Why DON'T you believe in Global Climate Change? or why do you?

Question

What are your reasons for not beleiving in the theory??? Personally the arguements back and forth amaze me and I'm not going to try and convinve a million people to think the way I do so i'm just curious why you do or dont believe in the theory? Is it Al Gore? the IPCC? NASA? let me know

Harpman.....look up Milankovitch cycles and then think about how cyclical it is...

Bob....second site was great thanks!

ciza...are you really saying DDT was good??? agent orange, is that good too? i bet you could kill a lot of mosquitos with that

deion....simple and well put

jmaximus....there is a difference in trying to convince someone to believe your own beliefs (ie long drawn out explanations) and simply offering new evidence (ie new websites). i DO believe in global warming, and you know that which lead to your attack on me....i learned a lot from Bob's website and if i understand you correctly you are saying free floating ice causes SL rise? No its land based ice.....the fact is that i asked this question to hear both sides....if i'm as bas as you say (by only believing what i believe) then why in the world did i ask a question that i KNEW would have people directly disagree with me????? i wonder....

a recurring thing im hearing is how much money that government has thrown in global warming research....all the deniers for that matter aren't mentioning the millions possibly billions spent trying to disprove GW scientifically and politically through bribes and paying off fake studies and making up fake science....the "newsweek" last week talked about these think tanks in detail so it is not just one way it goes both ways....i feel that the corruption behind trying to disprove global warming makes the RESEARCH (not BRIBERY) of proving it seem like nothing.....no one is bribing people to say global warming exists...science speaks for itself

Answer 1

Three reasons global warming is real and mostly caused by us, in decreasing order of importance. The proof is not in my words, it's in the links. The deniers here have only their words.

That's what the data says. From the Source below:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Theories that this is natural don't work because they don't match the data. The numbers don't come out right:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Because of the two things above, the vast majority of the scientific community knows global warming is real and mostly caused by us. There are a (very) few skeptics who aren't convincing any of their colleagues:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The bottom line:

"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

Answer 2

Climates Change. That's what they do - whether plunging into an ice-age, or coming out of one, when your planet has an atmosphere and sits within 96 million miles of an unregulated fusion reactor, there's gonna be some variability.

However, I am not convinced that increases in CO2 and other Anthropomorphic "Greenhouse Gasses" have caused the planet to warm significantly more than it would have without them.

Why? Well, for one thing, our temperature record is only existent for 150 years, and is not even very reliable for more than 100 years. We've been coming out of an ice-age for 10,000 years - and there's no direct measure of how Earth's climate operates over the long term (the last 1 million years or so). The idea that a continuation (or change) in an apparent trend is "man made" based on an unproven theory and such a short-term dataset seems a bit ludicrous (if not arrogant) to me.

Another issue is the staggering amount of things we "don't know" about the whole process. Computer models that predict these horrific things happening to Earth don't take into account "natural variations." They don't even handle "water vapor," the PRIMARY Greenhouse Gas in Earth's Atmosphere, very well. Model outputs don't even start with realistic inputs - they are virtual results based on virtual starting points, none of which are "actual" conditions now.

Finally, the governments of the world have thrown in excess of 50 billion dollars into "Global Warming" research since 1992, but this is not supposed to have affected the outcome of their research, while the Pro-AGW proponents claim that a paltry 19 million dollars thrown in at the "Anti-AGW" scientists is purely corrupting!

Answer 3

Thanks for the well-balanced and sensible question; they can sometimes be in short supply in this section of Answers.

Personally I do believe in global climate change and have done for a good many years now, long before it became the popular and contentious issue it is today.

I studied climatology in the UK in the 1980's. Back then it wasn't a politicised subject and there were no 'sides' to the climate change debate. We were simply presented with the available material and evidence in an impartial matter-of-fact way.

As students we were left to make up our own minds and encouraged to question all aspects of what was being presented. Something I've continued to do to this day and ultimately have to do as it's my job.

The more I've learned about global climate change the more apparent it has become to me that we are adversely affecting the climate. To my mind the evidence is incontrovertible and despite having researched many possible alternative explanations I have yet to find anything that contradicts the generally accepted principles.

Answer 4

I believe in the facts as presented, that the climate of the earth is changing, has always been changing and always will be changing. I think there is a lot of credibility to the theory of human activity having some impact on the rate and scope of climate change and the current warming trend we are experiencing. As for how much, I'll leave that up to the scientists who are still researching it and learning new things every day. I will not preach at anyone or go into panic mode thinking that the world will end in 25 years. This is not a political issue, this is a scientific phenomenon with many theories surrounding it and which still requires much research to be explained thoroughly. People who politicize climate change, "global warmists" and "deniers" alike are equally ignorant. It is sad when someone asserts that they must drive the biggest Hummer they can find, waste as much electricity as possible and even litter household trash and cigarette butts all over the road in order to "stick it to the global warmists." It is also sad that our public schools choose to show a documentary from a washed up politician to explain climate change to their students instead of lecturing on the topic with current and valid information.

Answer 5

I don't believe in Man Made Global Warming. the climate is always changing. Most of the warming in the last 120 years happened before 1940 and the world began to cool after the second world war when industry and took off. the earth began to warm again in the 1970's during the economic recession. Also temperature rises then C02 levels rise they actually lag several hundred years behind. Also animals and bacteria produce more C02 than us burning fossil fuels and giving off C02. The largest producer of C02 by far is the ocean. Volcanoes even give off more C02 than us.

Answer 6

I believe it's a real issue. The arguments I see for Global Warming involve percentages and provide links to websites with number facts and scientific test results. Forgetting Al Gore-I haven't studied on him, have no idea if he's a hypocrite or not...BTW, wasn't he worked up about this for several years? This is hardly new to him. Anyway, others who would have access to the scientists involved, like Leonardo DiCaprio and Sheryl Crowe, are so concerned with it, they put their money where their mouth is. L. DiCaprio makes enough to buy a whole garage of expensive sports cars but he's bought some hybrid. Sheryl Crowe could afford to have a fashion guru design a whole wardrobe out of toilet paper but she's lecturing about using very little. Obviously, those who have access to climate information are not only preaching it but trying to lead by example.
The only arguments I see by ppl saying there is no problem are easily counterattacked and a lot of the 'scientists' they do have backing them up, turn out to at least be suspected of taking bribes.

Answer 7

I believe it because I've examined the scientific data, and it all points to humans as the primary cause of the current global warming. There's simply no other plausible scientific explanation. The sun, volcanoes, water vapor, cosmic rays, etc. - they've all been ruled out. On top of that, virtually all the experts who know more than I do are also convinced that humans are the primary cause.

I don't see how anyone who examines all the scientific evidence can come to any other conclusion. I think the reason that so many people (laymen, not scientists) have concluded otherwise is because they haven't examined all the data, nor will they because they don't want to believe we're responsible. If we're responsible, then we have to take responsibility, and who wants that? So they listen to Rush Limbaugh rather than James Hansen. Steve Milloy rather than Stephen Hawking.

The ability of people to find ways to believe what they want to believe never ceases to amaze me.

Answer 8

I believe in global warming. I just want someone to answer all the questions regarding the data and assumptions used to blame it all on CO2 produced by man. I read many of what I believe to be very valid questions by scientists and it seems the media is closed for questions. It is my way or the highway. I don't trust any group that has this attitude and is not available to come out in the open and answer questions.

In Al's book and on TV, Al shows pictures of glaciers melting and poor Polar Bears with no ice and maks it sound like this has never happened before. I watch scientists on Discovery that have been studying glaciers for many years telling me it is perfectly natural for the glaciers to come and go every 5000 years or so due to climate change. Who is right?

I am going green. Little House, Little car, CFE's, Etc. I believe we need to burn less oil for many reasons including pollution and national security. I just am not convinced that it is so bad that if we do not change our whole way of life within 9 years, it is to late for man (That is what Al Gore said on the Oprah show in 2006). It frightens me so I study, and I find many questions about the data used.

I am old. I spent my entire life in science and engineering. I understand the difficulties in modelling, data collection and interpretation. In this data, we are talking about a one degree change every 100 years. I am not even convinced any analysis of 2000 year old ice is accurate to that degree.

Answer 9

I think everyone believes in climate change. We just don't all agree about the causes of it. Just look at the history of the Earth's climate to see that climate change is very normal. The Earth has been much hotter and much cooler than it is now. The CO2 levels have been 15 times higher than they are now and that was during an ice age.

NO ONE totally understands the causes of climate change. Be skeptical of those who claim to.

Answer 10

I believe that the earth's climate is indeed changing; however, this has happened numerous times since the beginning of time. We only have a very narrow range of data to look at... not nearly enough to form any definitive opinion as to whether or not it's man-made. People need to remember that Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and we only have about 150 years of reliable data to consider. It's hard to believe that we aren't having SOME effect; however, I don't believe our future is as dire as some would have us believe. There's a lot of money to be made in the so called, "Green Movement." Proponents of both sides stand to gain (and possibly lose) much from future environmental policies, depending on which way public opinion sways. Right now, the public seems to be getting worked up into a frenzy. This has happened before. Remember the Y2K bug?
Of course, conservation is better, but we should be doing that anyway.