Does anyone out there not believe in Global Warming?

Question

I personally do... actually, I sort of think it's obvious. The vast majority of scientists believe it is true, and the only peopel who don't seem to be pompous. Don't try to convince me with The Great Global Warming Swindle, scientists quoted in that documentary are currently fighting against it, claiming that they were misquoted. Also, people like Glenn Beck support that documentary, which means it is rediculous and irrelevant.

to clarify, yeah, I mean Global Warming caused by humans

Before any of you wip out the "I need 100% concensus to believe" arguement, I want you to know that I've done my reseach. Funny how a lot of you also support the entirely faith-based theory of creationism.

Answer 1

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/329.php?nid=&id=&pnt=329&lb=hmpg1

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
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... 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

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 2

*raises hand* I don't believe in good ol Global Warming. I challenge you to offer scientific proof from your "vast majority of scientists." I don't mean your "group hug" consensus. Or readings that only go back in the last hundred years, and are interpreted any way you see fit. I mean hard scientific evidence. Many have tried, all have failed. why? because it doesn't exist

Answer 3

The only people who buy into the "chicken little" theories promoted by Al Gore and co. are the extremely naive. Further to say that the "vast majority of scientists" support it is a gross misrepresentation of reality, but that tends to be the norm for the crowd that has fallen for this scam.

And for the record, there are many scientists who are suing to get their names taken off the IPCC report... Seems it was written with a complete disregard for science.

Answer 4

We should do something about it, yes, but I really think that the media really exaggerates global warming. It's good so that people will do something about it.

I'm really skeptical though, about how EVERYTHING can be linked to global warming, not unlike how pretty much anything can cause cancer.

Also, I read somewhere that the earth's axis keeps moving, effectively "flipping" the earth, which would cause the places where the sun's rays to change, so some places will get hotter, and some colder.

Too much controversy really. I'll just let it slide. I'm sure someone will figure it out.

Answer 5

Well they are winning in there brain wash technique is working. They are trying to convince that if u want clean water ,or air u will need to pay extra tax to breath . It is that only there data doesn't support the theory.

Answer 6

Everyone understands that the earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for maybe millions of years. I think the disagreement today is whether the current warming trend is manmade or natural.

Answer 7

Gee, with a moniker like "Still Always Correct" you probably know more than a little about being "pompous".

It sounds like your reasoning skills are firmly founded in logical processes.

Answer 8

In the global warming swindle there is only one scientist who is claiming about being misquoted, Karl Wunsch. He did not say anything that is not in a standard textbook. Listen to this interview he gave at the beginning of this year. He clearly states that the science is unclear. Why the flip flop? Is he paying the price for being a heretic?
http://www.cjob.com/shows/adler.aspx?mc=62757

The notion that the sun is the cause is supporting by many people and is growing among the consensus of scientists.

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario.”

Critics of this theory only take into account to variance in energy output of the sun, and not correlation between sun spots, solar winds, cosmic rays and cloud formation. If you look at the graph below, there is a lot better correlation between sun spots and temperatures than co2 and temperatures. For a full explanation read
http://www.geocraft.com/wvfossils/refere...

Answer 9

joe c believes. find out contents in global warming and see the question of joe c and his answer to his own querry.

Answer 10

to be honest i think it is a load of rubbish because they go on about global warming and i think it isnt really happening and theyre saying it just sop they can get more money out of civilians.