Do the proponents of global warming have any proof that is not political?

Question

The IPCC report has been edited so much it doesn't fallow the scientific data.

algore's movie has been shown to be a fabrication:
Polar bears are not drowning.
Glaciers are not shrinking as fast as claimed.
etc.

Consensus of scientists is not scientific fact, just opinion.

Peer reviewed data is not scientific fact, just agreement of opinion.

The graph that seems to be thrown up every time it is asked about temp. is a farce. We do not have records of temperature to the 100/th of a degree before the 70s. And the estimations of temps are all within a margin of error that they are not conclusive of anything let alone accurate.

CO2 is not light enough to reach the upper atmosphere to reflect heat from the sun back to earth and if it was it would also reflect heat away from earth. Funny how physics works huh? CO2 doesn't even hold or reflect heat.

The worsed part is that so much money is waisted on perpetuating the lie of man made global warming that real pollution is not kept in check and real ideas to keep the environment clean and improve energy efficiency are held back because they might really work.
YES! I am speaking of neuclear power for one example.

So I am assuming "Bob's" answer is no also?

I guess that's another "no" from the parrot guy.

I , unlike algore and most of the people pushing global warming, don't own any stock in what you term "Big Oil". But in response to your argument that "only scientists funded by big oil say global warming is true". If you fallow the money trail and take out all scientists funded by Big oil and also those funded by political groups on the proponent side, less than 10% think global climate of any kind can be effected by man.

As far as whether or not its real. So much money is spent trying to convince everyone it is, money and the spottlight is being taken away from real environmental issues. Realize that 90% of the credit for animals that have been removed from the endangered spacies list in this country goes to hunting and fishing groups, not the so called environmental groups. And the so called environmental groups haven't cleaned up anything to date. Exxon Valdeze was cleaned up by Fishermen and hunters. Unless camera's were around.

Answer 1

Proponents of global warming are counting on the publics ignorance of science to push through their agenda.

Take in point Mann's temperature reconstruction study, the hockey stick graph. I pointed out to someone that Soon and Balinnas studied over 100 different temperature reconstruction studies and found it to be false. Their answer "Soon & Baliunas 2003 cited 144 studies, of which only 14 were global, including Mann. Eleven of the 13 other global studies supported Mann's conclusions in whole or in part. Of the 138 non-global studies cited by Soon & Baliunas, 112 supported Mann's conclusions in whole or in part. This hardly constitutes a refutation." Notice who in their rebuttals they are always vague. Most people would take his word for granted. I checked out the study and this was their conclusion:

Climate proxy research provides an aggregate, broad
perspective on questions regarding the reality of Little
Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century
surface thermometer global warming. The picture
emerges from many localities that both the Little Ice
Age and Medieval Warm epoch are widespread and
near-synchronous phenomena, as conceived by Bryson
et al. (1963), Lamb (1965) and numerous researchers
since. Overall, the 20th century does not contain the
warmest anomaly of the past millennium in most of the
proxy records, which have been sampled world-wide.
Past researchers implied that unusual 20th century
warming means a global human impact. However, the
proxies show that the 20th century is not unusually
warm or extreme.

But yet till this day, people still accept Mann's study and conclusion that the 20th century was the warmest (including Al Gore, and the IPCC) because it fits their dogma. As far as I am concerned that is proof of it being polically motivated.

Answer 2

Why did you even ask this question? You clearly don't care what anyone has to say about it. You're convinced that global warming is a political hoax and that's that. Don't waste people's time by pretending you're interested in what they have to say when that's clearly not the case.

First off, there is no "proof" that global warming is primarily caused by humans. There is simply mounds of evidence which are convincing enough to convince most scientists and rational people who examine that evidence that humans are the primary cause. The IPCC report is simply a summary of hundreds if not thousands of papers containing such evidence, and as Bob has pointed out, has very minor political edits. If you don't trust the IPCC report, then go read the scientific papers it's based on. They're all cited in the report.

Your comments about CO2 are quite simply wrong. CO2 levels measured in the atmosphere since 1960:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Additionally, the global warming potential of carbon dioxde has been measured. In fact, it's set at one so the global warming potentials of all other molecules can be compared to that of carbon dioxide.

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

Not that I expect you to listen to what I'm saying, but there you have it.

Answer 3

Ok, let's say global warming has been exaggerated. If it has, it doesn't really matter, we still need to take care of the planet. Even if global warming is a total crock, we shouldn't continue to destroy it, especially now that we have the resources and technology to treat it better.

If you look at where all the funding is for the 'scientists' and politicians who claim global warming isn't real, it's coming from the OIL companies.

Also, explain to me why my uncle, who is an avid mountain climber, found trees 300 feet higher on the mountain than he ever has before.

And to the person who posted above, you wouldn't find global warming in the bible because it's not a weather station or a newspaper spewing current events. It's about spirituality, not climate changes. Besides, what if it was in one of the documents not selected to be in the bible?

And they do have an idea of what the weather was thousands of years ago, because data is preserved in the ice.

Answer 4

Politics has no morals they will use anything to their advantage even Global Warming
that it is happening is hardly political ,But maybre not so much in North America

What is much more worying is that it may be edged along ,Certain Politics needs Global warming to further the cause of Globalisation ,uniting the masses under a common danger in order to manipulate them .

The other face is that Many of the super powers hate to admit that things are happening because it will mean expensive changes in their operations .

A bit like the concept of Satanism confuse the reality to such an extent ,nobody knows anymore what is real and what is a lie .

At least global warming appears to be the most consistant factor according to Natural phenomina ,in third world countries

Answer 5

Please show us all which bits of the IPCC report have had the science edited out of them, because I don't think you have any idea. You see, every single word put into the report had to be agreed upon by all authors working on it. Which means that any edits made by non-scientists were fully reviewed and approved for accuracy by scientists. And of course, since every single thing in the report is fully cited you can check the sources yourself if you want to.

Al Gore's move has certainly not shown to be a fabrication. Glaciers most certainly =are= shrinking exactly as fast as scientists claimed. So once again you need to show me the data showing this to be false, because once again I think you're just making stuff up.

Consensus is what you have when all the science has been done. It isn't supposed to be scientific fact, and no one ever said it was. It just means the evidence is so strong supporting the theory that virtually all scientists accept it. Scientists don't get together in little pow-wows and decide what is or isn't science.

Again, no one ever said peer reviewed data was completely factual. The peer review process simply weeds out any bad science that may have weaseled its way into the works. You can be fairly certain that if something manages to pass peer review it at the very least scientifically sound.

And again with the sources. I want you to explain to me exactly how and why you say that the Mann et al graph is flawed. Because again I posit that you're simply repeating something you've read but didn't understand. And even if the graph was flawed, so what? There have been dozens of model and proxy-based temperature reconstructions made that show exactly the same thing. The Mann graph isn't the only piece of evidence supporting the theory, you know.

Your last paragraph makes no sense. Are you trying to say that since CO2 doesn't reflect incoming solar radiation, it can't absorb outgoing long wave radiation from the Earth?

Edit: Actually, that's a definite 'yes' from me. And I can only assume you have no objections to any of the arguments I put forth since you didn't' address a single one. In that case I have no choice but to assume that you've conceded the argument, and now accept global warming theory as valid. Yay me.

Edit # 2: And I should point out that you've asked a loaded question here. Obviously we can't prove that it's =not= political, since there's never been any evidence suggesting that it is. You're the one who's taken the positive position here, therefore the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate that it =is=. Which you have thus far failed miserably to do.

Answer 6

Lmao OK how many shares do you own in the oil industry . Fact of the matter is oil is to expensive its nickel and dimes us to death .Sure it only goes up a few cents at a time at the pumps and maybe only 10$ a month home heating but when that goes up so does everything you buy go up . Who do you think is making up for the cost for the farmer the oil industries ? Don't think so it come out of our pocket a nickel here and a nickel they after a months time of buying everything that a person buys they sure do add up ..

I just cant understand why people would even say its a lie the foreign oil company's are ripping us off blame them for everything why not there thief's there no good get rid of them come up with a clean fuel so we can breath . Why do people like you keep defending them unless you have your hand in the cookie jar . What its going to take your bread and butter and that's a no no but they can take ours . I'm not at all sure your not some sort of terrorist calling our government a lire . Ask yourself this if terrorist don't care if they die then why do they get so upset when we kill them aren't we doing what there asking for . There has got to be a bigger force to all this then just poor little old Ale Gore .

Maybe you should decide or tell us who's side your on

Answer 7

The only reason people believe that global warming is going to happen is that politicians are telling them that it is so. It's mass hysteria. They want to believe that the leading scientists are all in agreement, but that's a bunch of bunk. Distortion.

Top scientists most recently said the Avian Flu was going to cause widespread death. Before that, SARS. Swine flu. Yes, they said we were dangerously heading into an ice age. That we'd be out of petroleum by the year 2000. Oh, let's not forget the information disaster that was going to hit in Y2K.

Some of you guys need to start following a soap opera and quit making our REAL life into one...


Just read Bob's answer. WOW! The IPCC solidified their stance to this?:

"A global assessment of data since 1970 has shown it is likely that anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems."

"likely" that man had a "discernible influence"? Wow! Pretty definitive. If I clap my hands together and you blink, then I've likely made a discernible influence. Discernible means detectable. And they are only saying "likely" - might as well just say "pretty sure". Boy, are they REALLY going out on a limb!

They aren't even sticking with global anymore. Now, it's just "many" systems. Who doesn't know that man can have a detectable influence on biological and physical systems? Where are the TOUGH words, like "definite adverse effects" or "irreversible trends"?

Answer 8

It is just attempt to tax u more . Most of u are not worthy of owning a car. That is just for the rich.

Answer 9

Yes. Here's solid proof that global warming is not political, that it is real and (mostly) caused by man.

The political edits to the IPCC report are very small, and, most importantly, they go the wrong way for you if you're trying to claim global warming is not real. If you removed the political edits the IPCC reports say global warming is MORE REAL and MORE CAUSED BY MAN. Sample edit:

At the global scale the anthropogenic component of warming over the last three decades has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems [high confidence].

was changed to:

A global assessment of data since 1970 has shown it is likely that anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems.

More here:

http://www.desmogblog.com/ipcc-summary-report-culled-and-its-the-deniers-who-claim-censorship

Global warming is accepted as real and man made by people on all ends of the political spectrum, politicians and not:

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives Tuesday to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

"The overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientists around the world and our own National Academy of Sciences are in essential agreement on the facts of global warming and the significant contribution of human activity to that trend."

Russell E. Train, Republican, former environmental official under Presidents Nixon and Ford

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart

These organizations are not political:

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

Deniers, on the other hand, seem very much to be politically motivated.

Answer 10

In my opinion it's all a crock. it's the middle of June here in NC. Normal weather would be in the low 90's. It was just in the low 70's for three days in a row. Wow sounds like Global Warming! Also if my memory serves me correct there was a huge scam just like this one in the 70's (Years) that we were going into an Ice age. My father told me about it. How everyone got paranoid just like they are now and nothing happened.....just like nothing is going to happen now. Also the earth has only heated up 1 degree in the last 500 years. I dont believe it. Plus the bible says nothing about the earth heating up and killing us all. I just don't believe in it. I can't.

We dont know what the Earth has been doing for thousands of years millons too. We dont know, maybe the earth heats up or cools down everyt 2 thousand years. We dont know!