Why are there so many questions asking if GW is true?

Question

I am in the UK, I just don't understand where the US is at culturally. If I wanted to know about a scientific subject then I would go to a science based arena. Perhaps I am misunderstaning the internet culture?

There are a few people who seem to think it is no more than a subject to be debated as some kind of game. A bit like David Cameron, the Conservative leader, but he's after the premiership.

Answer 1

Not to be rude, but I think it's rather a sign of laziness. It's not a difficult thing to research the science behind global warming - a simple internet search would be a decent start. A visit to the local library even better. But people would prefer to have somebody else do the work for them, and therein lies the problem. If you're not going to research the issue yourself, who do you trust to provide you with accurate information about global warming? Rush Limbaugh? Random people who use Yahoo Answers?

That's why there's a relatively large portion of uninformed and confused people in the USA. Many rely on our media to inform them about such issues, and our media values ratings over accuracy. If the debate about global warming is over, the public will be less interested and they'll lose ratings. If there appears to be a raging debate, more people will watch global warming news stories.

The only valid source of information regarding a scientific issue like global warming is scientists. People who get their information filtered through the media or random internet users save time and effort at the expense of informational accuracy.

Answer 2

Global Warming exists, the question is why. This is a scientific question that has been so pol;itically charged that it's hard to get a straight answer. The political left wing in this county has siezed upon the issue and has made some radical claims. Scientists in search of grants have not helped the issue. Scientists that have retired have said that much of the global warming stated by their fellow scientists is questionable but put forward in hopes of getting grant money and not supported by the facts.
For instance CO2 is one of the minor greenhouse gases and acounts for very little effect on the climate. Methane and water vapor are much more powerful in the greenhouse effect and all of them combined pale in comparison to the effect of the sun on our planets temperature. Some of the "fixes" put forward, like the Kyoto Treaty, are extremely injurious to the economy for microscopic gains. It would be like cutting off a finger to remove a splinter. The cure is worse than the disease. If the problem is solar fluctuation what do we do about it? It has happened before, in the second half of the first millenia Greenland was green. The Scandinavians that settled there had pasture for their animals. The truth is the planet gets warmer and colder and man has nothing to do with it, but that isn't popular I suppose because it doesn't make us feel like we are in control of our eniroment. Well the truth is we aren't.
This issue does demonstrate on thing! This is why science should NEVER be political!

Answer 3

We know little unfortunately we don't have records old enough to give an accurate picture. The media is the driving force with GW and going green. My personal opinion is it is happening and WE all are to blame. Not just on the Americans with auto's or corporations throughout the world we are just now understand where the green house Gases are coming from. Asia flooding rice fields? Amazon's burning? drought itself? the causes go on and on. Another issue is many scientist feel the earth is self regulating in it bounces back and fourth in temperature from century to century and there's a good chance is a couple decades of seeing the whole process reverse. More data is needed. We have other issues of more importance like world over population, disease, and Wars. Religious fervor is something we as citizens of the world need to get over to move forward. All said there's no reason not to try and do your part living as "Green" as possible now. If people wait for the proof it may be too late!

Answer 4

One word - economics.

It is going to hit us in the wallet immediately so put lots of pressure on the politicians by saying it doesn't exist so that they cannot act. It will hit some harder than others. These folks label all science as biased and developed a misinformation campaign that relies on "junk science" to draw erroneous conclusions that lead people way from accepted scientific findings. They are (rightly) afraid that they will have to make some changes and prefer denial.

That is the short version.

Answer 5

It's political bull, most if not all scientific funding from the "government" is granted to those who mention GW.This planet has been warming and cooling for MILLIONS of years the biggest producer of CO2 is the SEA but you can't tax that.CO2 has only been on the political agenda since Maggie Thatcher needed to close down the coal industry.I regard the GW brigade the same as the religious evil and the Nazi ideal create a fear the sheep will follow

Answer 6

I think the real question is global warming true as they are projecting it. Yes, you can find scientist who will declare both sides of the argument. But I think science isn't science anymore. It appears that if they want to find a result, they do a test to determine the result they intended.

I think Global Warming does exist, but not to the degree some of the doomsayers are projecting. Of course, those doomsayers had relatives that said we wouldn't be living in 2000.

Answer 7

I think the problem lies in the fact that most statistics on global warming are not statistically significant, or extrapolated so far from just a couple years of data (which is also usually conducted by a private interest group), that most people educated in statistics do not hold any value in the "facts". You hear a lot of "In ten years, blah blah. In fifty years, blah blah." But as for where those figures came from? Nothing. Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was based on something like two years of data, and the movie projected hundreds of years of the effects of global warming from that tiny collection period. Wikipedia states that "The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last 100 years." That little plus/minus sign means that the first number could vary by one quarter of its value (less OR more). That's a huge variance! Add to that the fact that temperature guages and data gathering techniques even just a couple decades ago were not as accurate as they are now, and those numbers are basically useless to a statistician. Those who believe global warming is taking place right now state that it's an indisputable truth, while those who don't believe it's taking place say it's all propoganda. Global warming as a term, is a Theory with capital T - it is a rise in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere. It has not been undoubtedly shown that global warming is currently taking place. Also something to consider are the earth's believed approximate century-long warming and cooling periods, which obviously very little is known about accurately due to lack of data from many centuries. With all this statistical inaccuracy, it's perfectly understandable why there are so many questions about global warming in our earth today.

Answer 8

As you are in UK, you should realise that in Victorian times the River Thames froze solid in what was called "The little ice age" for about 20 years. Further back, the Romans grew grapes in North Yorkshire because it was so warm up there. The temperature of the Earth fluctuates, as in the 'real' ice ages and periods in between. Whether we are contributing to the present small rise in temperature is debatable - and that is the point, it is being debated.

Answer 9

After watching a documentary on the melting ice, and the polar bears standing on what is left, and the fact that we are losing 3 miles of polar ice cap per day, I would say something is definitely happening to our climate whether naturally or not. Besides, why use petroleum products that do nothing but incite wars between countries and pollute our atmosphere? To recycle also keeps our natural resources from dwindling to the point of extinction and helps keep our environment cleaner. America is way behind using fuel efficient autos and continue to use gas guzzlers as if there is no end to petroleum products. We as consumers should be intelligent enough to discern that we have a problem without scientific or political influence. Unfortunately, we do not. Do I practice what I preach? Yes I do, and so do my family members. We drive autos that are fuel efficent, keep them tuned up, recyle any and everything that is possible, have insulated our homes, and use the newer light bulbs. We need to think what kind of planet we are leaving to our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

My fourth grade teacher was telling us back in 1957 that we needed to conserve our natural resources. So really, this isn't something that is new.

Answer 10

Do they try this? i do no longer ask questions-I only supply solutions. while they are in a position to't supply an outdoors source to disprove My outdoors source they only supply me a thumbs down. as quickly as I element out the glaring like this: it particularly is what we've got: Predatory mortgage creditors-checklist breaking numbers of foreclosure-budgets to the Social provider companies (which includes pastime placement counsel) being slashed to fund a war. it particularly isn't any longer in basic terms some anymore. it particularly is mom and father with little ones, the elderly, the under served Vietnam war veterans, the mildly mentally ill. A crappy financial gadget-illegals who paintings for no reward and coffee pay ..., jobs being outsourced to different international locations.... greater share of taxes taken from the middle classification (33%) and decrease for the prosperous (18%) for the "Trickle Down" financial gadget scheme. Sky rocketing gasoline expenses ensuing in greater priced nessesities of foodstuff, warmth, est. they are in a position to't deny it so i'm getting a thumbs down. Sorry in the event that they say you hate us of a. they only can no longer discredit your data and that pisses them off.