Why didn't global warming doubters answer my last question?

Question

about the cause of global warming?

From my last question. The only answers I got were that virtually all scientists in the field agree with the statement that humans are contributing to global warming through increased greenhouse gas emissions. Where are the links supporting the doubters claims?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuYoOfVINTpLjD_1jYJNT4zY7BR.?qid=20070710085406AAE84vZ

HLBellevino; Glenn Beck? If this your response to my question (did you read it?) then good luck to you.

BeachLvr; Congrats you're the FIRST doubter to post a link. I checked your link under info "there's no consensus" and all I found was an abstract of a survey of climate scientists which claims the data is available online but without a link to it. Hmmm wonder why. They excerpt some questions from the survey. Hmmm wonder how they chose which ones to excerpt?

You get my point? Why would you believe this one highly questionable abstract over tons of published work stating the opposite? Thanks for at least answering it though.

Bellevino; Sorry character assassination and deliberate misinformation doesn't constitute evidence. Try reading up on the topic and I guarantee you'll learn what the rest of the world already knows. Good Luck!

Answer 1

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/

I posted this link on the last question too =)

go to the section on a primer on global warming... lots on interesting studies and journals...

Answer 2

The problem is that there is virtually no science or scientists who defend the global warming denier position. They always quote the same few skeptics (when they quote anybody) who are often coincidentally funded by Exxon Mobile.

Here's a study to answer your question:

In 2004 an article in Science magazine discussed a study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

Answer 3

in the beginning I do understand the technology, I even have 3 technology majors which contain maths, chemistry and biology. I even have additionally been retired long adequate to actual examine maximum of what's approximately. The document of the Panel took a month to conflict via. i might ought to declare that there are in basic terms some people on the planet who're able to information the technology of climate replace. Even Climatologists could be unaware of the end results of photograph voltaic winds or maybe sunspots inspite of the hyperlinks that have been made between sunspot activity and rainfall in particularly some study. they only have not got the time to paintings and do the mandatory examining. maximum individuals of direction have not got the examining potential and history awareness to appreciate what they examine. You ask for an opinion so i visit grant one: a million) there is an exceedingly small share of the "doubters" who understand the technology. 2)there are maximum of who in basic terms settle for AGW devoid of question that the share of people who've any genuine information of the technology is even smaller. in actuality actual the form of people who understand most of the technology probably favours the doubters, that's particularly to declare that they do no longer settle for all of it. That constitutes doubt. Please notice that i'm concerning all the technology, no longer in easy terms the products!! it particularly is in all probability which you mean some thing distinctive. the situation with the motives is they are particularly incomplete and maximum in all probability misunderstood by the individuals handing over them and so create extra doubt.

Answer 4

Beck on An Inconvenient Truth: "It's like Hitler"
Summary: CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck became the latest critic to compare the documentary film An Inconvenient Truth, about former Vice President Al Gore's campaign to raise awareness of global warming, to the Nazis. Beck dismissed many of the conclusions drawn from the documentary, stating, "When you take a little bit of truth and then you mix it with untruth, or your theory, that's where you get people to believe. ... It's like Hitler. Hitler said a little bit of truth, and then he mixed in 'and it's the Jews' fault.' "
On the June 7 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck became the latest critic to compare An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary film about former Vice President Al Gore's campaign to raise awareness of global warming, to the Nazis. Beck dismissed many of the conclusions drawn from the documentary, stating, "[W]hen you take a little bit of truth and then you mix it with untruth, or your theory, that's where you get people to believe. ... It's like Hitler. Hitler said a little bit of truth, and then he mixed in 'and it's the Jews' fault.' That's where things get a little troublesome, and that's exactly what's happening" in An Inconvenient Truth.

As Media Matters for America has previously noted, Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, called the film "propaganda" and added: "You don't go see Joseph Goebbels' films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don't want to go see Al Gore's film to see the truth about global warming."

From the June 7 broadcast of The Glenn Beck Program:

BECK: So, if you look at this chart, you will see the CO2, and it mirrors the temperature. Now, what I find interesting about this chart is CO2 seems to naturally go up by itself. Hmmm, I don't remember those 200,000-year-old cars; I think Henry Ford wasn't around yet. I don't know if Fred Flintstone actually did have a car, but apparently, according to this chart, somebody was driving around in a car or an airplane. Maybe it was Al Gore giving the frickin speech at Stone Age colleges. I'm not sure, but it definitely correlates.

Now, what happened where this thing falls apart -- and it won't for most people who go to this movie -- is he then projects what's coming. Again, it's the projection that's the problem. See, when you take a little bit of truth and then you mix it with untruth, or your theory, that's where you get people to believe. You know? It's like Hitler. Hitler said a little bit of truth, and then he mixed in "and it's the Jews' fault." That's where things get a little troublesome, and that's exactly what's happening. Now, if Al Gore's projection is right about the CO2 level going as high as he says it will, then the temperature here on planet Earth will be about 400,000 degrees. We'll be the sun; we'll be the frickin sun. But that's a huge "if."

Answer 5

On this day July 10:

1913 134ø F (57ø C), Greenland Ranch, Calif (US record, global warming feared)
1936 109ø F (43ø C), Cumberland & Frederick, Maryland (state record, global warming feared)
1936 111ø F (44ø C), Phoenixville, Pennsylvania (state record, global warming feared)

Answer 6

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

What the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.

A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6, 2006 by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming. The 60 scientists wrote: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." The letter also noted: "‘Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise."

In 2006, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than "science fiction."

"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again." That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold." An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."

By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.

The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: "Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada." The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade." The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable."

On February 19, 2006, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water. "60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was "0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average."

In August 2006, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output.

Answer 7

If you looked objectively at -all- the evidence, pro and con, you would easily conclude that global warming is a real problem and a serious threat. Global warming doubters don't look at all the evidence, only the evidence that suits their side. They have their own sources of news and information that only tell them the evidence on their own side. So they're not aware of the real facts, they don't understand both sides of the question.

That's why they're not able to answer questions or defend their opinions except to parrot 'slogans' and to repeat over and over that it's not a real problem.

It's like a six-year-old putting his fingers in his ears and saying 'Na-na-na-na-na. I cant hear you!'

Answer 8

There is some sites that say that there is global warming, but I haven't checked them out yet. Check out the movie "An Inconvieniet Truth" on DVD. It should answer most of your answers.

Answer 9

global warming is as true as the world coming to an end in 1991!!!

Answer 10

I didn't see it...I must have been working.

*** Oh OK.. now I see it. Well You place so many restrictions on answers you will accept.
I don't know the percentage... and I don't have time to look for links right now...sorry.