Is Global Warming Man Made Or Is It Just Another Liberal Lie?

Question

If there is any truth to the statement that man has caused global warming then we must know for a fact that the temperature between 1500 and 1600, 1600 to 1700 and 1800 to 1900 did not increase because there was virtually no man made global warming gases being produced during these times. If the temperature was increasing during these times then the liberals are lying about the current temperature increase being caused by man. Does anyone have any scientific data that shows average world temperature did not increase during the centuries before the 1900's (sources please)? If you do not, how in the world could you believe that the majority of global warming is caused by man?

If there is any truth to the statement that man has caused global warming then we must know for a fact that the temperature between 1500 and 1600, 1600 to 1700 and 1800 to 1900 did not increase because there was virtually no man made global warming gases being produced during these times. If the temperature was increasing during these times then the liberals are lying about the current temperature increase being caused by man. Does anyone have any scientific data that shows average world temperature did not increase during the centuries before the 1900's (sources please)? If you do not, how in the world could you believe that the majority of global warming is caused by man?
Clarification: In the beginning of the industrial revolution there was very little carbon emissions being produced, most of it was particulate.
An Inconvenient Truth was made by the same guy that invented the internet.
No one is addressing the temperatures before the 1900's if they increased global warming is a lie

Sorry for posting my details twice, I am new to this.

If you look at the "scientists" that support global warming, most of them are not climatologists. The media and the liberals pick and choose the scientists to list that support it, they do not include the ones that disagree with their agenda.

Raoul Duke
If I am informed by morons, then why can't anyone answer the question? Where is this indisputable data that shows that the Earth's temperature was not increasing during the last several centuries before the industrial revolution? Also please explain the temperature and greenhouse effects during Earth's history i.e. the Jurassic period, Maybe you should get out of academia and get a real job, it might help remove your bias.

Answer 1

The Majority of global warming is caused by the sun, solar radiation varies in a cyclical way, such as an increase or decrease of solar flares, etc. Read the book "Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1500 years" and you will get the point.
Also " State of Fear" these state the facts quite well.

Proof of this is that Mar's polar ice caps are melting as well. I guess all those greenhouse gases are causing that ( not! ) Liberals will then say that Mar's atmosphere is too thin to stop the solar radiation, but what has Mars been doing for thousands of years? How then are our greenhouse gases causing the increase, while Mar's Lack there of causing the same increase???

The earth has been going through cycles of warming and ice ages for eons without our help.

I am sure there is some warming and that we ARE to blame for polluting the environment, but 1 - 3 degrees of global warming is NOT THE END OF THE WORLD! It just is not as drastic a change as the liberals would like to make it seem.

I actually found positive proof that the liberals are tampering with certain websites to show increases in global warming where none exist. I am unwilling to put it on here yet, because I am in the process of publishing my findings and reporting them so that those who are doing this will be liable.

Why? It's all about money. Liberals have lots invested in promoting the carbon economy that would be created by Kyoto type treaties that create a secondary false economy based on carbon trading, a real scam if ever there was one. The guys at the top have a lot of money riding on this and they are brainwashing and dupping everyone stupid enough to go along with it.

Answer 2

It is just another lie. Global warming, and global cooling occurs naturally and cyclically. Mankind is too insignificant to cause any real change. If man was able to raise the temperature, then how the hell did the ice ages happen? How did the planet warm up after the ice ages? If man can control climate, then it seems illogical in the extreme that there are still rains, droughts, earthquakes, volcanoes or tornadoes. Also, if you do the research and find the really 'Inconvenient Truth', since 1975 when the whole global warming alarmist idiot circus really got rolling, global temperatures have in fact been going down except for I believe 2002 and 2003. The net global average temperature is now actually 2 degrees cooler than in 1975. For more, seek out Clive Cussler's writing on the subject. He has done the research, listed the sources, and laid it out very clearly. I cite him because he is widely known, is a respected and erudite author of both fiction and non-fiction works, and has worked with many notable scientists of our time, including physicist Dr. Harold Edgerton.

Answer 3

Global warming is just a leftist myth started to cause alarm and make people feel guilty then blame it all on the U.S. Global warming does not exist and therefore cannot cause anything or be caused by anything. the average temperature of the earth can actually vary 100 degrees and still be considered normal, or so i've heard. I can name a whole bunch of reasons why global warming doesn't exist, but i don't have that much time. And if the liberals wanted to, they can find some bogus evidence of global cooling, but then that wouldn't go along with the whole idea that we're running out of natural resources and burning too much fossil fuels. You know we would have plenty of fossil fuels to last us hundreds and hundreds of years if the stupid "enviromentalists" would let us drill in the U.S., but that's a different subject...

Answer 4

I agree the Earth temperature has increased as it ages, but the fact is Global Warming has accelerated this process in a very extremely way. We do have to face the fact that global warming is a problem that will we have to deal sooner or later.
Now, we also can't hide it is a great opportunity for politicians make their names. The same way that the starvation in Africa is a fact, it hasn't been ended because "feed the starvation" became a great business for politicians, pharmaceutical industries and others. I guess the Global Warming, will be treated the same way as the starvation in Africa has been treated, no solution but an "endless treatments".
Have you observed how the pharmaceutical industry has behaved from the past of 10 years? They don't provided us, medications that cures anymore, they give us medications that controls the disease. This way we can be sick forever, and their money is guarantied forever too. The same thing about Global Warming, no one will never come up with a solution but profitable ways to control the pollutions levels on Earth.

Answer 5

There is nothing comparable to the trend since 1850 (coincident with the onset of the Industrial revolution), and especially since the last half of the 20th century. Similarly, there are no 1500-year cycles that explain the recent upward trend in global temperature. The anti-warming crowd is lying.

--------------------------

Edit -

Check out the infamous 'hockey-stick' graph here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3569604.stm

I did not author the paper that made that curve famous, but the authors did use some of my data in constructing it, and I did perform some of the analysis that preceded the Bradley, Mann, and Hughes article in the scientific journal 'Nature' where it was first published.

--------------------

Edit -

Get real, it is the anti-warming zealots that not only pick and choose, but also rely on scientists with questionable credentials.
Global climate change scientists overwhelmingly report that their data and research support the anthropogenic influence hypothesis.

---------------------

Also -

elscorchoooo's answer is really quite excellent and accurate.

Perhaps you should take his advice and do some real research rather than rely on the opinions of biased and uninformed morons, as you obviously have been doing.
---------------------------------------

Your question has been answered – hundreds of times - there is no comparable period in the last 10,000 years (the Holocene, which represents the ‘modern’ climate since the last glaciation.) during which the temperature has increased as rapidly and to the degree that it has over the past century. It is not my problem if you cannot read or comprehend the available scientific data, including the graph I referenced.

The Jurassic is irrelevant. It began over 200,000,000 years ago and lasted for more than 50,000,000 years. The earth’s climate was more tropical and subtropical than today, there was less climate variability and there were no polar ice caps. At the beginning of the Jurassic Period, there was only one large single continent (Pangaea). If nothing else, we do not have the same resolution.

Since I know most of the scientists doing climate change research, I know how sincerely they are convinced and how honestly they are interpreting the scientific data. As for my career options, I tend not to take opinions of scientific illiterates seriously. In a world of uncertainty, there is at least one sure thing – and that is that I know more about this than you.

-----------------------------
inzaratha ----

"Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1500 years" is pathetic and scientifically laughable, and you do not need to be a climate scientist to understand why.

Spectral (singular-, cross-, and evolutionary- frequency response analysis of time domain data) analysis of geophysical data is outrageously inconclusive. First, the mathematical algorithms used will, by definition, identify significant response(s) (i.e. cycles). This is true even if the input data represent a white-noise series. Therefore, results are coincidental unless there is an 'a priori' reason to suggest otherwise.

We are certain of the 11- and (primary) 22-year sunspot cycle, but there are no known long-term mathematical cycles, only qualitative (sort of like – yeah, it goes up and down relative to some empirically established mean value) models of long-tern climate variability.

Spectral analysis works great if you are studying the physics of light waves, but climate is a very different endeavor. Here is a decent little explanation:

http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/sttimser.html#single

I heard one of the authors interviewed on Michael Savages’ show and could not believe how lame the person was. I, and others, have had our research attacked by petroleum industry hit-men McIntyre and McKitrick, and at least they know enough to be able to pretend they know what is going on, but Singer and Avery are just minor league buffoons.

Answer 6

I think temperature, humidity, and cleanliness are the three key points in environment. The papers and articles that say Global Warming real fast and accusational are thinking about industry and traffic and how it heats things up. The earth and the environment cleans itself like a dishwasher. Precipitation to rinse, hot and dry to eliminate bacteria, and so on. Unfortunatley I have no sources but my own observation. I am convinced the earth itself likes humans and aims to appease our senses but the physics of current evolution does not allow a light fog, a silent nature, a dark night, and so on as much as human beings senses deserve. I would say, look at the time line from 1500 onward and you may notice there is much less snow on the mountains.

Answer 7

I have read some of the responses to this question and the most disturbing yet expected is that an Inconvenient truth will answer the question. It will answer the question only to the person that is unwilling to look a little deeper. Let's give an example:
Gore asserts that the snows of Kiliminjaro are being depleted by global warming. He is correct, the snows have been retreating--for over 100 years, and yet, unmentioned in his docudrama, the peak has been getting COLDER. The loss of ice has been because the region is drier. Is that from global warming? Well, perhaps, but it is not examined, and the cooling trend at Mt K doesn't fit the scenario he wants to sell.1

Or how about Gore's concern over Patagonian medium-sized glacier "Upsala" which is on the retreat? He fails to mention several other Patagonian Glaciers, such as Moreno and Pio XI, that are growing rapidly.2

In the 70s their was a firm belief that global cooling was upon us, and the argument was over. Gore has essentially moved to shut down debate and polarize the discussion in favor of global warming--but just in case, its now referred to as 'climate change'.
Bob Carter, Professor at Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook Australia says, " Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak they are pathetic. It is simply incredible..they are commanding public attention".

Answer 8

It is man made. i'm a chemist and I worked for ten years in the environmental field, and I saw the first signs 30 years ago. There are, of course other factors involved. The basic ignorance of the public with regard to the complex factors involved ("gee, it was 12 degrees here in Duluth today, where's the global warming?) makes it difficult to explain to those not trained in chemistry, physics, and atmospherics. The paid experts employed by the energy concernswould have you believe that globla warming doesn't exist. If we can, let's indulge in a little objective analysis of the global warming debate.

For the sake of argument lets say there is a 50% chance that global warming does exist, and that it is caused by human activity.

If we react to it now on an individual basis the upside is:
1)reduced electric bills due to lower usage
2)reduced automotive bills (less gasoline, less miles therefore less wear and tear on your vehicle)
3)reduced emissions=better health, particularly for those in cities
4)faster development of alternative energy sources (geothermal wind, solar, hydrogen and ethanol for transportation applications. By the way, hydrogen is a truely unlimited source, since whenyou burn it, you get pure water)

Now the downsides
1)lower profits for the utility companies
2)lower profits for the oil companies
3)more profits for the pharmaceutical companies, especially those selling repiratory drugs
4)less stress on an already struggling American automotive industry (don't need to develop more efficient engines or propulsion systems that utilize alternative fuels)

Any questions?

Answer 9

HERE'S THE FACTS:

LIBERALS CAN'T PROVE GLOBAL WARMING

YOU CAN'T PROVE THERE IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING... (and the issues you mention are far from proof of anything, you merely raise doubts about it, not prove it's wrong, it's a big difference)

we simply don't have enough evidence to disprove or prove it's caused by man or not?

it's a theory and the majority of scientists, that I'm aware of, believe that it's very LIKELY the cause...

science has been wrong before, granted... but they tend to be right more than wrong...

Answer 10

I question the science of man made Global warming for the following reasons...
1. Those scientists that support the notion are getting financial benefits from groups that promote Kyoto.
2. Scientists who are expert in the field of climate disagree that man is responsible.
3. As an ignorant red neck I understand that the climate is not static, it has changed from the beginning.
4. Water Vapor (that stuff that cools the planet) is not mentioned by the pointy heads of global warming, the focus is on CO2. H2O has a far greater impact on temperature. Tornados are comprised of water vapor as are Hurricaines.
5. Advocates of Global warming have photoshopped some of their photos, like two polarbears on an Ice flow seen on drudge.
polarbears can swim 100 miles in a day. The population of polarbears has increased in 25 years.
6. Al Gore wants you to purchase Carbon Credits. He gets paid by the company that produces the Credit. He does not live in a green manner either.
7. The hurricaine cycle runs about 33 years no mention by pointy heads.
8.Accurate temperature readings have been taking place for about 120 years. The little Ice Age lasted roughly 500-700 years.
30 years ago predictions of a coming Ice Age were published by Newsweek who now advocate Global Warming.
9. As in the Case of Gallileo politics makes for bad science.
Stem cells makes a clear point. Ambiotic fluid contains stem cells, proponents want to kill the embryo and ignore the fluid.