Is "GLOBAL WARMING" a sham?

Question

In the mid 1960's it was "Global Cooling" - we were to be destroyed by a new ice age.

In the 80's it was "Acid Rain" - it will kill all plants, marine life and make your hair fall out (women flipped)

In 1999 it was Y2K - complete and total shut-down of all systems - with a stone age to follow.

Today, it is "global warming". A masterpiece of Al Gore and others with private agenda's and scare tactics.

Is Global Warming, as presented by our 'leaders', a sham and just yet another natural cycle of the earth?

Answer 1

Yes it is a sham. The earth's climate is always changing. It has been much warmer and much cooler than it is today, and these changes have occured without any influence from humankind.

The earth has seen a small period of warming over the last century following several centuries of cooling (the little ice age.) This cool period led to more disease, more war, more pestilence. The little ice age was influenced by a reduction of solar output (the Maunder Minimum,) and the return to normal solar output corresponds with the warming over the last century. See the links below.

Answer 2

I do not believe in global warming has happen in the last 10 years due to factories an cars. Weather patterns have only been recorded for only about 200 years. Is it so wild of an idea that the earth is going through a natural climate cycle. Also one volcano eruption spews enough ash in the atmosphere to blacken the sun for hundreds of miles. Should we protest volcanoes? I do believe there may be changes to the climate but I also believe it may be totally natural. An if you will remember, the record highs where in the 20's during the dust bowl. Who’s to blame for that global warming??

Answer 3

1) They never said that in the 1960's. A lot was said in the 1960's, but not that.

2) Acid rain was (and is) a concern, but never as you describe it.

3) A lot of work was done to make Y2K a non event. I was one of the people who did the work. We were more successful than we expected.

4) Global warming must be a conspiracy involving all of the scientists in the world, then? Important scientists like Michael Crichton and Dennis Quaid? And Al Gore is a big deal, not just a crook making some easy money on the side? OIC.

5) You got that bassackwards, chump. It's our leaders trying to convince everybody that it's a sham. Doing a fine job too.

Answer 4

Data shows that it's happening. When you get more than 90% of the scientific community to agree on anything - that's pretty impressive. The real question is - what part have we played in the warming, if any? Is this a natural cycle or an unnatural escalation of a natural cycle.

Either way, it would be best for those on both sides of the argument to put away the politics and just focus on addressing the science. It's a problem we can address without being Chicken Little alarmists or head-in-the-sand nay-sayers.

Answer 5

It is caused by humans and it is real get over it most scientist agree it is. Acid rain is a real problem it just wasn't as severe as people acted like it was same with Y2K. Global warming is real.
The worst part is that Al Gore is the one doing the campaigning for the issue. Considering most people I know think any words out come out of his mouth are crap

Answer 6

Global Cooling
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Blown out of all proportion by those using it in an attempt to refute global warming. Never had any scientific credibility, almost no media coverage and extended to no more than short isolated reports in a small number of publications. Ask people who were areound in the 70's if they remember global cooling - they won't.

Acid Rain
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Your description of it is an exaggeration, possibly because of sensationalistic media reporting. Acid rain was a reality and caused extensive damage to crops and forests. The primary cause was emissions from power stations, the problem was addressed and emissions removed. The result being that acid rain is nowhere near the problem it used to be.

Y2K
¯¯¯
Can you find anyone other than the media and those with something to sell that were promoting the concept of a 'total shutdown'. If it was a serious threat then steps would have been taken to deal with the consequences. What steps were taken - none, because no-one took it seriously.

Global Warming
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Completely different and not remotely the work of Al Gore. It was scientific fact long before Al Gore was even born. In fact, it would have been around the time of his great-great-great-great grandparents that it first came to light. Global warming can be demonstrated in any reasonable science lab and the effects of it are evident across the entire world.

Whilst global warming in the past has been a natural cycle the difference now is that it's occuring many times faster than anything that nature could cause and for those who take the time to study it's causes it's quite clear why it's happening.

If it's a sham can you provide one single credible piece of scientific evidence that suggests it's anything other than human induced?

Answer 7

Considering that the world has slowly been warming up since the beginning of time, I would say, yes, it a half sham... We are contributing to the warming of earth at a more rapid rate then it would naturally. But, I feel that politicians and agenda oriented ppl, blow it out of proportion for their own reasons. It is a real issue that is being blown up and used as a scare tactic to keep the masses in check.
Weather we were hear or not, the world would warm up and eventually be uninhabitable. The ice caps would melt and the sea levels would rise. Unfortunately we do assist it, but, we have to survive.

Answer 8

How real is something that exists only in computer models that cannot even agree with each other?

How real is something that only holds up in the computer models during the night, but is invalid during the day?

How real is something that only holds up in the computer models over land but is invalid over the majority of the Earth (oceans)?

How real is something that only holds up in the computer models for the Northern Hemisphere and not the Southern?

How real is something that acknowledges the principle Greenhouse gas (water vapor) but excludes it from computer models because they cannot quantify it?

How real is something that favors ground-based stations and all the individual biases which can quickly compound errors over state-of-the-art thermal sensing satellites?

We could go on, but I'm having trouble trying to find the "real" part of global warming. I'll leave deciding whether it is a sham or not up to you.

Answer 9

Actually you can agree or not agree to human involvement in Global Warming or you can say this is a natural cycle. Either way the warming of our planet will be quite devastating. If we can make some headway in curbing our polution of greenhouse gasses maybe we can lesson the degree of Global Warming (Climate Change).

Answer 10

It's a natural cycle of the earth. It's going to negatively effect some geographic locations. It's going to positively effect others. We may be accelerating the trend, but our cumulative ability to turn the trend around is nil. All our energy would be better focused on promoting a clean environment in as much as we can (that's important in so many ways) and preparing for any problems that a warmer climate will entail, rather than finger pointing and panicking.