Please Explain Global Warming Hoax?

Question

OK I'm going to keep this simple.

Man Burns fossil fuel, the byproduct of the burning fuel goes into the air. Mankind also deforests 1000s of acres a day (remember trees make oxygen and clean the bad stuff out of the air) and we dump toxic sludge among other things into the ocean.

HOW CAN ANY OF THIS NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT.

And please not a single word about natural weather cycles because none of the above mentioned in natural.

Answer 1

Let us assume for a moment that man made global warming is a hoax (implying a deliberate deception): How did this "hoax" come about? Did all the climatologists, ecologists, earth scientists, and environmentalists get together in a backroom in say the UN headquarters and plan it out? Did all the politicians, celeberaties, and other proponents of the man made global warming argument also attend this meeting? Are they all working together to "cover up" the "real science"? Is a cospiracy on a global scale at all likely?

Or is it more likely that scientists from diverse backgrounds, working indenpendently, and publishing their findings in peer reviewed journals, came to similar conclusions that the current trend in global warming is likely caused, at least in part, by human action?

Answer 2

The amount of CO2 is numerically small but it has a big effect on temperature. This graph shows it clearly.

http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp

The blue is what you would predict leaving man made CO2 out. The line is the value, the band shows expected errors. The black line is measured temperature. The pink line/band is what you get putting man made CO2 into the model.

Clearly the pink represents reality far better, and man made CO2 is causing temperatures to go up, at an increasing rate.

The reason that, historically, CO2 lagged behind warming is simple. In addition to causing warming, CO2 is also released by warming, as ocean waters warmed. So, if warming starts naturally CO2 increases later. But as the top graph showed, this time CO2 and temperature are increasing together, because the warming is caused mostly by man made CO2.

More here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Answer 3

Dude above, you are plain wrong. The process will not reverse anytime soon. If all anthropogenic CO2 emmisions stopped today, there would continue to be problem associated with increased carbon dioxide. There is a lag time between the emmision of CO@ and the actual measurable impact it may have on temps globally.
BTW, that .035% CO2 is higher than any time on earth that we can measure, sans pre Triassic period. The temps now should be higher, but it takes decades for the CO2 and other, much more hazardous chemicals to make it up to the upper atmosphere where they can cause problems.
To blankly state that we will develop a way to fix a problem we little understand is hubristic, at best, negligent is a better term.

Answer 4

Sure there is an effect. But not as much as many people seem to think.

There is not going to be any lack of oxygen. The 21% of the air that is oxygen did not and does not come from trees. That is just a popular myth. What little oxygen trees do release is taken back by them when they die and decay. And trees DO die naturally; they don't live forever.

There is an increase in carbon dioxide, from 0.025% to 0.035% or so in the last 200 years. It is going up even faster now, but it would have to go MUCH higher to be a serious problem. I am confident we will find a solution to the increasing CO2 levels in 100 years or so, and that will be soon enough.

Answer 5

The human response to this issue reveals three problems. The first, of course, is the cover-up that energy fat-cats since Thomas Edison have pulled off, all the while knowing exactly the irreversible and UNNECESSARY damage that was being done to the environment. That Baconian plunder ala corruption paradigm is a major problem for mankind. The ancillary to that is the need to implement educational reforms that include reason and critical-thinking skills development so that the public can intelligently discern for themselves what is propaganda and what is reality. Much of the public is too ignorant of math and science to even realistically, rationally understand how global warming leads into an ice age, and instead, dismiss the entire issue simply because, duh, how can the earth getting warmer lead to ice? People cannot remain free if they cannot think critically for themselves.

The second problem is the magical-thinking that is escalating in percentage of population in which the public lacks objective-based rationals needed for analysis of scientific realities and instead struggle along in a quagmire of subjective nonsense. Religiosity and subjective/magical thinking is responsible for the effectiveness of those who benefit from the cover-up of environmental damage in splitting the "issue" of global warming along is it "naturally" caused or "man" caused. The evidence is clear. Fossil-fuel energies have had at least a severe impact on accelerating global warming, an impact that could have been reasonably reduced, and efforts continue to achieve that prudency. Efforts to adequately empower people here in the U.S. with the math and science they needed to comprehend this issue were thwarted for decades by religious and conservatives groups, funded significantly by, guess who, the energy industry. Many high schools in the U.S. spend more money on football uniforms than they do on science labs. The social engineering technique of splitting issues or polarizing them into "good vs evil" or "them against us" "home and away" is a component of magical-thinking. A documentary with a hilarious name but an extraordinary analysis of the role magical-thinking has in global warming is called "Advertising and the End of the World."

The third problem is very grave. Regardless of how confused the public may be, regardless of whether global warming was triggered by natural or manmade events, it IS occuring and there are anticipated consequences that humanity needs to prudently be preparing for. For example, eighty-five percent of the entire human population and associated commerce and industry are located in coastal areas and will have to move during the next seven decades. The god-awful truth of that one consequence alone is, there really isn't enough money, in the big picture, to do that. Economies are going to have to be dramatically adjusted just to tolerate the gradual but on-going changes. The Baconian or Republican paradigm, though, consists of this savagery: I ain't gonna be around in five or seven decades, so what the f***k do I care?" That paradigm is morbid. Any civilization that does not look hopefully to the future and the betterment of its children is doomed. THEY make not care. But those of us who do care need to take the helm back from the morons and the plunderers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070410/ap_on_sc/climate_change

Answer 6

in my view, i won't be able to do it. i've got self belief that the "hoax" is the political time table making use of communicate the two aspects of it. it rather is impossible to get a feeling of self belief appropriate to the character of the phenomenon. human beings will deny any sort of world warming in keeping with a want for it to be so, and others are confident that it rather is almost the finished reason for the industrialized West, and that they are for this reason someway entitled to numerous my funds (for issues different than battling worldwide warming) as a result. The climate is often changing, and this would ingredient into our life and the place and how we are residing because it continuously has. the quantity of guy's addition to it rather is ( or must be ) in debate. Is mankind in touch in any respect, to what number of the finished quantity of the phenomenon, and what steps if any would be taken to chop back that result. Al Gore being the style of sturdy proponent of any reason makes me suspicious of the motivations of what ever team takes him on as a spokesperson. I see much less technology and greater politics on worldwide warming from all aspects.

Answer 7

Obviously, it's not a hoax or a conspiracy.
But,
1) there are a lot of people who don't understand the facts and don't understand science
2) there are also a number of people who have a vested interest in ignoring global warming, climate change and popllution, and keeping as many people as possible in the dark about reality. These people have political, financial, and/or ideological agendas and go to great efforts to spread confusion, misinformation and lies. They have a very loud voice and they take advantage of the ignorant.
3) there are also people who understand science and understand that we need to take action to control how we affect our environment. These people are immune to the propaganda, linguistic tricks and pseudo-science put forth by the people with ulterior motives.

The solution is to educate those who don't understand - bring people from group 1 into group 3 (because most of the people in group 2 are beyond hope).

Answer 8

As a greenhouse gas goes co2 is a minor one. Carbon dioxide accounts for just 0.0383% of the atmosphere. Man's portion even less. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen 20.253% since 1960. But take a closer look at what measurement scale we’re talking about. CO2 levels rose from 316 parts per million to about 380 parts per million. Parts per million! That’s just an increase of 0.000064!

As for the trees, North American forests cover about the same amount of land as they did 100 years ago.

Plus there is no correlation between co2 and temperatures. At times co2 levels were double the current amounts, but temperatures were a bit lower. Plus the ice core samples show that co2 is a follower of temperature and not the other way round. In other words, temperatures rise/fall and co2 rise /fall with a time lag of 800 years.

Answer 9

wheather or not you believe in it, the current facts are that there are massive droughts world wide, the seasons are warmer, the weather more violent.

If we are to do anything it should be to learn what we can do to reverse these effects.

Computer & bio techknowledgy is amazing these days things that were thought impossible 10 years ago are now being mass produced. Yet we know as much about the climate today as we did 50 years ago.

Do as much as you can youve nothing to lose

Answer 10

Well, you are right.

Back in the 1960s a group of CEOs from the tobacco industry testified before congresss that they were unaware of any health risks to smoking.

Today we have a very tiny handful of scientists paid by energy companies to assert man's influence on global warming is miniscule. That is the hoax.