Global Warming is a lie True or False?

Question

“It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas,” the 60 scientists concluded.

In August, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun’s output. See: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html

There have also been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing and a new 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for up to 50% of 20th-century warming. See: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142.shtml

A 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showed that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass. See: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N44/C1.jsp Also, according to the International Arctic Research Institute, despite all of the media hype, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s than today.

Despite Time Magazine and the rest of the media’s unfounded hype, polar bears are not facing a crisis, according to biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut. “Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,” Taylor wrote on May 1, 2006. See: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146433819696&call_pageid=970599119419

Other new studies have debunked many of the dubious claims made by the global warming alarmists. For example, the claim that droughts would be more frequent, severe and wide ranging during global warming, has now being exposed as fallacious. A new paper in Geophysical Research Letters authored by Konstantinos Andreadis and Dennis Lettenmaier finds droughts in the U.S. becoming “shorter, less frequent and cover a small portion of the country over the last century.” http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/10/13/where-are-the-droughts

According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was “0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average.” See: http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2006/jul06/noaa06-065.html

Answer 1

It's a scam. You can see right through their little sham.

Answer 2

True.

What you've cited as "polar opposites" in terms of evidence doesn't cover the whole planet. If the Antarctic was really getting colder, than why are the ice sheets still receding at an alarming rate? Why is the Arctic polar sheets breaking off in huge chunks--threatening many species up there?

30 years ago, our understanding of global warming and global cooling was pretty much in its infancy. But the signs of global warming are here now because we have better tools, a better scientific understanding.

It isn't a myth anymore.

Answer 3

So, 30 years ago -- when the population was about 20% less, and when different industries and technologies were in use -- scientists at that time come up with some estimates.

Now, 30 years later, with better science and a different global economy, they come up with different results. How is that surprising?

Atmospheric gases and contaminates can cause either cooling (by increasing albedo) or warming (by trapping solar heat). So, do you think that a change in what gasses are being used now, compared to 30 years ago, might result in different forecasts?

The fact that humans impact the global climate is pretty much beyond contention by anyone who doesn't also believe the world is flat. What those changes are and exactly when they start being fatal and/or irreversible is still under debate.

But if we know at least some of the behaviors that are causing problems, and we know the problems are going to get worse eventually, what possible incentive do we have to not take action now?

Unless we truly don't care about the kind of world out children will be living in, and we just decide to live for the moment.

Answer 4

There have been at least 3 Global Warming summits canceled this year due to icy road conditions at the various chosen venues.
This planet has a history of heating and cooling and heating again. Todays global warming machine is political and its gotten dirty.
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change. The emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
Politicians have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened when scientists, noted ones, dare to piss in their corn flakes.
In1974 these same people were warning about Global Freezing. If we had SUV's back then, I bet car buyers would get a tax credit for purchasing them.
Let Nancy Pelosi have her jet for the first round trip to San Francisco from Washington, D.C. On the next trip, let her take a covered wagon pulled by a team of oxen, using unimproved roads. Measure the total greenhouse gases emitted by both trips, including those by Ms. Pelosi.
If we reduce the use of fuels that supposedly cause global warming, will we see a reduction in the number of regulations governing using those fuels? I doubt it.
For what it's worth, the hottest temperature in the United States (134) was recorded in 1913. The hottest temperature recorded on earth (136) was in 1922. Both were before the period when most people in the United States owned cars.

If you enter "hottest years" into a Google search, you find the following in the first page:
1880, the earliest year for which reliable records ...

record-keeping began in the 1890s ...

data began being kept in 1861 ...

How can there be so many different accountings of when temperature records were kept? If we can't agree on something which should be a provable fact, what are we to believe about predicting?

Answer 5

False. Even if you forget EVERYTHING you've ever heard about the subject, logic dictates that we must be warming up our atmosphere- simply by virtue of the growing amount of GUNK we are pouring into the air, & the ever growing amount of landscape we're paving over. In ANY crowd of people- there are always a few "naysayers" who adamantly insist that such & such "can"t be true. Like- those who STILL say that Hitler was a genious, or the Holocaust didn't happen- even though it's been PROVEN otherwise a zillion times! The bottom line IS- you can't change your mind & admit you're wrong- when it's too late. The time to DO something about it- is when the signs are telling you that the storm is on the way. And anyone who has ANY understanding of what's going on in the natural world today- can see that something's going on...-and the evidence leads to our doorsteps.

Answer 6

Best piece to read on the issue: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=H3L4ZXHDAYDMRQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0


Readers should be aware that 99.99% of climatologists and environmentalists are "trained classically." Let's not forget that we are talking about a field that has trouble predicting whether or not it will be raining tomorrow.

This is what we do know:

History shows Earth has been through multiple periods of global warming and global cooling.

There is evidence that solar output has been rising slightly for about 100 years.

We know that the rotation of the earth and the tilt of the axis affect weather patterns. And the Earth’s rotation and axis tilt can, and has, fluctuated due to natural occurrences.

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake slightly altered the Earth's rotation. The exact amount is yet undetermined, but theoretical models suggest the earthquake shortened the length of a day by 2.68 microseconds (2.68 µs, or about one billionth of the length of a day), due to a decrease in the oblateness of the Earth.[18]

It also caused the Earth to minutely "wobble" on its axis by up to 2.5 cm (1 in) in the direction of 145° east longitude,[19]

More spectacularly, there was 10 m (33 ft) movement laterally and 4–5 m (13–16 ft) vertically along the fault line. Early speculation was that some of the smaller islands south-west of Sumatra,which is on the Burma Plate (the souther regions are on the Sunda Plate, may have moved south-west by up to 20 m (66 ft), and some early estimates said up to 36 m (118 ft). However, more accurate data released, more than a month following the earthquake, present a more manageable figure of 20 cm (7.9 in).[21] Since movement was vertical as well as lateral, some coastal areas may have been moved to below sea level. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands appear to have shifted south-west by around 1.25 m (4.1 ft) and to have sunk by 1 m (3.28 ft).[22]

We also know the predictions of the effects we should be seeing from global warming are not consistently supported by research evidence.

A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. And satellite readings, not surface monitoring stations, are showing the global extent of sea ice is on the rise.

The long-term record of sea level changes for Bombay (India) was published by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1995. It shows a net decline in sea level in the last 50 years.

Over the last 100 years many dry areas have become even drier and wet areas have become wetter. For example, above average rainfall continued in much of England and Wales during the first 3 months of the year making the 24-month period ending in March 2001 the wettest in the 236-year England and Wales precipitation time series. Northern, western and central areas of Australia received well above average rainfall in 2001, continuing a pattern that has prevailed over the past 3 years. In a 4-day period in January, Alice Springs received 240 mm of precipitation, only 45 mm less than the annual average. Conversely, parts of southwest and much of eastern Australia were drier than normal.

Regional surface patterns show the presence of above average temperatures across much of the globe in 2001, although large parts of the tropical and north Pacific were cooler than average.

And finally, the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has stated that hurricanes and typhoons are NOT becoming stronger and more frequent on a global level. The Atlantic basin has seen an increase in the number of strong hurricanes since 1995. However, studies have not shown a long-term increase in the intensity or frequency of Atlantic hurricanes. And 1991-1994 actually marked the four quietest years on record (back to the mid-1940s) with just less than 4 hurricanes per year. Instead of seeing a long-term trend up or down, there appears to be a quasi-cyclic multi-decade regime that alternates between active and quiet phases for major Atlantic hurricanes on the scale of 25-40 years each (Gray 1990; Landsea 1993; Landsea et al. 1996).



---Check out links below----

Answer 7

True. Average temperatures have been going up for the last 19,000 years. However, if you were to listen to Al Gore, he says the sky is falling. There are liars, damn liars, and liars who use statistics to backup their claim to global warming because of man.

Global warming has been coming for a very long time and probably very little man can do about it. Global warming will be a precursor to another ice age. Periodically, the earth will shifts its axis and change the climate of the world. Also, its orbit around the sun will be altered and also cause the climate to change. These are things that have happened time and again for millions of years and man has nothing to do with it.

If there's anything to be learned, the sky is falling.

Answer 8

The politicians will argue this ad infinitum.

I live near Boulder Colorado, Home of NCAR ( National Center for Atmospheric Research) and NOAA ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). I have two neighbors who are atmospheric scientists, my kids hangs out with other kids whose parents work at NOAA. There are countless independent research labs here also. This is probably one of the most weather savy cities in the nation.
So, without any political motivation, whats the word on the street here?
It's real.
But they're not sure how bad. It could easily be benign or catastrophic.
Our actions are fueling it

Answer 9

Major Kudos to you sir for not only saying the truth,but for putting the resources behind it,I too went to the NOAA site and saw the global temps and 2006 was hot,its cooler in this year so far,and yes the polar bears are actually not endangered either,but greenpeace is getting them put on the almost endangered list,I just wish more people took the time like you did,to see the truth

Answer 10

Global warming IS happening but it's not being caused by man. Most evidence points to it being in synch with solar patterns that cycle on a 1,500 year schedule. The famed "hockey stick" graph is a fraud based on bad science and lies.

And yes to all the moonbats out there, I realize that the link below is not to an unbiased site. But it contains an interview with an expert who wrote a book on global warming. Read it if you have the guts.

Answer 11

I believe global warming is definately happening. I do not believe that humans are the reason. The Earth has went through uncountable cooling and warming periods to maintain balance as a living organism does through homeostasis. This, in my opinion, is a better description of what is going on then what Al Gore and the "tree huggers" want you to believe.