global warming?

Question

fact or hoax?

i reckon its, to put it bluntly, a pile of crap

Answer 1

Fact.

There's a lot of proof, from many angles, so this will be very long. The real proof is in the links. One is a thousand pages long.

Try reading (at least) the first one, and the third from the bottom.

This is science and what counts is the data. The "skeptics" have wordy arguments, the global warming scientists have the data.

"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://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

It's (mostly) not the sun:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html

And the first graph above shows that the sun is responsible for about 10% of it. When someone says it's the sun they're saying that thousands of climatologists are stupid and don't look at the solar data. That's ridiculous.

Science is quite good about exposing bad science or hoaxes:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater.html

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:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"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/412.php?lb=hmpg1&pnt=412&nid=&id=

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

"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"

Answer 2

You reckon because the science was missing. The argument was the missing science....how does CO2(plantfood) heat the planet? It doesn't but that is all they had because there were many errors getting to that solution.

Planet Surface Temperature Monitoring deemed buildings to have little or no impact on climate change. The EPA reports that buildings are absorbing the sun's rays.

Unfortunately that is the information that was passed on and it was missing absolutely critical data, it just couldn't be seen in a calculator. Scientists should have paid attention to what our fathers passed on to us. My city, province and country has information in the appendix of building code that says watch out for solar radiation, it can have more significance than regional temperature data. That part of the appendix is the most important part of building codes. Solar radiation impact can take buildings outside their design temperature which makes them non compliant with codes which are insurance requirements.

Imagine the scope of the building industry from universities, research, programs, trades, harvesting the tree to occupancy. It is big business.

Did you know the entire process and the building you live in are designed in a calculator? At the end of the day, we were totally blind, universities, research, government, forestry, environmental groups. Finished in a calculator, thrown into a bidding process, built by handymen, retailers, painted for looks without any idea what was happening.

Our research results were truly astonishing. The last exterior finish on the exterior of buildings is supposed to be reflective or have shade cover. You need reflective or UV resistant, low e paints or coatings to achieve this.

In reality the opposite has happened. The solar exposed exterior finishes are very very absorbent on the sides and roof.

The sun's rays have an impact on buildings immediately after sun rise and it lasts until after the sun goes down.

I am going to send you to a link to see the most advanced thermal imaging in the world. As amazing as the information is, it is a very small part of the extensive information available.

I participated in over 17,000 hours of work qualifying building building energy use outside the calculator and the rule was buildings are grossly exceeding their design temperature.

The buildings you will see are designed for 92 degrees F and solar radiation has caused them to generate as high as 198 degrees F. It is definable as sustainable yet is signed off as compliant, insured.

If it is 92 degrees and we generate 198, it is warming the globe!! When you look at this be objective and remember, this was completed in a calculator so information was missed.

The study isn't controversial, it is the evolution of temperature measurement outside the calculator. Why haven't you heard this before?...the application exceeded others expertise.

Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatgain.html and see how heat is generated.

Paint your home, landscape, not ozone depleting air conditioning treating a symptom

Answer 3

Whilst I respect that everyone is entitled to their opinion I would suggest that you look a little deeper into the subject of global warming.

You'll find arguments on both sides of the debate and on the surface many of them will seem credible. Once you dig a little deeper it soon becomes apparent that the arguments against global warming have no substance to them and are all too often based on opinions rather than facts.

If you go back through the questions and answers on here you'll see that the arguments used by the skeptics are constantly changing. Time after time arguments are put forward, time after time they're debunked and so the skeptics have to come up with something else.

Considering I've been doing climatology since the 80's, I've come across more than my fair share of arguments and would guess that there has been at least 1000 different 'proofs' put forward that 'disprove' global warming, I can't think of a single one that stands up to scrutiny.

The bottom lines is that you can demonstrate the exitence of global warming for yourself, using basic things found around the house you can see how greenhouse gases retain heat within the atmopshere.

The underlying principle of global warming is the ability of greenhouse gases to retain heat within the atmopshere. This is the cornerstone of the whole global warming argument but is something the skeptics consistently fail to address (they're unable to) so instead they divert attention elsewhere. In short, they're incapable of questioning the science behind global warming and don't even attempt to, they might as well hold their hands up and concede defeat.

Don't get me wrong here, there is good reason to question a lot of aspects of global warming and undoubtedly errors have been made, but the foundation upon which it is based is rock solid and irrefutable.

Answer 4

There may actually be a Global Warming trend but I believe that its just a natural cycle that the Earth is going through. It has been here millions of years and science has proved that there have been several Ice Ages and periods where the climate has been much warmer. The thing is that records have not been kept except for the past 150-200 years so what we see is the upward trend. Could what we are doing effect the climate, sure, but I think it is a natural event.

Answer 5

Boll*cks - 80% of the worlds volcanos are under water and only a small percentage of them have been found, they are heating our oceans and releasing C02 into the atmosphere, our temp stopped warming 10 years ago, and the last hottest temp was in the 30's and 40's.
Check out http://www.iceagenow.com that explains all.

Answer 6

I know, I'm so sick of it. I hate nature freak so much. I want to bulldoze every tree on the planet and boil the oceans off into space to make it easier to get at the oil in the seabeds. I want people to have to buy breathable air from the store (I HATE FREE things more than anything and especially when it's air) and I for one won't sell to those greenpeace motherfkkers. I will laugh as they die in the vacuum.

Answer 7

in case you opt for to get carry of grant money for climate learn, do you think of which you will get a cheque in case you assert," i want the provision, as i think of that i will practice that the figures that the present paradigm is predicated upon are incorrect" ? the great environmentalist, David Bellamy, has been silenced, and refused airtime. there remains no shown causative link between the quantity of Co2 interior the ambience, and an boost in worldwide temperatures. The WWWF pictures of the polar bears swimming have been taken interior the Arctic summer season; whilst the ice cap partly melts, as they could no longer upward thrust as much as image interior the wintry climate. The ice replaced into too thick! The East-Anglian uni learn figures. "Oh! The figures do no longer tournament our expectancies. Oh nicely. save quiet. because of the fact all of us know that we are precise." whilst the theory, and the religion is greater substantial than squarely dealing with the valid doubts of an incredible style of non grant-supported scientists, technological information has been superceded by using religious zealots. As Oliver Cromwell colourfully stated." I pray thee, interior the bowels of Christ, evaluate that thou mayest be incorrect."

Answer 8

factually hoax-my dear friend. if you trust them (GW-followers) they will make you crazy one day. don't even trust the UN. it is run by the US for the US and by the US. if you say yes GW is true then you are friend (Of US)and if you say no you are foe ! dont even trust the BOB he will keep on giving the same data to every question.let BOB know that other people are also havining grey matter in their cranium which is much more active. donot even extrapolate the GW by just looking at one years data- and prdict for 100yrs in advance when you dont know what is going to happen just after one second. better go to some good collage and do graduation/post graduation in science. may be he is getting paid by you know who..........

Answer 9

i reckon you are right. i reckon that mankind is stupid or arrogant to believe that we have the power to affect nature.
we are probably at the and of an ice age and the start of another or something equally natural.

Answer 10

Global warming is for real - it has been going on since the last ice age. What is debatable is if human activity is making it worse or not. Either way - the government will try and make as much money as it can using it as an excuse - that goes without question.