One of the main reasons I have for disregarding their findings is that no debate was allowed on the subject. Many of the scientists that contributed to the findings recanted their work because they felt it was misrepresented. A large percentage of the scientist that are being touted as "experts" in the field have no training at all in climatology. The biggest tip-off though is that any one that raises alternate interpretations of the evidence is marked as a pawn of the Republican party and their facts are not even looked at by any one in the media.
Every 20 years or so some extremist comes along and claims that civilization is going to end because of (fill in the blank). At least the religious kooks wait til the end of the century to claim that now is the end time fore told in the bible (what you still hear now is the left over from end of century hysteria). There is something fundamental in human nature that seems to feel a need to be afraid of the future instead of enjoying the present.
By the way can anyone tell me why global warming is a bad thing? Wouldn't a laonger growing season mean an age of plenty?
2007-10-22 12:18:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Don't forget that the cooling warnings in the 70s were actually warranted.
For starters, there was a short-term and minor global cooling from about 1940-1970. Climate models explain this quite accurately - it was due primarily to increased volcanic and human aerosol emissions.
In fact, human aerosol emissions were increasing rapidly up until about 1970. Some scientists made a crude projection that if our sulfur dioxide emissions continued to increase at the same rate, it would eventually lead to an ice age.
Guess what happened after that? Our SO2 emissions peaked in 1980, and have been declining ever since. See pages 12-14 here:
http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf
So the 1970s cooling claim is wrong on so many levels.
1) We were in fact in a period of global cooling.
2) Projections of an impending ice age were made by very few scientists.
3) The projections were based on a scenario which we avoided.
It's a similar situation to the ozone hole - some people will claim that it was alarmism, but in reality it was simply a problem which we fixed by reducing our CFC emissions. Or the Y2K bug, which we fixed by editing computer software. The same could be true of global warming. If we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we can avoid the scenarios which project a catastrophic climate change.
2007-10-23 12:57:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dana1981 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
AGW was predicted in 1898, half a century before al gore was born. And conveniently half a century before the huge pollution issues the global warming crowd blames for global warming started as well. Hmmmm.
2007-10-22 19:04:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by davidmi711 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
The average temperature of the Earth WAS cooling in the 60's and many scientists were concerned, but it wasn't taken to the level of panic that it is today.
As to people saying that global warming is a hoax, I don't know many people who say that. No one doubts that the Earth is warming, what they doubt it the reasons why and the ramifications. For example, scientists have said that CO2 accounts for only a part of the increase and even if we can control that increase, it is likely that the Earth will still continue to warm as part of it's natural cycle. We could all ride bikes and eat cold cereal every morning and not make a dent in the global warming.
Then too, as one NASA scientist put it, what makes you think that this, our current 'average' is the optimal temperature for the earth? Many scientists believe we're still coming out of an ice age. So why must this be 'the' temperature at which we set the global thermostat?
So, it's not that we think it's a hoax, we just don't think it rises nearly to the crisis that folks like you believe it to be.
2007-10-22 19:10:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by The emperor has no clothes 7
·
3⤊
3⤋
There has been some alarmism over global warming that could be politely described as a hoax, and, in the past (back in the 60's and 70s) there were equally alarmist fears of a new pollution-induced ice age. And, actually, since global warming could result in reduced or more extreme temperatures in some regions, people are starting to use the more general 'Climate Change' label.
2007-10-22 19:09:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
Actually, there was quite a bit of "consensus" - at least it was presented to the public as such.
I live in the interior of Alaska. This USED to be a very temperate climate - even had wild horses here, until the last Ice Age. So what is the "normal" climate in central Alaska supposed to be? Warm or cold?
The Great Lakes were formed by glaciers. Who's "fault" was it that those glaciers retreated?
I've never denied GW - I just don't think there's a lot we can do about it. You can't beat Mother Nature!
2007-10-22 19:15:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jadis 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
Global Warming is bad for business. People don't want to believe it. Because if it was true they'd have to change their factories to be eco friendly. Whichc would NOT be cheap at all.
2007-10-22 19:03:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by redrover564@sbcglobal.net 2
·
4⤊
3⤋
They call it a hoax so they don't have to deal with it. Like that's going to make it go away. Geeez!!
2007-10-22 19:09:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by mikk 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
The earth has warmed 6/10th of a percent in the last 100yrs. Normal earth warming and cooling cycles occur and have for millions of years...long before man industrialized the planet...
2007-10-22 19:04:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
6⤋
These days only Hollywood still thinks it is real.
2007-10-22 19:11:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋