Is global warming strictly polotics?

Question

I think so i mean data from 100 years is not enough to support a claim. although you will give me the majority of scientist say this claim, the majority of scientist have been wrong before. The Earth is always in a state of warming or cooling we are just in a warming one right now. I feel that someone goverment person(Al Gore) wants another excuse to tax us for somthing. It just also seems like an issue that people would try to use to get votes.

Sorry I mean to say politics just a typo I guess.

Answer 1

It IS strictly politics, and the "scientists" dont know, and in fact, there tends to be a scientific "cycle" between the alarmists swapping between global warming and cooling.

You can do the research yourself, all the way back to the 1900s, they were saying global warming, then 1920s cooling, 1930s warming, 1970s cooling, and 1990s to today, its warming.

But wait a minute... in the summer, New York posted a high of 59 degrees? what?

Funny thing is there is never a global "Status quo"... there is always some concern for the future... its pure political posturing and the thought police trying to shape you into the type of person they want you to be so they can more easily forward their political motivations.

Answer 2

What we know (as stated by the "consensus" view):

A temperature rise of only 0.7 C in the 150+ years since the end of the Little Ice Age, the coldest period since the last Ice Age.

A predicted sea level rise of 8 to 15 inches over the next 100 years - about the same as the previous century.

Only two temperature phenomena have been studied that show a man made contribution - and only A contribution, not a majority, not a quantified contribution at all. Even then, the probability of ANY man-made contribution is set at >66% (If "man" were on trial for the crime of global warming and lawyers told you they were 66% sure that man might have made A contribution to the crime, would you vote "guilty"?)

And what were those phenomena?

The cold days and nights over land will not be as cold.

The nighttime lows following hot days over land will not be as cool.

Note that there are no accepted studies attributing the temperatures most people associate with warming - seasonal daytime highs - to man-made contributions. ANY contribution. No link at all.

Now, compare this data from the "consensus" of scientists and what you hear from your average alarmist. Of course it's political. I think you may be too hard on the scientists - the distortion of their work is what filters down to the masses.

Answer 3

There is a lot more data, of different types, than just 100 years of thermometer readings.

It's true that "scientists can be wrong", but a lot of careful and smart people have looked at this problem for many years and concluded that humans are causing the planet to warm. So at minimum, you've got to agree that they might be correct, and look at all the evidence.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/20495/240
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

The political side of the issue is deciding what needs to be done and how to do it. Those who think global warming is a real danger also think something really needs to be done about it. Others disagree. But it's not reasonable to disagree without first looking at all the facts and scientific arguments.

Answer 4

No, but the efforts to block action to correct the problem obviously is. Circulating false and butt-ignorant nonsense like it's based on 100 years of data, resembles the known natural climate patterns, that it has something to do with Al Gore, or is some sort of get rich quick scheme for scientists or government prove this without any doubt. What these people lack in facts or intelligence, they make up for with raw aggression.

Answer 5

There have been natural changes before, but the scientific data clearly proves that this particular change is not natural.

If a theory uses only natural factors it can't come close to matching the observed data.

But, when you include man made greenhouse gases, you can match the observed data pretty well. From the Source below:

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

This is why:

"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 6

There are two different debates about global warming. One is the scientific discussion of the fact that the earth is warming and the theories which surround global warming/climate change including the theory that human pollution is the main cause. Another debate is strictly politics and strictly stupid and pointless.

Answer 7

No. Global warming is a scientific theory. The fact that a bunch of bloated politicians decided they were clever enough to debate it is meaningless.

One wonders why exactly politicians think they are sufficiently educated on the subject to interpret the data better than climate scientists. But given what we know about politicians it isn't all that surprising.

Answer 8

I like the saying from Henry Mencken - "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

I think it fits the argument well.