Global warming?

Question

Has there been any independent research done about whether humans are contributing to global warming? all the reports i've read from both sides seem pretty compelling but i can't really trust research that is being funded by big oil. i also cant trust research that is funded by an organization that will benefit from a specific outcome.
i know its hard to come by these days, but is there any compelling, trustworthy, independent research about global warming? please give multiple links if possible.

budde:
thanks for your intellectual response. i hope more people put as much thought into their responses as you do.

i need links!!!!

Answer 1

There is a ton of independent research.

Besides what the oil companies publish, there's not a lot of stuff out there that says global warming is NOT affected by humans.

It's a myth the oil companies like to put out to say there's still controversy (think about the spin the tobacco companies put on the health effects of its product for 40 years).

What you need to look for though, is stuff that is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Out of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, NONE of the articles discussing global warming say humans aren't causing it or that there are still doubts. If you just read stuff in the mainstream media, however, about 50% of articles say there are doubts.

Why the disparity between peer-reviewed and mainstream media? Think about who runs the media... large corporations with a stake in it.

Here are some links that talk about this disparity:

Answer 2

There should be no "sides" on this issue. It is a question of science. Right now the vast weight of scientific evidence shows that CO2 emissions are contributing to global warming. There is really no scientific dispute about that at all. Read an excellent book on the history of the scientific research on this issue, called Thin Ice. The people who did this research had no political axe to grind. Lonnie Thompson was a supporter of Ronald Reagan. Read Science magazine. They have done numerous articles on this issue. It is the people who are on the other "side" of this issue who have an agenda, mainly to promote the fossil fuel economy or to justify political inaction. They have little if any science on their side.

Also read a book called Collapse by Jared Diamond, which describes what happens to societies that try to exceed their environmental limitations. Diamond wonders what the few remaining survivors on Easter Island said when they cut down the last tree. Did people argue that it would be bad for the economy if they left that last tree standing? Well guess what, they didn't have much economy left after all the trees were gone.

Answer 3

I think that depends on what you call independent and trustworthy. I mean certainly there are numerous articles supported by the government out there which is supposed to remain independent (i.e. the EPA or PNAS). Also if you trust some other famous people Al gore has released a very compelling documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. As for Newspapers, most big ones are pretty reputable, it just depends if you think they spin things. I myself think that national Public Radio and The Christian Science Monitor are both very honest and check their sources. They both include excellent articles. As you said however both sides seem compelling so all the advice i can give is to do all the research you can on both sides of the issue and make up your mind. Hope this helps

Answer 4

Global warming is not a myth it's fact and has happened in the past many times. What is the myth is that c02 is the cause of it. The sun is suspected in causing global warming or cooling trends.

There is very little to suggest that mankind has caused the global warming cycle we have today. C02 is simply not a pollutant it's needed to sustain life. The real science behind the green house effect is moisture (water).

Is it possible that burning fossil fuels may be causing climate problems? Yes of course! However, we know it's not the C02 from it that causes any problems. We do know hydro carbon causes problems. That is why your vehicle has a catalytic converter on the exhaust. Which, converts hydro carbon to moisture. At least that's my understanding without looking it up.

There is still debate over the global warming theories. Just because some liberal documentaries or other propaganda says theres not doesn't mean anything.

I for one don't buy into the theories. At least not when the science is so unsure. No I'm not a republican either or liberal. I make my own decisions unlike some mindless folks.

Answer 5

I have yet to see any data that wasnt paid for by someone.

And I dont think you will ever find research data that isnt funded by someone who will benefit from teh outcome.
If someone didnt fund it then no one would do it.

You need to let common sense be your guide. I have read alot of reports, and papers about this.

My conclusion is humans contribute, nature contributes too. Humans should do better.
I also conclude that there is a big crowd with an agenda on this and the position is redistribution of wealth.
with only 2 countries out of 36 who signed on to Kyoto actually adhering to their polution guidelines, what good is it doing.
The USA reduced its CO2 emissions without being part of that global crowd. Most of the Kyoto treatise signers didnt. Some increased theirs as much as 25%

Also how can you take people seriously who keep giving developing countries a free pass to pollute as much as they want. No one is shaking their fingers at China for being the worlds biggest polluter. In fact they dont even have any guidelines for China.

Common sense is the answer.

Answer 6

The cause of appearance and later disappearance of the glacial sheet In Siberia and Europe is unknown and to think that the neolithic man caused it is absurd as it is absurd to think that humans by releasing Co2 are melting the icebergs of the North Pole . In the history of planet Earth : repeated extinctions of many species and drastic climate changes have never been slow nor gradual on the contrary all the signs show that a climate change always happen suddenly probably caused by some catastrophic event as in the case of Siberia which was once a tropical place with many animals who were able to live there and died covered by ice as the mammoths of Europe , Siberia and Alaska (from the family of elephants) and who was very strong and fit to live and perished all of a sudden : the primitive neolithic man who was living there is not responsible for changing the climate from a tropical place to a frozen unlivable place ? was the neolithic man emitting Co2 to cause this klimasturz ?
the mammoths of Siberia perished not of starvation but because the countries they inhabited were covered by ice :in their stomachs and between their teeth undigested grass and leaves were found and their bodies were not decomposed but covered with ice , which proves that they died suddenly , it is absurd to think that humans by releasing Co2 can melt icebergs for we are unable to understand climate changes or maybe the sun rays heating effect on the our planet , are politicians going too far turning a scoop phenomena from global lying into a global warming ?

Answer 7

Simple, how come the last six ice ages ended and the Earth warmed up when humans had no civilization technology / industry? The Earth warms and cools in a cycle. Thje left are simply using man-made global warming as a smokescreen (no pun intended) to cover up their lack of ideas on anything else.

Answer 8

I think it was put best by an answer I received from a Global Warming question of mine..

Weather it's true or not, we need to take it seriously and do what we can to prevent it. If we all just do what we have to, to keep our environment clean and safe we won't have to worry about these issues as much. There is no harm in trying to fix it and looking at it as a major problem, but there could be harm in letting it go and wishing we had done something when we had the chance.

Answer 9

in case you choose to get carry of grant money for climate study, do you think of which you will get a cheque in case you assert," i choose the grant, as i think of that i will coach that the figures that the present paradigm relies upon are incorrect" ? the super environmentalist, David Bellamy, has been silenced, and refused airtime. there remains no shown causative hyperlink between the quantity of Co2 interior the ambience, and a upward push in international temperatures. The WWWF photographs of the polar bears swimming have been taken interior the Arctic summer season; whilst the ice cap in part melts, as they could not arise to image interior the iciness. The ice became too thick! The East-Anglian uni study figures. "Oh! The figures do not journey our expectancies. Oh properly. save quiet. because of the fact all of us be conscious of that we are proper." whilst the perception, and the religion is greater significant than squarely dealing with the valid doubts of quite some non grant-supported scientists, technology has been superceded by potential of religious zealots. As Oliver Cromwell colourfully stated." I pray thee, interior the bowels of Christ, evaluate that thou mayest be incorrect."

Answer 10

Great question! The truth is, there is very little argument in the scientific community, 99% of scientists agree that it IS happening. Those that don't can't get their work published in peer reviewed journals because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That said, here is your source - The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released the largest peer reviewed scientific study in history, conducted over 20 years, with over 2000 scientists from over 200 countries. The conclusion? Global warming IS happening and they're 90% sure that humans are the primary cause of it. -
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf
(there are several reports, you can find more at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/)