Because that's what the scientific data says.
You can quote single years in the US, but the temperature worldwide is headed up, long term. Proof:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/new_Fig.A.lrg.gif
"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
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://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"
2007-08-28 19:04:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bob 7
·
7⤊
0⤋
With all due respect I think it's yourself that needs to stop believing the hype.
The warmest decades on record are: 2000's, 1990's, 1980's, 1940's, 1930's.
The hottest summers globally (which is what global warming is about) are 1998, 2005, 2006, 2003, 2002.
1988 was the 16th warmest summer, 1992 was the 35th warmest.
So unfortunately, the only thing correct about your figures is that the summer of 1992 was cooler than that of 1988.
All the data is here - temps for every month, season, year and decade since 1880 http://profend.com/global-warming/reference/HCGWCCR-TempAnoms1880-2019.html
2007-08-29 05:19:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by Trevor 7
·
7⤊
0⤋
When you refer to hype it would be very helpful if you would cite specific examples of hype.
For example the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" is clearly hype.
They made a standard formula Hollywood horror flick and claimed that it represented what would happen with Global Warming.
The movie was not true. The producers and directors knew it was not true but they released it and promoted it as if it were to make a bunch of money. They appear to have succeeded.
What is sad is that many people believe that movie is true, very similar to the way that people believed Orson Welles radio broadcast of the fictional story titled "War of the Worlds" a fictional account of the United States being invaded by Martians convinced people to believe that we were really being invaded by Martians.
Many normally stable people went out and shot up the local water towers because to them the water towers looked like the creatures that Orson Welles described as invading earth from the planet Mars.
That radio broadcast created so much hysteria that it is now illegal to make a radio or television broadcast like that without repeatedly reminding the members of the audience that this is fiction and it really is not happening.
The same sort of warning should be required for stories in the popular media for a large number of other subjects because of the hysteria that they create.
However even though the popular media is full of the most ridiculous hype regarding the issue of Global Warming, much of the peer reviewed scientific literature is quite good.
If you are asking about hype in the scientific literature I have not seen anything that I would consider hype and I have read a large portion of the scientific literature on the issue of Global Warming.
If you are saying that there is hype in the scientific literature please cite the specific article or articles so that you say appear to be hyped so that I can look them up and decide for myself.
If you are asking whether or not I believe the hype in the popular media, the answer is of course no.
2007-08-29 03:04:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Eric
The 1988 drought is known to be one of the contributing causes of the recession from 1990-1994. The wheat crop this year is down by 20% because spring was too wet and summer was too hot.
Don't you get it? Your money will disappear all right, just as your food will. The largest disasters in history have been due to two causes: 1. Disease, 2. Drought. Both will increase due to GW.
2007-08-29 07:29:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
I have a prophecy, this year will break the record for the hottest average global temperature. If this is the case I would sincerely hope you will finally see the light. Some how I get the feeling that for you this is not really about scientific evidence.
2007-08-29 07:32:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by Love of Truth 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
You know what else? The hottest day in Walla Walla was in 1965! Not really, I made that up. But seriously, who cares what the hottest years were in the USA? It's not called USA Warming, it's called GLOBAL warming. You can see it right here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif
The 1930s were downright cold in comparison to today on a global scale.
Don't believe the right-wing hype.
2007-08-29 12:00:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by Dana1981 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Sad to say, it isn't hype but is very true. Mankind has altered the Earth in so many ways that it is being destroyed. Pollution of the air, water and land is the cause. It is strongly noticed in the way that the South and North polar ice caps are melting. This is not a good sign. Mankind is stubborn and won't listen to common sense. Remember this, What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? - Romans 8:31. The Lord daily loadeth us with benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah. - Psalm 68:19. Peace, Love and God Bless.
2007-08-29 02:42:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by In God We Trust 7
·
4⤊
1⤋
I don't believe the Australian/USA hype that climate change isn't real, but some people do. These people tend to be representatives of fossil fuel companies, or government agencies funded by fossil fuel companies. A few people are patriotically believing the prime minister/president but everyone else sees through the hype. It looks like you believe the hype too... follow the link.
2007-08-29 05:59:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by splurkles 3
·
5⤊
0⤋
Oh.. I get it. If we are going to study the impact of GLOBAL warming... let's just take a cross section of temperatures evident on location for "World Series" Baseball hosts.
Fortunately I have reason to believe that not all US citizens are as parochial as you seem to be.
2007-08-29 06:35:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by Icy Gazpacho 6
·
5⤊
0⤋
the carbon dioxide levels cause faster temperature rise( global warming). if you look at the math you will find we are 84 to 92 % liable for its cause. there are smart people saying the truth. then there are people as dumb as you ( aka. jackass son of *****'s) who are so stupid and so on to contradict scientific data when you haven't got enough brains to know what your talking about. if you want to go to hell keep it up.
2007-08-29 08:52:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by SCIENCE_MAN_88@YAHOO.COM 2
·
3⤊
0⤋