by saying hey, the earth has had ice ages and warming ages for billions of years so it can't be man? The cons I'm talking about say this as if all these guys with Phds just plain forgot about the ice ages.
Do you guys seriously believe scientists haven't already taken into consideration natural causes?
They have and have stated that man made greenhouse gases are the primary cause of the relatively rapid change in global temperatures.
"A National Research Council report concluded that "[g]reenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. . . . The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities"
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
2007-04-07 06:32:20 · 16 answers · asked by trovalta_stinks_2 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Too many people don't look at who's funding/doing the contrarian science. Astroturf, the lot of it.
2007-04-07 06:39:25 · answer #1 · answered by John's Secret Identity™ 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, when the guys who argue that global warming is not man made themselves have Ph.D.s, what do you say then?
If the argument "they certainly would have taken it into account" was a valid one, science would NEVER progress. Any scientist who comes up with a contrary opinion can be dismissed with... well, your colleagues would have thought of that so you must be a con!
So, that being the case, here are some possibilities:
- Scientists could miss things. It is possible that they did miss that factor
- That scientific data could have not been available to those scientists at the time
- there could be a genuine disagreement about the impact of natural global warming regarding the current global warming
In truth, the matter is far from settled. I have the (very unscientific opinion) that mankind is responsible for SOME current global warming but I think it is debatable exactly how much of it. I do not think it is the majority.
Also, I think current trends of "let us push ahead with Kyoto" without reim or reason is counter productive to say the least and will have a very negative impact on the world economy and will not counter global warming to any effect. I also do not believe in the "wrst case scenario" being pushed by certain people and certain ex vice presidents in pseudo documentatries and I dare say, not many scientists do either, even the ones who beleive global warming is made made.
2007-04-08 07:53:22 · answer #2 · answered by BMCR 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How do you explain all our snow in April up here in the north? Not just flurries like WI is getting and going to have all week but the feet of snow the others are getting??? This is April!! It's freezing, literally!! I don't believe it's global warming but the normal 40 yr change in climates that brings out all the scare tactics that make people big money!!
2007-04-07 06:43:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, why believe scientist over a compulsive liar.
It takes a man that barely passed his 4th time in college to educate us on Global fallacies.
Fact GW's GPA was .35 over the Goreon.
Global warming has accrued 4 times that we know of ,scientifically. this time it's dropped one hundred times less than the last , before our time and cars and America.
Fact CO gasses do not cause Global warming, it is a natural occurrence.
2007-04-07 06:53:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Democrats and Republicans in Congress and even Bush have acknowledged global warming but some people are so pig headed they won't believe. I have a feeling that if Jesus came down from Heaven and told them that there was global warming they would be too stubborn to believe Him.
2007-04-07 06:48:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They can not determin how much warming is due to man made influence vs natural so if you read futher....."When used in this context, the term "global warming" includes all climate and environment effects arising from natural climate variability as well as from anthropogenic changes in atmospheric composition and land use."
As far as Phds,,,I think the guy who made my coffee today has one.
2007-04-07 06:41:07 · answer #6 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think they are..
they just want a reasonable approach to it.
You see...it's not the message..It's how the message is delivered.
When you got the Hollywood Elite trying to tell us what to do, it rubs people the wrong way. It is these same Hollywood Elite that associate themselves with Al Gore, that blame Republicans for destroying the world.
You can send the message but when you try to push an agenda by creating division among people, it ticks people off.
I am a conservative and wish for a cleaner planet. But don't demonize me to push your agenda.
2007-04-07 06:39:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
They say it because the cause of climate change cannot be exclusively pinned on the activities of humans. It's possible human activity is contributing to accelarating climate change, but it cannot be 100% the cause. So eco-nazi's can piss off, I'll leave stuff on standby, drive a car and fly places if I want.
2007-04-07 06:37:13 · answer #8 · answered by Al_ide 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The rules don't change from one "theory" to another. The burden of proof is on the global warming theorists.
When the theory is propounded by a politician/actor, btw, it is highly suspect.
2007-04-07 06:41:01 · answer #9 · answered by Shrink 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yep.
Industry, however, can afford to stuff enough "experts" in their pocket to have you believe otherwise....
Allmighty dollar, friend - I mean, c'mon - look at our current administration....
2007-04-07 06:39:56 · answer #10 · answered by nowyermessingwithasonofabitch 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋