Where is the scientific controversy over global warming?

Question

I hear so many skeptics claiming that there "isn't enough evidence" to show that humans are causing global warming, but from what I know there is near consensus in the scientific community that humans ARE causing global warming and that it is a serious problem. So what is the source of the popular misconception that scientific evidence for human impact is weak? If you are a skeptic, can you demonstrate that this controversy exists? Please provide sources.

Answer 1

Watch this documentary. It is at least as truthful as Gore's.

Answer 2

Yes, see the comentary above but the general gist is that CO2 levels increase BECAUSE the globe is presently warming, Note that increased CO2 is the EFFECT and NOT the cause.

Even if this were not the case, the oceans generate 99% + of the co2 currently being emitted - so if humand ceased ALL production of CO2 it wouldn't really make a difference anyway.

The good news is that CO2 production is TOTALLY academic to global warming. The earth has gone through colder AND hotter periods than now in the recent past (thousand of years as opposed to millions). We are having a warm cycle at the moment thanks to Sunspot activity.

The problem is that there are MANY tens of thousands of jobs based on "dealing with global warming and research" - a few charities too - all of which would have to admit they are worthless if and when the sheep stop following blindly - and demand to see a little proof.

It also gives governments a wonderful excuse to introduce "carbon tax" and other ideas to screw us over for a little more money than they did last year.

Mark

Answer 3

Global warming is a complex process. Although humans alone may not cause global warming, the effects of overpopulation, deforestation, desertification, fossile fuels, etc. do impact on global warming.

Reading the popular media can lead a person to conclude that "global warming" is:
o- either a hoax to promote business opportunities, politicians agenda and scientists grant money.....

OR

o- a problem related to overpopulation, industrialization and fossil fuels whose solution options lie in solar power, wind power, geothermal power and nuclear fusion....

However, the main cause may be altogether different:

NASA has released never-before-seen images that show the sun's magnetic field is much more turbulent and dynamic than previously known. The international spacecraft Hinode, formerly known as Solar B, took the images. Hinode was launched Sept. 23 to study the sun's magnetic field and its explosive energy. National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists said the spacecraft's uninterrupted high-resolution observations of the sun are expected to have an impact on solar physics comparable to the Hubble Space Telescope's impact on astronomy. "For the first time, we are now able to make out tiny granules of hot gas that rise and fall in the sun's magnetized atmosphere," said Dick Fisher, director of NASA's Heliophyics Division. "These images will open a new era of study on some of the sun's processes that effect Earth, astronauts, orbiting satellites and the solar system." Hinode is a collaborative mission led by
the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and includes the European Space Agency and Britain's Particle Physics Astronomy Research
Council. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., managed the development of the Hinode's scientific instrumentation provided by industry and federal agencies.

>>> as regards alternative energy methods, I favor development of the technology for nuclear fusion using lunar Helium 3

Answer 4

You can approach this from several different angles: Geological climate information, politics, AAPG, and comparitive analysis.

Geological climate data indicates that over the course of the earth's entire history the current fluctuations (and even computer projections) have occurred countless times already.

Politics reveals the power of the active, vocal interests in silencing dissenters. Every scientist studying global warming is receiving grants for their work. These grants depend on the perceived importance/threat of global warming. To say that humans are not responsible is to remove your source of funding and to risk the funding of your collegues, who will in turn discredit your qualifications, your character, your work, and your career. Politics is even affecting the AAPG to some degree.

The position of the AAPG is that the human contribution to global warming is inconclusive and that the climate falls within geological, historical trends. This indicates a degree of relative insignificance.

Comparitive analysis puts our effect on the earth into perspective. Mt. St Helens released the equivalent of 27,000 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs (350 megatons), an atomic bomb ranges from 10 kilotons to 10 megatons or more), and daily world petroleum consumption releases 108 megatons (worldwide petroleum consumption is 84.43 E6 bbl/day or 1.34 E10 L/day * 33.76 kJ/mL = 45.2 E16 J/day divided by 4.184 petajoules octane/megaton TNT) per day. Given that volcanic activity and fires rage across the planet everyday, these human combustion activities are neither trivial nor unrivaled either now or in geological history.

Answer 5

Last I heard that there is no longer much controversy over whether or not it is happening as from what I read 98% of the world's scientist agree it is occurring, however the controversy is whether or not it is MAN (or humans for you ladies out there) that is the cause or if this is just a NATURAL cycle in which the earth goes through.

Answer 6

First, there is no "near consensus" in the scientific community as you suggest. There is consensus among scientist that depend on global warming for their income, but when you get away from this group, no consensus exists.

The fact that the evidence is week is obvious to anyone who examines the actual data and does their own analysis. I suggest you do this rather than taking the word of politicians and celebrities on what the data show.

Answer 7

I second what Holden said. Everyone please watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle". It's available at Google videos and elsewhere.

We've all been hearing that the global warming debate is over and that 99% of scientists agree with Al Gore's agenda. This is propaganda. There's a lot more academic credentials behind this documentary than there are behind Gore's.

Answer 8

they say that i do believe 200 years ago two volcanos erupted putting more C02 in the air than humans have in tyha past century, and that now the leading cause of global warming is cows. HA HA!! and that the earth was doing this before any evidence shows we were even here. so what next?

Answer 9

The problem with the theory is that there is no evidence for it except computer simulations, and since running a controlled experiment is obviously impossible, proving it is impossible also. The computer simulations may be correct -- or not. Anyone who has tried to use a computer simulation to predict the weather will be well aware of the problems.
Postscript: I watched the BBC presentation cited in Holden's response. Without exception, every numerical result they presented agrees exactly with my own computations.

Answer 10

There is none, at least about the basics. Global warming is real and mostly caused by us..

"Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

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

There are simply a few skeptics.

The "swindle" movie has been discredited.

The producer has a clear bias and a history of distorting science. In 1997 he put out another similar movie trashing the environmental movement in general. Channel 4 had to publicly apologize for his distortion of scientist's positions on that one.

These are just a few of the scientific and media watch sites that found this movie wrong.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

The peer reviewed scientific data clearly supports the reality of global warming. The best summary of it is here:

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

Which is why the vast majority of climatologists believe global warming is real. See the first website above for proof.

This sums it up well:

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

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

Which is why these people (who don't get their science from Al Gore, they get it from the best scientists in the world) say:

"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, Republican, former environmental official under Presidents Nixon and Ford

"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

Answer 11

The best answer; is how did the previous ice ages end and melt off? Man didn't heat the earth enough to do that now did they.