Global Warming; complete bunkum?

Question

How long will it take before everyone realises the Global Warming hoo-har is bunkum? Isn't it all a political charade to prevent Third World progress and industrialisation; progress that would upset the Western economy?

Seeing as CO2 is less than 1% of the atmosphere, how much of that <1% is man made and can it be measured? Does it really have an effect? More so than say water vapour in the form of clouds?

The Earth is meant to warm up and cool down, that's the nature of a dynamic, enclosed environment. Carbon Footprints are a product of marketing departments to ensure you (and me) part with our cash in taxes and 'green friendly' products.

Don't be hoodwinked peeps, it's all about Business and Governments getting their hands on your money!

Cynical and proud of it. Scientists striving to disprove Global Warming don't get funding or publicity because it doesn't suit the political gravy train. Believe it if you like; in 50 years I'll be dead and not give a hoot but our wonderful Earth will still be here in a billion years. Get a grip, it doesn't matter.

Oh yeah, I'm not a young man; how condescending!!! I'm also not gullible or a mindless zombie willing to believe everything i'm told. WMD, SARS virus, Bird Flu, Necrotising fasciitis....on and on the politics of fear go.

Answer 1

Of the UN's '2500 scientists' fewer than a third were qualified in an environmental science, one was a gynaecologist and another was a landscape architect. Out of the remaining third, several had their names included fraudulently. Although they contributed to the IPCC's scientific report, their contributions were deleted by UN officials from the published version because they did not support the official policy that climate change is man made.
This is typical of the kind of dishonesty that goes on when you have a political doctrine driving the science, when it should be the other way around.

Greenhouse gasses are only one element in a complex interactive system. 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour, 3% by CO2 and the remaining 2% by a variety or trace gasses. Man's activity contributes only 3% to the total CO2 in the atmosphere, so man's total contribution to the greenhouse effect is 3% X 3% which equals 0.09%.
So if we stopped fossil use altogether, it would hardly make a measurable difference to the total climate picture.

CO2 is NOT pollution, it is a natural and vital component of our atmosphere. Without it there would be no plant or animal life here at all. Photosynthesis is dependant on it, and oxygen is a by-product. So it is necessary for food and oxygen

Answer 2

The fact that CO2 only composes 0.3% of our atmosphere is completely irrelevant.

Look at it this way - let's say there are 5 animals on you. You've got a mouse, a cat, a gerbil, a hamster, and an elephant. Well, that elephant is only 20% of the animals on you, big deal! Except you're squashed because you didn't pay attention to its mass.

CO2 is only 0.3% of the stuff in our atmosphere? Well that doesn't sound like a lot! Does that mean it can't be causing global warming? Hardly. You need to do some research to learn how much global warming 380 ppm (parts per million) of atmospheric CO2 will cause. And guess what? Climate scientists have done that. It looks like this:

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

Water vapor concentrations depend on global temperature. The hotter the planet, the hotter the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. Thus water vapor makes global warming worse, but it does not initiate global warming, unlike CO2.

Please take some time to learn about the science behind global warming. Here are some links to get you started.

Answer 3

Here is an instrument that can easily measure CO2 at its atmospheric concentration of 378 parts per million (ppm) http://www.licor.com/env/Products/GasAnalyzers/7000/7000.jsp
One can look at the Keeling curve and see the systematic increase in CO2 - is this due to a) continuous increase in the number of volcanoes? b) continuous increase in plant respiration or c)the continuous rise of man's use of fossil fuels?
I think the answer is obvious, but it is possible to look at the amount of naturally occurring radioactive carbon 14 in the gas. This is produced when carbon interacts with cosmic rays and therefore needs sunlight. When buried underground the carbon 14 is no longer produced and CO2 emitted from fossil fuel burning is depleted in carbon 14 relative to 'new' surface carbon 14 levels.We can then state that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to Man's input

It does have an effect - remember it's not the dose but the potency - or would you be happy to lace your food with 1% ccyanide? Carbon dioxide has a residence time in the atmosphere of 100 years the is a limit to how fast it is removed based on things like the ocean temperature and plant activity. This is therefore linked to underlying climate trends. Water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas but has a residence time of a few days - as we've seen this summer there is seemingly no limit to how much it can rain. Also clouds have a cooling effect on the earth by reflecting sunlight.

The earth's climate is largely regulated by it's orbit, the sun, and greenhouse gases. We are tipping the balance by increasing the greenhouse gas contribution and need to decide if we want to do something about it, or continue experimenting on our planet.
If we leave what we do up to the marketing people and governments then we shall probably achieve less and pay through the nose for the privilege. It would be better if people adjusted their own lives to tread lightly on the earth.

Answer 4

How long before they realize?- probably about another three to four years. Statistically, that is about the amount of time it takes the people or the newspapers to start looking for something else to talk about. Unfortunately, by this time, you and I would have spent out a fortune in increased taxes and petrol expenses (all for the "good cause"), while the developing countries would have received even more aid (courtesy of our taxes) to build even more power stations and produce even more cars for their people, without getting any blame (i.e., under the "environmentalist ticket") at all. We will get all the blame and, at the same time, have to pay for their further "development"- oh s..t, what a fiasco. Maybe, one day, a scientist will produce the evidence that, actually, the worst world-wide floods actually took place in the 1950's, and we are going through another normal cyclical fluctuation (guess they wouldn't believe it anyway, of course!). Keep smiling (if you can) and keep spreading the message! Don't let the powers that be nick all your money based on a fairy story. Live long and prosper, the shepherd.

Answer 5

The earth does warm up and cool down but us humans are not helping things along by polluting the hell out of our mother earth. I think that the earth is warming up by these pollutents and we all need to get together as 1 and stop it before it is to late. below the proverb proves that even back then the native indians of america could see what was happening.

Eat money

Only when the last tree has died

and the last river been poisoned

and the last fish been caught

will we realise we cannot eat money.

Cree Indian saying

Answer 6

You guys need to make up your minds. Contrarians have stated now that global warming is both a massive, worldwide conspiracy to destroy 3rd world nations and empower world superpowers, and a massive, worldwide conspiracy to destroy the US and give the world to communist China. Which is it? You can't have both you know; global warming theory can't destroy the US and build it up at the same time.

Anyway, please explain to me how global warming theory is supposed to do either.

-------
We can tell whether CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic or not. Carbon dioxide found naturally in the atmosphere and carbon dioxide resulting from combustion of fossil fuels have different isotope ratios, which scientists can measure (which is the only fundamental difference).

Carbon dioxide's radiative forcing capacity can be measured in a laboratory under controlled conditions. Scientists understand it perfectly.

Carbon dioxide does not have a higher radiative forcing capacity than water (due to its smaller concentration in the atmosphere). However, water vapor acts as a function of temperature and cannot force climate by itself.

-------
The Earth is not meant to do anything in particular. The climate simply responds to forcings. Earth's radiation balance doesn't just shift at random. Without something forcing it to change Earth's climate would remain static. Humans have introduced a positive forcing mechanism.

Answer 7

Nope it's real. Instead of wild assertions without backup, how about some facts?

This is science and what counts is the data.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

It's (mostly) not the sun:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html

And the first graph aboves shows that the sun is responsible for about 10% of it. When someone says it's the sun they're saying that thousands of climatologists are stupid and don't look at the solar data. That's ridiculous.

Science is quite good about exposing bad science or hoaxes:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater.html

There's a large number of people who agree that it is real and mostly caused by us, who are not liberals, environmentalists, stupid, or conceivably part of a "conspiracy". Just three examples of many:

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

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

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 8

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

Just last year, polls found that 64 percent of Americans thought there was "a lot" of scientific disagreement on climate change; only one third thought planetary warming was "mainly caused by things people do." In contrast, majorities in Europe and Japan recognize a broad consensus among climate experts that greenhouse gases—mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas to power the world's economies—are altering climate. A new NEWSWEEK Poll finds that the influence of the denial machine remains strong. Although the figure is less than in earlier polls, 39 percent of those asked say there is "a lot of disagreement among climate scientists" on the basic question of whether the planet is warming; 42 percent say there is a lot of disagreement that human activities are a major cause of global warming. Only 46 percent say the greenhouse effect is being felt today.

As a result of the undermining of the science, all the recent talk about addressing climate change has produced little in the way of actual action. Yes, last September Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a landmark law committing California to reduce statewide emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent more by 2050. And this year both Minnesota and New Jersey passed laws requiring their states to reduce greenhouse emissions 80 percent below recent levels by 2050. In January, nine leading corporations—including Alcoa, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Du Pont and General Electric—called on Congress to "enact strong national legislation" to reduce greenhouse gases.

Answer 9

There's definitely something going on with the world at the moment, you only have to look at the heavy rains and earthquakes to know that. But whether or not it's man-made is a different matter. I believe the Government is using Global Warming as an excuse to get even more money out of us, because apparently we (UK) contribute around 2% of all emissions, so any reductions by us will have very little effect, if any. If they were serious about being concerned they would ban aeroplanes, all motor vehicles and insist we all ride bicycles or walk everywhere!

Answer 10

So how did the UN manage to get 2000 scientists from all over the world, who prepard the definitive report proving absolutely that global warming is taking place, and man's activities are causing a lot of it, to all agree to lie and keep their lie a secret.

Do you not think that at least one of them would want to blow the whistle, either through conscience, or to make a few million from the newspapers.

That is just too much of a conspiracy to be practical, don't you think young man? In fact the report actually got the American government to change it's mind and policy, because they could no longer deny it. And if it is all about business and making money, then surely the americans would have been saying it was true for all the years they denied it was happening. Think about it, the most business minded country in the world, were denying, that's the opposite of what you are saying.

Edit:- What are you talking about. The UN financed 2000 scientists to analyse all the data to date. There report, which was published and you can read it yourself, states catergorically that man generated global warming is taking place. They had a grant of hundreds of millions of dollars paid for by the countries that are members of the UN
Get up to date with the latest info before you make a fool of yourself. It's all on the internet in the public domain and you can read it yourself, if you can understand the science, which I doubt