What do you think about global warming alarmists?

Question

Many scientists including James Hansen, quite possibly the foremost climate scientist on the planet, think the predictions made by the IPCC report are actually too conservative:

"Certain positive feedback effects, as well as recent data on the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, were not included in the IPCC's report. "Because of the cumbersome IPCC review process, they exclude recent information," Prof. Hansen says, "so they are very handicapped."

Richard Peltier agrees. A University of Toronto physicist and the director of the Centre for Global Change Science, he works on mathematical models to explain the melting and freezing dynamics of the Greenland ice sheet and has contributed to the IPCC publications - but even he agrees that their assumptions tend to be "extremely conservative."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070825.MELTING25/TPStory/Environment

I suppose climate scientists who gather and examine the data directly are just alarmists too?

Answer 1

First, I think the "alarms" must be reasonable and I don't for a second believe in a sea level rise of 25 meters within a century. To me, these claims only hurts the cause. It's ridiculous. I'm no expert but I've heard that a very large contribution for sea level rise is because water expands when it gets warmer and we have huge amounts of water in our oceans. However, water also warms slowly so before the oceans will be that warm and expand that much it will take very long.

For "reasonable alarms" I've got mixed feelings. First it's kind of scary because I think some of the alarms might very well be right. Earth has experienced rapid climate change earlier after different feedback effects which escalated the changes and it's scary to think that humans might be responsible for triggering new feed backs.

Another point is that I'm not sure claiming it's worse than IPCC says will help convince the deniers, maybe it will just have the opposite effect. I think that some people are in denial because the truth is too scary and they don't think there is anything we can do about it if it's true. Saying it's even worse might just make them angry and have them believe the alarmists are using scare tactics.

I believe "reasonable alarmists" may help to get people who already believes in global warming more involved and eager to do something, but people must first understand the basics: This is real, it's because of us and we have to do something about it.

Answer 2

LOL- I think alarmists' are a mix-some alarm for gain but others are genuinly emiotionally involved. The fact that some deny there's a problem and, therefore, are slowly causing the murder of many future animals and humans, only makes the situation worse.
I see different levels of alarm. For myself, I'm worried but that's not a big concern. There are other things that should go 'wrong' before too long. The top two seem to be Yellowstone becoming an active volcano and the Sun acting strangely by heating up.
Actually, there are at least SOME who are doing something to combat GW whereas there's NOTHING anyone can do about these other things.

Answer 3

Zelda, get your head out of your sphincter, will you? 90% of the scientists on Earth say that global warming is real and dangerous, and 80% say that mankind's impact is either causing or worsening the problem.

I think the reality will fall somewhere between the conservative 50cm rise and the alarmist 20 meter rise. But even if it's just a 5-10 meter rise, that's going to cause significant damage.

Some people are over-hyping it, some are still living in denial. But we had better start doing something about it, before we get to the point that nothing we can do will change it.

Pip: Thanks for your answer. I have linked a report showing the type of chart you were mentioning.

Answer 4

the two facets of the priority has its hypocrites. the way I see it extremely is that worldwide warming is genuine, yet ninety 9.ninety 9% of world warming is organic and not man made ! in case you want to sluggish the guy made component to world warming then there is purely one element which will artwork..........end MAKING human beings ! in case you want to have much less nuke capability flora or hydro capability dams or wind farms or regardless of then there is an exceptionally effortless thank you to not want the capability.....get off the grid ! If a single nuke capability plant supplies you capability for say a million residences then get a million GW/green Peace/tree hugging/save the owl human beings mutually and have them unplug from the capability grid ! No TVs, no pcs, no cellular telephone chargers, no place to plug on your hybrid vehicle, and so on ! evaluate the wear and tear to man made worldwide warming each and all the GW scientist/supporters do whilst they commute worldwide to conventions and conferences !!!!! Years in the past I had a youthful female at SeaTac airport crying whilst she suggested she grew to become into flying over seas to attend a "save the international" rally and that i instructed her flat out how she grew to become into doing extra harm flying distant places then each and all the autos using in Seattle in a single month ! I instructed her to electrify me she could could desire to get a row boat and paddle her advantageous *** around the sea to attend the assembly ! Now that would provoke me ! so a techniques as your question....in the event that they want to be alarmist and if it makes them sense sturdy doing so then i assume its ok, they only extra helpful not get right into a communicate with me approximately it !

Answer 5

You do know that there are maybe a few hundred very vocal scientists world wide that do not approve of global warming--versus the other thousands. Some of these scientists, be aware, have actually been bought off by companies who produce greenhouse gases, and do not wish to have their profits marginalized.

And above, when you said 70% disagreed--someone--you're misleading people who read your answer. IT means they can also disagree on the cause, the effects, or the degree--not just about whether it's happening or not.

Answer 6

I know from my own experience that they are not alarmists. I grew up in Germany, the winters were long and very cold, we had the first freeze in late September when I was a child. I remember that we considered it to be hot in the Summer when we reached 20 degrees Celsius. I would go to the swimming pool.
It is much hotter in Germany now and the winters are very short.If this is not prove that global warming is a reality, I don't know what prove the nay Sayer's will need.

Answer 7

You know what I find interesting.. they have been able to show that in the past as little as 3-4 degrees have separated an ice age from a more arid time... and we are looking at a predicted 4-6 degree increase in just this century instead of over a few thousand years... ... many species won't be able to evolve fast enough to survive...


Edit: Demorat... greenhouse gases only make up 1% of our atmosphere yet they regulate something like 40% of the heat.. they don't need to have a high percentage versus the oxygen and nytrogen to make a difference.

AND, charted out over the past 100 years, the temperature rise almost PERFECTLY matches the CO2 levels... it's called the KEEL chart I believe.. or maybe KEELING, check it out.

Answer 8

That they are correct, there is too much evidence that they presented to support there claims. The evidence that shows that global warming does not exist is generally observations and ill researched.

Any person that thinks man has not had an impact on global warming is very naive and refuses to ignore the evidence. After the industrial revolution and the increase of vehicles in the world as a whole it had an impact on the environment through fossil fuels being burned at a more rapid pace and more carbon dioxide being exerted in the atmosphere which messes up the delicate balance of greenhouse effects.

EDIT: Its amazing to see how many people answer this question making a case that global warming does not exist and then they cite no references, and unsubstantiated facts like 70% of scientiests dont believe in global warming. Ignorance is worse then drugs

Answer 9

Brian, how can you doubt that we as humans don't have an impact on the world we inhabit? We stopped using certain chemicals and starting using catalytic converters on our vehicles in the 70's because we were poisoning our water and air. Why is it such a big leap to acknowledge that we have an impact on the weather? Our Earth's systems are all interconnected.

Answer 10

I wish they would educate themselves. I fail to see how throwing a 7 continent rock concert benefits the cause of global warming prevention. For every paper you can find that supports global warming, another plausible one that exists that denounces it.

The rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper, truth is neither side knows but evidence exists to support both. Only continued analysis will yield a real answer, not a prediction, assumption or estimate.