Regarding global warming in the US, NOAA and NASA disagree about cause. Who do you believe? Can both be right?

Question

The argument to say that global warming is not caused by carbon dioxide emissions, that it's not a problem, that it's a cyclic phenomenon, and that there is nothing we can do about it is partly headed by people like those who wrote this website:

http://www.biocab.org/Discrepancies.html

The content of the website, and many others, is fed by data provided by some departments of NASA, although the official position of NASA is the same as the NOAA.

Conversely, the argument that global warming and climate change is a problem, caused by human activity, and that we can reverse it, is headed by celebrities like Al Gore in his Inconvenient Truth presentations. The evidence to support his argument is supplied by both NASA and NOAA, among others, but the material is specifically selected to have the greatest impact on the viewer. This selectivity therefore gives the viewer an unfair and unbalanced snapshot of the problem, or does it? I ask you ... Who do we believe? Can both be right?

Answer 1

Global warming is a very complex and complicated issue. There are many factors that limit our ability to model what "may" happen over a period of time. The biggest issue is that of "greenhouse gases. Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at very local scales. Most scientific models cannot account for the complexity of water vapor, so it is ignored. This is problematic due to the fact that water vapor makes up a majority of the greenhouse gas (some estimations say 98%). The biggest thing to remember is to look at all sides of the issue. Examine the motives of those supporting each side. A true scientist does not go with the flow just because it is easier and more popular. I am a Scientist specializing in Geology. You will find that a large majority of Geologists question the extent of human influence on the current global warming trend. There are to many unknowns to say conclusively. That is not to say that changing our living habits to reduce greenhouse emissions is not a good thing, it is a very good thing. We are reluctant to say that if we eliminate all production of greenhouse gases, then the global warming problem will be solved. I had one of my professors tell us in class "The reason why people so desperately want global warming to be caused by human activity is because then it is a problem they can solve. Man does not want to believe that there is anything outside their realm of control. By stating that a problem can be solved, then they are better able to get funding for the solution, and they are also better able to control the human response to the problem. If people were to honestly belief that the situation was hopeless, then anarchy would set in."

Remember, despite Al Gore's statement, the majority of scientists have not reached the conclusion that global warming is a result of human activity. There is still a very large contingency of scientists who believe more information and better modeling is needed, before any definite conclusions can be reached.

For a good reference to the stance taken by the non-human cause scientists, read "Meltdown" by Patrick J. Michaels.

Answer 2

The website you cited has nothing to do with NASA or the NOAA... it has an article written by an obviously biased BIOLOGIST that doesn't seem to like the idea of anthropogenic climate change. The argument that what has occured in the past hundred years is some kind of normal event is not supported by evidence. The case for anthropogenic climate change IS supported by evidence.

People that deny human influence on global warming are putting their interest in maintaining the status quo over the well being of every species on the planet. It is sad and infuriating that a biologist would show so little concern about a problem that could very well accelerate the biggest mass extinction the planet has seen in MILLIONS of years.

Answer 3

No. The only valid arguments about global warming are found in the scientific literature. What do the climatologists say? Who cares what some propagandist says in a forum where they can get away with saying anything.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of climatologists strongly support anthropogenic global warming is all I need to know. They are more capable than me on this issue.

Answer 4

I first desire to state the abilities which permit me to assert what i'll under: i'm an experienced field geologist (and my degree is in geology) working for an environmental consulting company which does artwork in soil, groundwater, business hygiene, compliance, and air high quality. That being pronounced, right it fairly is my answer: i do no longer understand! I incredibly have performed a truthful quantity of examine, and have come to the top that there in simple terms isn't adequate information available to help the two section. lots of the "data" on the two components of the argument do no longer take up international developments and assume that fluctuate in a climate in one section is undesirable. this might no longer be the case through fact the earth is a dynamic equipment. in case you dont have faith me, ask a geologist!!! we can take you out and tutor you places the place the sea could have been over your head at cases and the place it could have been thousands of miles away at others. My factor is this. human beings on the two portion of this concern are manipulating the reality, such as this is. the easy actuality that many human beings on television are agreeing with some thing does no longer make it so. Do i think of we are inflicting considerable injury to our atmosphere? definite, and that i've got many initiatives that could tutor that we are inflicting harm. Are we inflicting our international to warmth up? i'm leaning in direction of no longer nonetheless i think of we'd desire to make some considerable variations to how we do issues. I dont think of that absolutely everyone has performed adequate examine. To be completely truthful, there is an considerable quantity of evidence pointing in direction of the thought the earth isn't heating up as an entire, nonetheless climates around the globe are changing. One equipment impacts yet another.

Answer 5

I think to find out the real deal on global warming you need to get a phd in geology.

Climatology is so complicated that the only way to truely understand it is to study for years and years.

And a biologist is not a climatologist, so I wouldnt put a lot of stock in what he believes.

Answer 6

no one has to get on thier knees for al gore, he's just been campaigning for this for some time, he's not a scientist. The specifics can be worked out but smog and air pollution over places like LA and NY are plain to see with the eye and we must take steps to keep clean lest the river tems catch on fire (again) and we all die of the plague.

Answer 7

Global warming is the result of both natural cycles and man-made pollution. I believe the world is headed for a meltdown and we will all spiral down into the abyss.

So lets party!