(On global warming) If this has been proven, than how can you deny the obvious implication?

Question

If it has been proven, which I believe it has, that without naturally occuring carbon dioxide our planet would be much to cold for survival, and thus it is clear that carbon dioxide serves as a means for holding heat in the earth's atmosphere, than how can you deny man's hand in global warming? Especially when we release into the atmosphere (what is it, like) 600 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year?

Yes, without the naturally occuring CO2, the trees and plants would not have sustainable life, but on the other hand, too much CO2 will also make that plantlife untenable. (Not to mention, our own).

To use a corollary, water is good for us and we need it, but too much of it will completely throw off our electolytes and kill us.

I wish everyone had read my question closer.

Did I say that global warming and man's hand in it had been proven? (although I can provide massive evidence that the whole "controversy" is an artificial one created by the oil and energy companies) What I said had been proven, is simply that CO2 does have a hand in warming the planet (we wouldn't be alive without it) . Which it has.

Answer 1

A lot of people simply lack the capacity to think critically. They jump to illogical conclusions based on what they want to believe. "This one winter was the coldest I've ever faced. Therefore, it must have been the coldest in history, and therefore, global warming must be false." It just goes to show ignorance about the whole issue. Global warming is about the general trend, not individual seasons. If people don't bother to get informed, then they will remain ignorant.

I'm sorry to say that most people, liberal and conservative, are very small minded, and will believe whatever they were raised to, without much thought. Some of the liberals probably would be saying the same thing if their party happened to be in bed with the oil giants.

I'm not either liberal or conservative. I make up my own mind on every issue, and sometimes I go one way, and sometimes, the other way. But on this issue, the evidence is undeniable. We are definitely causing the earth's temperature to rise, and it is definitely having very harmful effects on our environment. I only pray that our leaders (all forms of leaders) can wake up and start educating their constituents/followers/sheep of the danger of the situation.

Answer 2

The problem is... the earth's atmosphere cleans itself of CO and CO2.

We can only measure CO and CO2 levels accurately NOW. We have no proof of correlation between estimations of past CO/CO2 levels and what they really were. Therefore, all the guesswork and theories about CO and CO2 levels in the atmosphere now being higher than ever before are suspect.

We used to use MUCH more coal in the US (and especially in Europe) with much less efficiency. The effect of the coal burning was that snowfalls near large citiec got covered in soot within hours. White snow became a medium grey and in some areas BLACK. We do not produce that type pollution to any appreciable degree any more. Its very possible that the SO and CO2 levels have reduced. We can't go back and sample the air from the 1920's and we don't have enough data to be sure that the currently touted methods of estimation have ANY accuracy.

We know that the average temperature of the earth is higher NOW than it was 50 years ago.

We also have evidence that the earth has gone through several ice ages and several times that were WARMER than now.

People are trying to estimate multi-milenia cycles from less than 100 years worth of accurate data... That pretty stupid.

We have bigger things to be concerned about than global warming. Things that we have more control over. We WILL run out of coal, oil and natural gas. That is guaranteed. Ther simply is not an infinite supply.

Interrestingly.. the energy problem solutions would dovetail with the "global warming" solutions... But focus on the REAL PROVABLE problem... not the theory.

Answer 3

Actually it has not been proven. It's really just semantics, but the latest press release (about 3 weeks ago) said that there is about a 90% probability that Global Warming can be blamed on mankind. It is not a certainty.

Perhaps this is a poor analogy, but remember when OJ's defense team established with the jury that there was like a 1 in 2 million chance that the results could be inaccurate? Well, as small as that chance might have been, it was tantamount to saying he was not guilty as far as the law was concerned. And we know the rest of the story.

My point is this...........it looks like we have had an effect on Global Warming, but it cannot be proven in absolute just yet. I am not denying that I think humans have had an effect on Global Warming, but I also know that the Earth's weather patterns are cyclical. Why else do we have ice ages, then warm periods?

Answer 4

Global warming caused by people is negliable and has NOT been proven. Most of it is on a local level and caused by concert and blacktop rather than other things.
The amount we have experienced is caused by the sun's warmer periods when it has more solar flares and is hotter. This happens every 1500 years approximately. As proof I offer that Mar's polar ice caps are receding as well.
Also warmer periods and periods of glaciation have been going on for eons, way before humans existed. People have done better in warmer periods because of plants growing than in colder periods when food is harder to grow.

Personally I find it incredible that so many allow others to tell them what to believe. I do not appreciate them inposing their version of the "truth" on others.

Global warming has not been proven. People like Al Gore hope to profit from legislating it. Al Gore won an award for his movie. He may have lots of money invested in making others believe in him. The people who are really pushing global warming and the Kyoto treaty which creates an imaginary other economy in carbon for them to trade and profit on are the ones pushing this.

This is not about the fate of the world, honey, it's all about MONEY. Remember the old saying - follow the money.

Answer 5

IT's not been proven!!!!!!a consensus means opinion,the computer models they have used dont calculate the water molecules in the atmosphere(rain,clouds and the effects of them)natural coolers)or the average mean temp in the world would be 140 degrees
google DR Roy Spencer Nasa, Fred Singer,Max Mayfield,and author Micheal Chriton(for the understanding of the word consensus) Heres something to think about,before man and after dinosaurs there were only plants(giving off CO2) the world didnt end did it??

Answer 6

I would have to believe that it is likely that human activity contributes to global warming, though it may not be the sole cause of global warming. The truth is that we do not know a whole lot about the chaotic nature of climate science. We are not really sure what impacts our activity or natural processes have on our climate. However, for the sake of playing it safe, I think we should run under the assumption that our activity does contribute. Also, since we can only control our own activity (we really can't control natural cycles or processes) it would be prudent to exercise that control.

Answer 7

If you would have ever been inside a barn on the coldest day of winter you would understand the heat factor. The body heat from cattle raises the temperature inside the barn to about 60 degrees. We was to have an ice age according to the great scientists between 1945-1970's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
This has been proved wrong. This time around we are talking about global cooking.

Answer 8

Man has definately had a hand in CO2, but that's not the ONLY reason for global warming. The population is much higher than before, so all the CO2 from us breathing is in the atmosphere. Also there are more cows now, and they emit TONS of CO2 out of their butts. http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070224/OPINION/202240318/1030/OPINION see the middle of the 4th paragraph.

Answer 9

i replaced into going to respond to this question with some clever sarcastic reaction even nevertheless it rather is one in each and every of those waste of time. the only element that seems obtrusive to me is that there are lots of people who rather have self assurance that Gore is for real. i had to be honest so I watched his action picture. It replaced into so a good distance fetched that it made me ask your self why a great sort of persons basically blindly persist with him? I comprehend people asserting that pouring pollution into the ambience isn't a good element however the sky isn't falling, the State of Florida isn't likely underwater, the polar bears are no longer drowning, the hurricanes are no longer wreaking havoc on the western hemisphere. the only element that seems to be occurring is that worldwide warming is arising a affliction that effects the rational thinking of people who have self assurance the rantings of an fairly great chickin little.

Answer 10

They live with their heads in the sand!

Funny, we got our first snow-fall in NH on February 13 and that is all the snow we have had this winter! NY was slammed with what we used to get in a year in 3 days!

I can't believe that people don't see a trend here, but when Florida is under water in 2050 perhaps they will believe it!