9

Fact the Earth has gone threw many weather changes including warming and cooling. Nothing new so whats really going on when the next big issue will be global cooling............ people are all programed to think the earth does not go threw changes

Answer 10

While it is evident that the globe is heating up, the cause is what is up for debate.

Some say it is being caused by emissions from vehicles, while others say it is a normal cycle that the earth has gone through for millions of years.

I agree with the later.

The earth goes through these stages of heat and cold, We've all herd of Ice Ages, well, this pattern caused that, and is also causing the earth to heat.. how hot it will get, only time will tell, and none of us alive today will see it.

Answer 11

We can take the temperature of the earth. We have been for a long time. We look at the averages in the past and the current trends and averages now. (remember, it's only been 100 years since American's industrial revolution). The average temperatures are increasing at a much higher rate than they would normally. I guess you could call that proven. Watch an Inconvenient Truth - it explains it very very well.