Global Warming, is the science really settled ? Read some of these pages and guage the consensus.?

Question

"One of the difficulties in identifying the causes of the Little Ice Age is the lack of consensus on what constitutes "normal" climate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

"We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC#_note-

"The Maunder Minimum is the name given to the period roughly from 1645 to 1715 A.D., when sunspots became exceedingly rare" ~~ "The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the so-called Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

~~This is a small amount of data, but the links will help. Look through these pages, follow some of the links. Explain exactly what politics or consensus has to do with science.

xxbballe:

I hope youre right, but I fear you are wrong.

Answer 1

1) The ability to accurately measure temperatures over eons is not there, so all you are getting is conjecture and theory, no facts.

2) The IPCC panel had scientists that told the UN humans could not have played a part in the temperature fluctuations. The UN disregarded those who did not support what they wanted and a bureaucrat wrote the report, which by the way has been changed in minor ways on an ongoing basis, as each lie is debunked. Now the IPCC and the UN are going on personal attacks on scientists who dispute warming and human involvement.

3) there is a large number of scientists who state unequivocally that the sun is the one thing only that moves the temps of the earth, and sun spot activity has a direct coorelation to the warming and cooling periods, that is a fact.

4) CO2 has over thousands of years, not hundreds as in gores lies, but thousands of years increased after the earth has warmed and in fact it has been measured in the range of 10 to 20 times higher than in the last hundred years, and that was before man walked on two legs. CO2 is not an indicator of anything other than the earth has warmed. CO2 and other gases cannot make the earth warmer, it acts like an insulator holding heat in, but the heat comes from the sun and the insulating gases can also keep the sun out, as is the case with volcanos.

As long as scientists see a way to make money off of the scare it will continue. As long as the environmental movement is run by communists who seek the destruction of capitalism and progress, the scare will continue.

If people will only study the available information, and do not only look at data and reports that support your mindset, that is not study. Look at contrary reports, if it is over your head look for sites that distill this stuff so you can understand. There are more scientists today who do not believe than there are supporters of AGW, but they are called heretics, non-believers, which is a primary tactic of communists.

Answer 2

As a geophysicist, I get kind of irked when I hear/read what many people seems to think is a scientific consensus. The data is strong that pollution contributes to global warming but is exceedingly weak that man is the cause of it. For one, Mars is having concurrent global warming with Earth. The scientific consensus has not changed on global warming in quite a while. It is:

Global warming is real and has consequences both positive and negative for mankind. Pollution is probably making the current warming trend greater then it would be otherwise. That is the consensus. Politics has got its dirty fingers into science but I fear its worse then that. The current hysteria appears to be more related to the continuance of research grants then any other single item. Astrophysicists have documented a strong correlation between sunspot activity and the sun temperature. With lag time factored in, increased sunspot activity also correlates with global warming data. Is it so hard to understand that if the heat is turned up, the room gets hotter (and a little hotter still if one were to light a torch)?

PS - for any Brits that may be reading this, I'm referring to a portable open flame being used as a light, not a battery operated light source that Americans call a flashlight (bg)

Answer 3

I totally agree, check out my very first blog entry on my blog, I wrote about this subject in depth. Here is the first paragraph of it.

We've all heard it, from the media, the UN, the former Vice President's Academy Award winning powerpoint, and even Bill Nye the Science Guy. Images of smokestacks and polar bears are seared into our brains as grim forecasts of the future. Through this constant exposure, we've been hypnotized to accept the theory of man-made global warming as incontrovertible fact. In reality, there are actually plenty of scientists who argue against it. The mainstream media ignore them and they are labeled as "deniers" of the "consensus". However, accepting things because other people say so isn't exactly the highlight of scientific research. Remember a few decades ago when scientists were panicked about global cooling and "a new ice age"?

Answer 4

So how did the former Ice Ages end, anyway? Perhaps it was the Atlanteans, they were supposed to be really advanced, maybe they all drove SUV's, ended the Ice Age and flooded their continent.

Answer 5

No matter how many times we try to educate all the "chicken littles" of the world, there'll always be those, such as algore and his followers, who will believe in "global warming". God Bless you.

Answer 6

Regardless of what the so-called "experts" think, consensus is not science. We can't even predict what the weather will be next month.

Answer 7

Global warming really is a concern. I don't think politicians who campaign to stop global warming have any intentions other than help out, obviously.