Left-wingers- a challenge.?

Question

It's simple enough that even you should be able to do it. Present one single, concrete, supporting SHRED of scientific evidence that varifies the alarmists' theory of man-induced global warming.
Don't talk to me about what a bunch of scientists say or the U.N. report. I've heard it before. I want to hear YOU show me irrefutable evidence... C'mon! Clock's ticking!

Goldenrae,
That is NOT an answer to the question. For the record, I'm not against looking for cleaner, more renewable sources of energy at all. Based on your answer, you can't present any real evidence. Sad.

Notyou,
Sorry. No. That's not real supporting evidence.
I remember back in the seventies there was a lot of talk about global cooling. The same fear tactics were being used as there are now.
I don't really have the space here to go into all the reasons those so-called findings are BS. But let me ask you this. If man is the cause, then why do we see the polar ice-caps on Mars melting? Is it because of all the martians driving their SUVs?

G,
Thanks for that nice rant, but chances are I know far more about science than you.
The fact is that from all you tend to hear from Al Gore and global warming alarmists, it's not just a theory but a FACT. It's like darwinism. There's no real proof, but people present it as fact.

Tukko,
I was speaking more to the U.N. report and the fact that I wanted to see actual evidence and studies rather than opinions of people with a bias. Scientists are not infallible as people like to believe. Grant money is a scientist's lifeblood, and nearly all their work is peer reviewed. If they step outside the box and go against the popular theory of they day, they risk losing their grant money. This is just ONE reason that you can't believe something just because a bunch of scientists say it. It's called doing the research for yourself. Duh.

Coragryph,
If you've done research yourself it should not be that hard to do. I've done my own research on the subject. The seventies comment was only ONE small reason that this man-made global warming stuff is pure BS. In previous answers, I've presented a whole laundry list of why it is BS, including the lack of a true control group for experimentation.

Answer 1

The scientists don't have proof. They are quoting, "consensus of opinion".

If ten thousand people believe a foolish notion, then ten thousand people are fools.- Ben Franklin

If YOU believe a foolish notion, then YOU are a fool.-
KrazyKyngeKorny(Krazy, not stupid)
-

Answer 2

I agree with you. The juries still out. But lets examine this from a more shrewd perspective. Quite frankly it doesn't matter if its real or not real anymore, a significant amount of people around the world agree it is happening. Demographically speaking, these "significant" people tend to be rich. If you can get the rich to believe in a dooms-day conspiracy theory - one where their grandchildren die terrible deaths (flooding, mass starvation, etc.) you can sell them anything. And I mean anything. As capitalist, we should all embrace global warming just so we can take advantage of the emerging market. You should be less concerned with worthless UN reports and more concerned with how you will make your fortune. Just follow Al Gore's lead on this one.

Answer 3

there is no hard evidence... THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED A THEORY...

has any conservative ever taken a science class?

see they have theories... sometimes they can't prove them but most of the evidence points in one direction...

pretty much everything that we now know in science was once a theory, and much has been proven since then...

theories aren't full proof though...granted...

the simple fact is... we can't prove it right... and conservatives can't prove it wrong...

evidence seems to point to the fact that odds are the scientists are right...

so it's basically like a big game of poker... and global warming has suited Ace/King... and non-global warming is holding about a non-suited 8/9... while the 8/9 could still win the game, most people wouldn't bet money on it...

but you never know what's going to happen on the flop...

ANOTHER EXAMPLE: if you're riding in your car... and you hear a boom near the front right tire, you're steering is difficult all of a sudden pulling to that side and you hear a rough noise coming from that direction... the EVIDENCE points to the fact that the tire is blown... EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN'T SEE IT AND YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S BLOWN...

do you pull over? or just say "well, I can't prove the tire is busted, there could just be a hole torn in the universe right there and my tire may be perfectly fine" and keep driving?

evidence points to an outcome, and even though you can't "PROVE IT" does that mean that action shouldn't be taken?

Answer 4

Simply by the tone of your 'question' anything stated is going to be dismissed.

However, I ask you, what is the harm in investing in green technology? It is more cost effective and safer. There is no difference in profit margin or efficiency by using green technologies. So why not buy a different light bulb they'll save on your electricity bill or a household product that might not give your kid asthma?

Edit: That was simply my point. I doubt that any person even if they were a scientist who researched the phenomenon called global warming would meet your expectations. Your tone sets people up for failure. Beyond that, I don't believe in hard facts, as someone can always state a counterargument. I was simply asking why is it wrong to be prudent. You said that it is not wrong to be prudent. It is one thing to question theories but be prudent, and it is another thing to disregard theories and continue to misuse resources.

Answer 5

You don't want us to quote the hundreds of scientists who do this professionally?

You want us -- probabably all non-scientists -- to show you evidence, other than what the scientists have already shown you. If you don't believe the professionals, why whould you believe someone who isn't a professional in the field?

And your comment about the 1970s is just laughable. You discount the conclusions of scientists because their conclusion after 30 years of additional study is slightly different than it was when they had lot less information.

Answer 6

hmmm.. I don't really care about this subject but I don't think it's possible to do what you're asking because you can always claim that the same would happen if man didn't exist in the first place. So you actually have no evidence to discredit theirs.. All you people just spin around in circles and actually go nowhere.. It seems similiar to trying to prove whether GOD exists or not.. You can't either way!! This whole debate is stupid..

Answer 7

Nothing will convince you but here goes:

The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster
by Steve Connor

Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?"

The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly into the oceans."

He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no.

"We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming."

America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and change might be a natural phenomenon.

Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.

The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Center.

They analyzed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity, and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming.

"Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations start to question whether we can believe in these models', that argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on depth. DR Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000 years... It's come from greenhouse warming."

Because the global climate is largely driven by the heat locked up in the oceans, a rise in sea temperatures could have devastating effects for many parts of the world.

Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said that warming could alter important warm-water currents such as the Gulf Stream, as melting glaciers poured massive volumes of fresh water into the North Atlantic. "These changes are happening and they are expected to amplify. It's a certainty that these changes will put serious strains on the ecosystems of the planet," DR Curry said.

Answer 8

I don't know enough about the global warming situation to know what to believe.

I do know that I have not heard any intelligent evidence from the right wing to disprove these theories. Only rants that almost always involve adolescent name calling of liberals.

Answer 9

...er, since you don't want to hear what the scientists say, you sound a lot like the Bush administration.

And if you won't accept evidence that scientists have compiled, how could any of us possibly provide acceptable evidence on Yahoo answers.

Can you provide me with irrefutable evidence that the moon isn't made of green cheese - without resorting to what some scientist says?

Answer 10

no answer that you could be given would you understand you mind has been made up long ago. So why exactly would I waste time on you ignorance?

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.