Do we need more proof that man made global warming is BS?

Question

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

1st they said do drive now they are telling us to drive.

I am all in favor of conservation and getting off fossil fuels. I am in favor of seeking out alternatives fuels.

When people like this come out I have more doubts about the "science" of this man made global warming scare.

Mr Parrot I did read it and if you read all studies they do say at the end more studies are required. That is why I think those who think we should go to living in caves because someone with a PhD says so I say question it. When open up with a line like walking is bad and we should drive. That should have been right their the red light special this study has problems.

Answer 1

This all depends on whether you need proof or suspicions.
If action requires scientific proof and a 90% consensus of accredited scientists, it will be too late to do anything about it by the time that occur.
On the other hand, if we are to begin acting on suspicion, we should begin to take a deliberate cautious approach. Not a panic.

Answer 2

The time of AGW skeptic is coming to an end. How can it be more obvious then a topic reading "Do we need more proof that man made global warming is BS?" without a shred of proof to back this statement up! It is now so ridiculous that seeing an AGW skeptic trying to back up his claims with evidence is now a rare sight.

The first sentence in the link provided to support this AGW skeptic reads: "Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated."
Utter proof that AGW does exist. If not, then how could either one effect GW? How could the numbers be calculated if there weren't evidence that supports mans effect on the climate? The skeptics are indeed becoming desperate for evidence these days, evidence that are nowhere to be found.

Answer 3

I was a skeptic until I recently wrote a term paper about the global warming climate models. I had to learn a little about the background of climatology and what they have learned over the last 100 years.
George Bush and many corporations now admit that man is probably responsible for most of the warming this century. The corporations want a seat at the table when world wide policies are made to reduce CO2 emissions.
The leftists have latched onto this issue because they can lynch big business for "destroying" the earth, so there is a huge political component involved.
I think the best bet for now is nuclear energy, but the leftists oppose that, too. They want to undermine our economy in order to force their values on the rest of us. The next century will be interesting.
Don't be too proud to learn more and admit you are wrong so you can change your mind when faced with more information.

Answer 4

Yes, I would like any evidence whatsoever that man-made global warming is BS please. Can you provide some? I would greatly appreciate it.

This article is no evidence whatsoever. Look at the claim the author makes:

“If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You’d need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving."

100g OF BEEF. If you eat beef and only beef yes, you're better off driving. How many people do you know who eat beef for every meal, and drink only milk as well? Yes cows produce a fairly large amount of methane gas, but if you eat things other than beef, walking and replacing the calories burned by eating anything else will result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions than driving.

If you find any evidence (let alone proof) that anthropogenic global warming is BS, please let me know. I would love if that were true. But this is not evidence about global warming whatsoever. Even if it were true, it would not prove that humans aren't causing global warming.

Answer 5

My god people, calm down. The earth is warming at about one (1) degree every 100 years. Some of the official data shows it is even slower. The earth has been warming for hundreds of years. Nothing is going to happen tomorrow. We need to question and analyze any theories like this one that can have very serious consequences if true, or if not true, and we make the wrong moves.

Lets go ahead and do those easy things like small cars and efficient homes that will help us get off foreign fuel and reduce pollution but not ruin our economies. This is a win win. While we are doing this, lets keep researching and studying this phenomenon so we have all these questions answered and go from there.

Answer 6

I guess you're in the US and as such aren't aware that the (London) Times has earned itself something of a bad reputation for it's reporting on global warming and as such little credence is paid to it's articles.

For example, the entire premise of the article assumes that the only thing a person eats is beef reared on distant agriculturally intensive farms. When you look at what a person actually eats then the argument falls flat on it's face.

This seems to me to be yet another example of skeptics clutching at straws and inventing truths in a desparate attempt to discredit the science of global warming. If there was any real evidence available don't you think they'd cite that instead.

Answer 7

That'd be fantastic news, assuming the average person ate a diet consisting solely of beef and milk. But we don't, so it's stupid (notice how no figures were given to any other types of food?). I agree to the extent that eating too much beef is a bad thing, both for your health and the environment. But eating itself is certainly no worse than driving.

Crufler: I'm afraid the IPCC has a bit more than a "study" on the consensus available. And it's much more than a summary, too. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment Report is a comprehensive analysis of virtually every piece of data available on climate change, and represents quite possibly the largest scientific paper ever published. It would behoove you to, you know, actually =read= it before commenting on it next time.

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

Edit: Where at the end do they say more studies are required? Where does it say we must live in caves?

I agree that the study you gave has problems though. It was pretty much pathetic.

Answer 8

People like this?????? Proof????? How stupid do you think we are? This is political nonsense from a "candidate for parliament". What scientific papers has he published? It has nothing at all to do with the serious science that proves global warming is real and mostly caused by us.

The parlor trick here is "beef". Beef production is extraordinarily inefficient. So, yes, if you eat nothing but beef it is more efficient to drive than to walk. So what? How does that prove man made global warming isn't real? Total crap.

Good websites for real information about the science behind man made global warming:

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

and proof that it's real and mostly us:

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727

Answer 9

You're correct to question the science. That's the beauty of science It's supposed to be questioned constantly!

The more we question human influence on global temperature change, the more we will test for it, and the better the quality of information we have. Atmospheric science is in its infancy.

Answer 10

No, Because We R The Main Cause for The Greenhouse Gases