Global Warming...?

Question

How many of you actually believe this bull, and can ANYONE actually provide PROOF, real proof, that it is happening?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4boaEbtjByU

Just some bits from a VERY good documentary you hippies should watch.

here is the full length video on Google Video... it's long, but WELL worth it. even debunks your precious IPCC. Hmmmm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en

Come on people... you're just not convincing me! Watch the video before you spout that junk at me...

Answer 1

Assuming that you’re actually asking “Are WE the cause of global warming?” then you ask a very good question…

“can ANYONE actually provide PROOF, real proof, that it is happening?”

And the only honest answer to that question is: NO.

The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW – i.e. global warming that is caused by man) is just that: a THEORY.

Whilst it is probably true that…

A) The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by slightly over one third in the last century and mankind is probably the main cause of this rise, and…

B) Global temperatures have risen by approximately 0.6°C over the last century,

There is, in fact, no conclusive proof that A) is causing B). It is nothing more than a theory.

Many of the Global Warming Alarmists (GWAs) answering this question have attacked Martin Durkin’s The Great Global Warming Swindle. What amuses me, is that all of the accusations they make can be just as equally aimed at the all sources that they hold sacrosanct.

For example…

“…one of the scientists in the film (Carl Wunsch),…is demanding that he be removed form(sic) it…”

Of course, exactly the same is true of the “oh-so-holy” IPCC report. Many scientists wish to be removed from the authorship list, because the don’t agree with its conclusions and their opinions were ignored and not represented. For example, have a look here…

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3111/

The above is an interview with Aynsley Kellow, the head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania, who was recently involved in contributing to the latest IPCC report. The article includes the following…

“Even though he has participated in the IPCC process (he was a referee for Chapter 19 in the IPCC’s report, which covers ‘Key Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment’), Kellow is exasperated by the way in which critical responses to chapters are dealt with. He has noted elsewhere the criticisms he made to the IPCC about the way in which negative effects are overstated and the ability to adapt is understated. Yet he says: ‘I’m not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.’

Now, even though Kellow has expressed public disagreement with the summary for policymakers, and the chapters that it flows from, he will still be listed as having taken part in the process - with the implication that he agrees with the final reports and is one of those thousands of experts who have apparently shown beyond all doubt that climate change will wreak havoc on the world.”

Hmmm? The words pot and kettle spring to mind!

Or how about this…

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

But hang on, what about Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth? That was also riddled with “distortions and errors”. And even the IPCC reports themselves are not above such problems. How about the infamous and discredited “Hockey-Stick” graph, that the IPCC *still* has not apologised for? And there are many others, such as constantly cherry picking the date ranges for their data that will highlight the “facts” they want to show, or the fact that they will constantly state all the worst-case scenarios, but fail to mention the benefits. And, of course, even the IPCC themselves admit that they got it wrong in their 2001 report. They have, for example, reduced their estimate of the effects of greenhouse gasses on temperature by over a quarter.

realclimate.org has been mentioned many times in these answers, but let’s not forget that one of the contributors to that site is Michael Mann, one of the people behind the dodgy “Hockey-Stick” graph, a man who will blatantly distort the truth and mislead the public, to further his own agenda. If that’s the kind of people they want to listen to, well, it’s their funeral. Personally, I would advise you to stay away from such people.

Answer 2

What kind of global warming? The idea that the surface of the earth is getting hotter or the idea that its entirely because of humans?
What kind of proof? Scientific proof is very specific. It means an experiment has been conducted and is replicable. There's also the arguement that it is proof by consensus. In other words, if everybody believes the world is flat then it might as well be so. (this is the sort of thing that happens when people quote people saying important sounding things not dull numbers)

So is the earth getting hotter? Well, compared to what? Compared to ten years ago? Yes. Compared to 500? No. Compared to 2000?Yes. Compared to 60 million? I really have no idea. See where this is going.
Is it because of humans? Yes and no. By our very existence the essential property of enthalpy in thermodynamics suggests that we're giving off heat/etc. Is humans the sole contributor to the warming of the earth? No. The earth gets its heat from the sun. Does the sun give off a constant amount of heat? No. It varies. It varies people.
The truth is in a subject like climatology or geology, actions take place over thousands and millions of years. We literally cannot fathom this amount of time.

I'd also like to stress the reason why the whole "global warming will wipe out humans doomsday scenario" cannot be proven scientifically is because theoretically, we'd be dead if we proved it. This creates an ingenious chance for anyone seeking attention/power/money/mediatime/friends? to stand up and talk about this "important topic", and if you're a person seeking power, you can run entire political platforms on doomsday scenarios.
So really, it doesn't matter. The (life-supporting) earth will end some day and *gasp* the cosmos wont really care about it.

Oh, in the 70s it was global cooling. In the 50s it was communism. In the 20s it was moral decay. It just keeps going.

Answer 3

No there might be proof that the earth is warming, but not that man has caused it. What a lot of people forget is that water vapor is a much bigger cause of the warming of our planet than CO2. They forget that because they can't blame that on Americans and our SUV's. They also forget to tell you that just a few short years ago they were talking about the cooling of the planet. People just remember: Don't Panic! The earth warms and cools all the time. Get used to it. Check out:
www.junkscience.com/greenhouse/

Answer 4

well.. i believe this bull, though i have never taken any Proof that you speak of data, or science.. whatever.. have you?? it's good to have an opinion, but does this mean that it's not true at all?? Do you have proof that there is no global warming?? have you gone back in time and were there to measure the levels of CO2 in the 1700s??? were their techniques in those times accurate?? you rely on statistics just as much as scientists that believe in Global Warming do..

I guess the point is.. are you going to be a true "American" and have V-8 Truck to drive around and waste gas.. and not recycle?? I mean, whatever helps you sleep at night..

and are you to say that the Government benefits somehow to put laws that control the amount of energy used?? The biggest Companies in the US, like GMC, FORD, CHEVY, are the ones to suffer, so that is why there are no laws against how much energy we consume...

Answer 5

Proof, short and long. Verified, peer reviewed data.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

There's vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 and:

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics. Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

The "swindle" movie is flat wrong. It is simply a political statement which distorts science. The director has a history of putting out misleading stuff. In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with Nazis. Channel 4 had to apologise for the misleading stuff in that one. The present movie is also a distortion of the science. More here:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

"Pure Propaganda"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

Explanations of why the science is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)

History of the director.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."

Gore's movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right. This movie does not.

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way. If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information. They also say "Confused now? Ask the Expert". The link sends questions to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.

Answer 6

I've watched it. I have also watched this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573

Watch it before spouting anymore nonsense about that documentary being "proof" of anything.

Answer 7

Al Gore may not be 100% right, but there are plenty of problems with that film you linked too. I have seen it before.

The graph in the source tells it all for me. CO2 has gone up in the last 200 years like it never went up in the last 400,000 years. There is no way that is a continuation of the natural cycles in the first 399,800 years of the graph. Ignore the descriptive captions and just look at the shape of the graph. Wow. And nobody disputes that graph. They only dispute what the level of CO2 means. The level itself is undisputed.

Answer 8

I can provide a great deal of evidence supporting the theory, but I'm afraid I fall somewhat short on the being a hippie part. Just check out the IPCC report, it has all the info on global climate change you could ever possibly want. The 4th report was just released a few days ago, and you can read the whole thing for free here:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Bear in mind that it is brand new, and some editing has yet to be done. but the information in it is fully sound and accurate.

As for your link to TGGWS, I'm afraid I simply haven't got time to refute all the arguments in it *again*, but you can read a short rebuttal of the film here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

And here is a letter from one of the scientists in the film (Carl Wunsch), who is demanding that he be removed form it, calling it a piece of "outright propaganda".

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

Another excellent source for info on GW theory is a book called 'The Rough guide to Climate Change". Which you can purchase here:

http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Climate-Change-Reference/dp/1843537117

Lots more info on GW theory and a full refutation of pretty much *all* the anti-GW arguments can be found here:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/

And last but not least, my favorite source of GW info on the web is RealClimate.org, a Blog run by fifteen highly qualified climate scientists currently doing research in the field. It has a great deal of evidence supporting GW theory, plus refutations of all the common anti-GW arguments.

Enjoy. And please, don't go flitting about, willy nilly, calling the theory bull until you fully understand it.

Answer 9

is death good enough proof


FACT OR FICTION

FICTION
for many North Americans ,but they are used to fiction and feel more comfortable with fairytales instead of the truth,

Many blindly believe that our fate is in Gods hands ,and their focus is on the beautifull heaven that awaits ,they are not to concerned with the world their children will inherrit

whilst others wish to enjoy an Earthly paradise ,with out having to die first,they care what happens here and want to help the planet

there may come a time that for the sake of our survival the two views will be seperated in to Enemies and friends of the planet

World leaders are not concerned with the well being of the masses ,on the contrary .it was stated at a conference in Copenhagen,in 1998,by Kissinger, that the Agenda demanded a decrease in the world population of 60%,and you cannot achieve this if you start saving everybody.

scientists who work for politicians ,get paid by these politicians and they have downplayed the facts because solutions are expensive and means change and change effects many peoples incomes,and upsets profit margins,so most of the world is kept in the dark of the real things that are going on.for political and economic reasons

HOWEVER CLIMATE CHANGE IS FACT FOR MILLIONS
Global warming is a very complex collection of many effects

this text only covers some aspects of global warming mainly man made desertification

industrial contamination ,the contaminating effects of the cities ,is another story

there are natural cycles in the planets life
but mans existance has its effects,and this is increasing with overpopulation,putting strains on Natural resources and increasing contaminations as well as destructions of essential componants the ensure living conditions for all life forms

in North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss and desertification and some have died as a result

in china, thousands of what used to be farmers are running for their lives from the dust storms that have burried their towns and turned their lands into dessert,

,the Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year
and all of the desserts we know are a results of mans actions ,and they are increasing ,not getting less ,in the dinosaurs days ,there were very few desserts.

collectively this planet is drying up because of bad farming practices like,over grazing and fertilizers,

each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss

and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate this production ,
and there are less and less farmers to do it..
and there are 70 million more peole every year that have to eat and drink and wash

who are overpumping deep carbon aquifiers
who are plowing more and more unstable lands because they have lost so many million hectares to desertification ,
because of bad farming practises ,such as using fertilizers and heavy machinary or over grazing

RISING SEAS
The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.
this does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,are another matter.



http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...



if forrest are being exchanged for ashalt,concrete and desserts
what is gonna keep this planet habitable for us

We as humanity can behave in a less stressful manner as far as the Environment is concerned ,but it will mean global co operation between all countries ,and taking into account human nature and the world politics ,it is unlikely that this will happen, Source(s) Lester E Brown is the director and founder of the global institute of Environment in the United states .he has compiled a report based on all the satalite information available from NASA,and all the information that has
come from Universities and American embassies WORLD WIDE ,
his little book--a planet under stress , Plan B has been trans lated into many languages and won the best book award in 2003

Answer 10

Good gracious, Little Tiger. Have you not seen the film by algore? The proof itself is too complicated for us to understand and comprehend. Therefore, algore summarized it all in the film so that we could believe it. Didn't you see those mean green things in the atmosphere that were attacking the happy little sunbeams? That wasn't an animation, that was actual footage of the global warming battle that is occuring. There's your proof. Now, sit back, be quiet, and swallow it all down just like algore wants you to.