Do you really believe all of this global warming hype?

Question

Why are so many scientists still debating on each side of this issue? If it is still this hottly debated should gov'ts be imposing economy killing emmision reg's so hastily?

Answer 1

The perception that "so many scientists" are still debating on each side of the issue is the result of a news media that wants to give equal coverage to views on both sides of scientific issues. This might be because of a genuine interest in fairness, or because they don't have the resources to investigate the issue in depth. But it's impossible for readers and viewers to resolve a scientific question by themselves. This is not to say that the general population doesn't have valid opinions on scientific issues, like what the goals and boundaries of scientific research should be. But the result of the "balanced" approach is that the public comes away with the misperception that there is more conflict than agreement on the issue of global warming.

A 2004 study of global warming-related articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Wall Street Journal found that 53% of the 340 articles gave equal coverage to both views (that humans are responsible/not responsible.) Compare this to the view of scientists, where of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles with the keywords "climate change", not a single one rejected the consensus view that humans are responsible for climate change.

There are a few dozen scientists that refute the consensus view. But they aren't generating their own climate models and transparently publishing any findings in peer-reviewed journals to back up their claims. Because of the media's tendency to highlight controversy (think of the split-screen news debate style that's become so common) it's not surprising that the public thinks so many scientists are debating. It's just not true.

Answer 2

You mean the 1% of crackpot scientists paid off by Big Oil to debate the topic? Its not even a debate any more Elmer. 1.5 billion TONS of CO2 spewed into the air every year by humans is 100's of times more than the plants can absorb.
Economy killing? Some predict the opposite. The Clean Air act of 1960's produced an economic BOOM. Innovation and production of products to sell to the rest of te world. Before Japan starts. Oh wait. YToyota is going to crush GM in the next few years with their high mileage hybrid cars. Too late.

Answer 3

it's NOT HYPE. if you look at the facts you will clearly see what is going on. also, if people were to get in on alternative energy, all the people and economies around the world could benefit.

the "hype" as you call it is actually in the favor of the people trying to hide global warming. a way higher percent of the media has left global warming as a question then have qualified scientists. they know it is real.

the only scientist the don't see it at this point seem to be those who just want attention or are being paid off.

Answer 4

Global warming is just the latest craze in keeping the people at bay and worried about something while the powers-that-be do whatever they want, with our money. Michael Crichton wrote an interesting novel called "State of Fear". I highly recommend everyone read it. Recently, scientists posted an article on the internet that debunks the "global warming hysteria." In short, they point out the earth's climate is constantly evolving but NOT from our fossil fuel emissions, but rather from volcanic eruptions under the ocean. It's an interesting piece and explains things in a far more rationale way.

Answer 5

once you confer with hype it would be very effective in case you may cite particular examples of hype. as an occasion the action picture "The Day After the following day" is obviously hype. They made a accepted formulation Hollywood horror flick and claimed that it represented what might take place with international Warming. The action picture became not genuine. The manufacturers and administrators knew it became not genuine yet they released it and promoted it as though it have been to make a gaggle of money. they seem to have succeeded. what's gloomy is that many human beings have faith that action picture is genuine, very resembling the way that human beings believed Orson Welles radio broadcast of the fictitious tale titled "conflict of the Worlds" a fictional account of u.s. being invaded by potential of Martians confident human beings to have faith that we've been fairly being invaded by potential of Martians. Many oftentimes solid human beings went out and shot up the interior reach water towers because of the fact to them the water towers looked like the creatures that Orson Welles defined as invading earth from the planet Mars. That radio broadcast created lots hysteria that that's now unlawful to make a radio or television broadcast like that without returned and returned reminding the individuals of the objective industry that it is fiction and that's not happening. the comparable style of warning could be required for memories interior the oftentimes happening media for a super style of alternative matters because of the hysteria that they convey. even however even however the oftentimes happening media is packed with the main ridiculous hype with reference to the undertaking of world Warming, lots of the peer reviewed scientific literature is great. in case you're asking approximately hype interior the scientific literature I surely have not seen something that i might evaluate hype and that i've got examine a super component to the scientific literature on the undertaking of world Warming. in case you assert that there is hype interior the scientific literature please cite the particular article or articles so as which you assert seem to be hyped so as that i can look them up and choose for myself. in case you're asking no rely if or not i think the hype interior the oftentimes happening media, the respond is for sure no.

Answer 6

first of all, our economies are going to die out if we don't impose emission regulations. petroleum is a non-renewable resource, so it WILL run out. it's better if we start weaning ourselves off of oil now so that we don't end up in a crisis when that day comes.

also, global warming IS occurring- it's a matter of whether you trust your thermometer. average global temperatures HAVE been rising. besides thermometer evidence, there's other proxy evidence of this global increase. for example, tree rings can be used to figure out temperature trends.

the controversy is over whether humans are causing this warming trend or whether this is a natural phenomenon. one indicator that this isn't natural is the carbon dioxide record. during the past several hundred thousand years, the earth has been in alternating periods of warm climate (interglacials) and cold climate (ice ages). today's carbon dioxide levels are MUCH higher than they were in any of the past interglacials (and these were supposed to be the warm periods).

you can take a look at the carbon dioxide graph at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif, which gives carbon dioxide concentrations up to 2000 years ago. these measurements are based on samples taken from ice cores. note that it rarely goes above 300 ppm.

then, take a look at the keeling curve for modern CO2 concentrations at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/sio-mlgr.gif. note that it STARTS above 300 ppm.

Answer 7

Only a few scientists disagree.

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

"the question of global warming was settled years ago for all but a few holdouts in the scientific community"

The problem with analyzing climate is that there's only one way to do it. You must look at a lot of data and do methodical analysis.

When you do that, all the ideas for it being natural are completely destroyed. But it takes data, not intuition. Here goes.

Solar variation. Carefully measured data on solar radiation (done repeatedly by many people in many places) shows the increase in solar radiation is 0.12 watts per meter squared. The increase in heat due to man's activities is 1.6 watts per meter squared, more than ten times as much.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf Page 4.

Volcanoes. They create about 1% as much greenhouse gas as man does, and they create dust, which cancels that out.

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

The natural world is incapable of absorbing the excess CO2 that man creates by digging up carbon buried naturally over many many years, and burning it real fast. The small teeth are nature (seasonal variation), we're the big surge upwards. We're "winning" big time.

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

Serious people know that just arguing generalities doesn't work here, you actually need to look at the data, or check with someone you trust who has.

The people below have done that. They are mostly not liberals, or environmentalists. They didn't get their information from Al Gore (mostly they're mostly no fans of his, and they know Gore has absolutely nothing to do with the science). They're serious people and they got their information from the best scientists in the world. They also know about people who thinks it's natural, and they have listened to them also. They're not buying it. They think humans are the cause. You may not respect all of them, but surely you respect some.

"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

"Global warming is already starting, and there's going to be more of it. I think there is still time to deal with global warming, but we need to act soon. Humans now control global climate, for better or worse."

James Hansen, PhD, climate scientist, NASA

"By mid-century, millions more poor children around the world are likely to face displacement, malnourishment, disease and even starvation unless all countries take action now to slow global warming."

Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University

"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

And the data is why the vast majority of scientists think it's not natural, but us.

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

People can trot out all the "logical" arguments they want. They can attack Al Gore's personal life. But the scientific data is completely overwhelming. This is the best summary of it right now. Thousands of scientists created it, and it underwent massive peer review. It's solid, and actually very conservative, as anything created by a large group of people is.

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

Global warming is real and it's us. Denying it is not scientific, it's right up there with denying we went to the moon or saying someone has a perpetual motion machine.

And, if we don't start reducing it now, it will be devastating. Rich countries will lose a lot of money to flooding and agricultural damage. Poor countries will b unable to cope, and millions will die of starvation.