Do you guys believe in Global Warming?

Answer 1

Yes. The earth is warming. This has been measured and cannot be disputed.

Answer 2

Now Bob don't be so sure that the "consensus" is real or that all those web site articles are scientifically factual.

This is one of the first "theories" I have seen in my lifetime where debate has almost been completely shut off by the "faithful"............ who name call those who disagree as "skeptics". Kind of sad that once the UN bureaucrats and government appointees on the IPCC spoke---- this ends all discussion.

The "BEST GUESS computer modeling" and one substance (CO2) view for temperature changes screams out to be challenged. It is further complicated politically by the global "carbon credit" exchange system where polluting countries and companies can BUY their way out of cleaning up. This money exchange "scheme" will do NOTHING to alleviate global warming (if it is in fact) caused by CO2.

So what I see happening if this false "scientific" solution is continued ----------- IS-------- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING .

BOB---- I finished "college" long ago------ I really don't need to read a document written and vetted by a bunch of UN appointees---------- maybe you should read THIS article about "there being NO consensus" among climate scientists-
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

and this article and audio interview about silencing any discussion against Global Warming------
http://newsbusters.org/node/8306

Yes this certainly sounds like the "scientific" method to me----NOT!

Answer 3

Sure. And I attended an energy summit in my state last week where no one denied it--and these were the CEOs of major oil and gas companies and they discussed global warming as a FACT with no one expressing any disagreement. Part of the summit dealt with how rising temps and emission controls that are required would impact the energy industry. SO if the energy company leaders say it is happening, that leaves about only Bush and his allies to deny its existence.

Answer 4

In the Daily article it does show a consensus. The thing is some of those papers may not have been able to accept or reject the hypothesis the greater proportion are in acceptance.. Similarly without reading the paper its hard to see what it was about. Were the papers to do with catastrophic climate change. man made climate change. by rejecting a hypothesis in a paper often you accept the alternate hypothesis. So what was the alternative in the 6% of papers that rejected the hypothesis.

I think that there is more evidence that suggests AGW than not.

Answer 5

Global warming is a scientific fact. It is not even a scientific theory like the theory of evolution.

Ice core measurements are one way global warming has been proven.

A person may not want to believe the predicted consequences of global warming and some of the predictions may not be right on target. But there is good science behind the predictions.

One way to settle this question for yourself is to learn more about the scientific process, how scientists make observations, come up with theories to explain what they observe and then use the scientific method to test the truth of their hypotheses.

Reason is basic to the scientific process. Belief is not.

Science is also attentive to the accumulation of evidence.

Scientists also publish the conclusions they reach and the
the evidence they use to back those conclusions up.

Other scientists may not agree with those conclusions but they must back up their own arguments with facts/evidence of their own.

Scientists are human. Sometimes they don't want to accept what the facts tell them. They may try to ignore the evidence.

That is why those of us listening to scientists about global warming look to see the level of agreement that exists in the scientific community about global warming.

We also look to see how much respect scientists have gained from other scientists.

There are many reasons why persons deny the existence of global warming.

1. Some people don't like to face any problems.
2. Others naturally resist dealing with problems that are not directly affecting them in their present lives.
3. Some policy makers are more concerned about our economic system than our ecosystem.
4. Some people hate Al Gore so they want to avoid giving him any credence whatsoever. Since he argues that we must act now to avoid serious future consequences, people that hate him want to avoid giving him any grounds for respect.
The reasons for denial go on and on.

But if you are a person who wants to decide for yourself you must listen to the evidence as presented by credible witnesses. James Hansen from NASA is a climate scientist you may want to check out.

For some reason, the Bush Adminstration has resisted informing Americans about the seriousness of the climate change issue. Hansen and others have had their reports edited to downplay the facts they have observed in respect to global warming, its causes and its predicted effects.

Answer 6

I haven't looked at the data and I don't feel like reading through Bob's links, but I don't think we have as large of an impact as we think we do. To be honest, it seems like its being blown WAYY out of proportion, but we can do a lot to prevent worsening anything that has occured. There's no reason to not try to improve the environment and no reason to purposely damage it.

But when I hear people on the street talking about how the poor countries will be hit hardest because they won't be able to buy electric fans... man... it really decreases my trust in humanity.

Answer 7

I don't know. Too much political mingling in the matter has caused it to become shrouded and controversial.

I'd say the safest bet is to assume the worst and to encourage the protection of our planet. Natural resources and beauty are far more important than some rich egotist's pocketbook anyday.

Answer 8

yes - but we must assess natural global warming as well as what we contribute by our won pollution. Does what we do really matter compared to nature

Answer 9

as long as possible i don't want to believe because it turns out it is our fault why global warming happens. i just want to believe i'm doing my best to save our environment

Answer 10

yes i believe in global warming because its happening right now and the polar bears are being killed.

Answer 11

It's been scientifically (and legally) proven that it's real, and mostly caused by us.

This is science and what counts is 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

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

A famous court case in England agreed.

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

FOOD - try reading the first link. If that raises your interest, try the first of the last group of four. That one won't be read in one sitting, though.

BOATMAN 1 - Try going to a college library and reading this:

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727

If that moves you, even a little, download and read Chapter 2 of this:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

That ain't "websites" it's some of the very best peer reviewed science.

Carbon credits for companies make a lot of sense. A target is set for CO2 reduction, and credits allow companies to determine who can do it the cheapest - good for society. Credits worked well for power plants and acid rain. For individuals - not so much.