A lot more honesty on the part of the Alarmists, for a start.
For example, an admission that the predictions in An Inconvenient Truth are nonsense (even if it did get the basic science right) and should therefore be ignored.
Or, an admission that the Mann, et al “hockey-stick” graph was flawed and should also therefore be ignored.
We are constantly told that there is a wealth of evidence, so why do the Alarmists insist on clinging to these (and other) dubious “proofs”?
As long as they continue to do so, I will continue to have the feeling that I’m being “had”.
2007-10-23 04:05:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by amancalledchuda 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Of course the planet is warming right now, but so what?
Do you believe that the climate should always be exactly the same each year? Do you believe in a static climate?
The climate is always changing. It's going to get warmer or cooler over a period of time. This is natural.
If you believe that man is the cause, if you believe ghg's are the cause, tell us what temperature the climate will be in 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years from now, and show us your work to how you came to this conclusion. This should be easy if you have concluded man is the reason for warmth.
To say that man must be the reason because you think you've eliminated all other causes is just specious guess work, not science.
2007-10-22 21:01:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dr Jello 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I read stuff all the time. Some scientists say it is and some say it isn't. I know three things for certain. 1. If you watch the weather every night, they show record highs and record lows. It appears to me that by watching these, say a record high is set in 1902, so the earth should have burned up by now, so I am thinking that the earth is just on a normal cycle. 2. For a globe that is "warming" we sure had a cold winter this year. 3. Al Gore is no scientist, hell he aint even a good politician, at least he didn't last very long.
2016-05-24 21:54:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
My answer to this is pretty much the same as my answer to your similar question about GW being proven to be false.
All the changes we see around us are indicators or symptoms, they tell us that something is happening to the climate but they don't tell us why it's happening or what the causes are.
To provide absolute proof we need to look a little deeper, we need to find an irefutable cause; something that can be physically demonstrated, scientifically evaluated, quantified and qualified.
For this we could look to the greenhouse gases, the group of chemical compounds that includes water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and numerous others, most of which are entirely synthetic.
These gases can be isolated and subjected to laboratory testing, the results of these tests showing that they have the physical ability to absorb and emit radiant energy - heat, and more specifically, longwave themal radiation.
Knowing this fact, all we need do is to identify sources of greenhouse gases that are entering the atmosphere. A simple procedure that, in many instances, uses the common technique of mass spectrometry. Often we don't even need to do this, basic chemistry and / or physics tells us what the byrpoducts will be of certain reactions such as the combustion of fossil fuels.
We know from instrumental readings the precise composition of the atmopshere and can measure changes to an accuracy of quadrillionths. We don't even need a long range, changes in atmopsheric composition can be accurately measured from one year to the next.
In it's most basic form, greenhouse gases retain heat, if we emit into the atmosphere more heat is retained.
2007-10-23 04:48:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by Trevor 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
I am a skeptic. I am already convinced that anthropogenic CO2 has some impact on our climate. The big issue for me is the claim by the alarmists that this is going to cause some huge catastrophe for the planet. The question really is:
"What would it take to convince me that global warming will be catastrophic?"
1. I would have to know that we have a reliable surface temperature network to accurately measure changes to global temperature. We do not have that now. Anthony Watts, a broadcast meteorologist, is working on it. He and his team have surveyed and photographed about 1/3 of U.S. stations in the last few months. Only 15% of them meet the minimum standards set by the NOAA. 95% of the poor stations have a warm bias. The surface station network outside the US is even lower quality. Up to half of the observed warming appears not to be real but is an artifact of these poor quality stations.
We will know much more when this effort is completed in about two years. To see pictures of these stations (some of them are located on top of parking lots!), go to:
http://surfacestations.org
You can view Watts' presentation to the scientists at UCAR here:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/index.html
2. This reliable surface station network would have to show increasing temperatures above the warming in the 1930s and 1940s. I do not think it will.
3. The biggest issue is data archiving and sharing. I would have to see climate scientists archive their data so it can be reproduced by researchers like Stephen McIntyre. See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2237 McIntyre is constantly complaining that climate researchers do not abide by the policies of academic journals or funding agencies (both require archiving of data). This makes the climate scientists look like they are hiding something. Attempts to contravene replication or audits of your study proves an article to be nothing but pseudoscience. This has to stop to convince me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_archiving
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2237
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=6646
4. Even if these things happened, I would not put great confidence in computer models claiming to predict climate 100 years in the future. Computer predictions are not evidence. Nature has a way of making predictions look foolish. Read the book "Useless Arithmetic" by Duke Professor Orrin Pilkey for more info.
2007-10-22 16:07:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
If it stays constant and measurable for a considerable amount of time (years). The fact that the earths temp went down during the period from the 40's-70's while our output of supposed global warming pollutants went up the fastest in history seems to indicate that there is more to this than mere man made effects. Also it seems as though it has stabilized and may even have reversed in recent years. The fact that the reporting stations don't need to recalibrate till they are off by 3 degrees lends to believe small measurements are not to reliable.
2007-10-22 14:51:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by beek 7
·
4⤊
2⤋
may be you want to live in an island country in the south pacific and knowing that your house your country will be under water in 5 years
by the time some stupid got every thing to convince them and proof that their ego is wrong, some people will probably have already loosed ever thing including their country to the water.
those poor people in the south pacific island need no theory anymore. the sea is rising infront of their eyes.
--
2007-10-22 17:00:10
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Scientific rather than empirical evidence. Show a predictable cause and effect ; an increase in X kg of some substance into the atmosphere over a period causes a temperature increase of Y over a period.
Explain the ice age. Explain the long-term temperature patterns on uninhabited planets.
2007-10-22 14:50:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by davidosterberg1 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
If Al Gore is right about NYC being flooded out in 8 years like he said, I'll look at the situation differently.
2007-10-22 17:33:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by - 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Global warming presents us with some fantastic opportunities. We just need to be brave enough to grab them, and run like hell.
This week, we look at some of the good things about global waming, and what it means to you.
A sea-side home for every mountain-dweller
With temperatures soaring, people won't burn fossil fules to heat their houses.
No need to retire to Florida. The warmer climate is coming to you.
Bangladesh was a ****-hole anyway.
Lots of fresh, clean drinking water as the ice caps melt.
Girls will wear skimpy clothes even in winter.
No more of those annoying penguins dancing all over the place.
"Living underground" will no longer imply you're a spy.
You'll be able to grow tropical fruit in your own bedroon, even if you live in Alaska.
Your friends wont be able to brag about their ski trips to the Alps.
No more lost mittens.
You'll have an excuse to eat ice-cream all the time.
Al Gore will stop lecturing us all, and just say "I told you so."
It will be too hot to exercise, so being a couch potato will be socially acceptable.
Dying and going to hell will make for a cool change.
Humans will have empathy with dinosaurs
Kevin Costner's film "Waterworld" will seem remarkably insightful, instead of just being remarkably awful
2007-10-22 15:11:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by Yoo 3
·
2⤊
3⤋