If man has had nothing to do with global warming?

Question

why are 200 of the world's leading climate scientists, from more than 25 countries, saying greenhouse gas emissions must be urgently cut, with reductions of at least 50% by 2050?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/06/bali.climatechange

Answer 1

man has nothing to do with global warming? where did you hear that nonsense? the only reason the world is in such horrible shape is because of man.

go out and rent "An Inconvenient Truth", it'll open your eyes to a lot of things.

Nature did not produce these toxins that go up in the air and destroy the ozone, men did. (Aerosol cans, gasoline, chemical dumping into the oceans, destruction of rainforest's that keep the air clean)

we are the ONLY and guiltiest things on this earth. all we do is destroy destroy destroy. and for what? materialistic objects that in 100 years will mean nothing?

the truth is that unless we do something NOW we as a human race will go extinct, and unlike the dinosaurs it wont be caused by a meteor it will be death by our own hands. it's sick. really sad too.

Answer 2

The official thermometers at the U.S. National Climate Data Center show a slight global cooling trend over the last seven years, from 1998 to 2005.

Actually, global warming is likely to continue—but the interruption of the recent strong warming trend sharply undercuts the argument that our global warming is an urgent, man-made emergency. The seven-year decline makes our warming look much more like the moderate, erratic warming to be expected when the planet naturally shifts from a Little Ice Age (1300–1850 AD) to a centuries-long warm phase like the Medieval Warming (950–1300 AD) or the Roman Warming (200 BC– 600 AD).

Answer 3

Global warming is a cyclical event. It is part of a 1500 year cycle.

To think that man has caused or could reverse global warming is arrogant.

There is definitely NOT a consensus among scientists on this issue.

The main factor for those touting making changes to stop global warming is money.

BTW, global warming is not necessarily a bad thing. There are many positives. See the "Imprimis" newsletter from few months ago on the Hillsdale College web site. It addresses global warming, its causes, and benefits.

.

Answer 4

Al right, who opened the door to the insane asylem. The loons are out in force. If you examine the scientists, you will find that they are for the most part socialists and left leaning or they have much of their future funding tied into compliance with the Global Warming Scanario. You call them leading climate scientists, I call them political hacks. I wouldn't say that we have nothing to do with climate change. Most of any warming that we might cause would be beneficial. It is nuts like the previous loons that refuse to admit that there might be some benefits so why should anyone take them seriously. They will not look at the problem in a practical serious way. They are so deeply delirious by the poisonous Kool Aid that they have been sipping so long, they can't think straight. They are now willing to believe a few scientists that a little warming is going to cause great harm even though it goes against common sense.

Answer 5

How long have "Climate Scientists" been doing this research? Are you trying to tell me they have enough data to figure out something as complex as our planets climatic changes? And every complex detail of what caused these changes in the past? And how fast these changes really occurred in the past?

I can tell you one change that seemed to occur quite rapidly the first Ice Age that caused the Dinosaurs to go extinct. I know some had time to adapt, but many of them didn't. And this change happened due to a huge asteroid that struck the planet causing the planet to shift on it's axis. (At least that's the theory of what happened after the asteroid hit our planet. I can't remember where they found the crater it caused, but I do remember that it is quite large.)

I also know that to blame an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere is nonsense. I thought they claimed the atmosphere had less CO2 concentration during the time of the Dinosaurs due to the amount of plant life and the size of the planets oceans?

And that the concentration of CO2 was higher during the Ice Age, which to me makes a whole heck of a lot of sense, since there weren't as many plants to soak up the CO2 the animals that adapted to the changing climate where breathing out as they exhaled. And alot more of the Ocean would have been frozen over making it hard for the ocean to absorb CO2, too.

When the planet started warm up and plants were able to grow again and the ocean started to thaw out, the CO2 level would start to drop, since there were plants and the ocean to start absorbing the extra concentration of CO2.

I know you AGW believers will give me thumbs down, but hopefully you will have read what I wrote before you did. Since I do read the AGWer's comments and have even looked at the websites and you all want us to read.

Answer 6

The answer to your question is obvious. There is money out there to be spent on climate research and by falling in with the "consensus" of scientists, and serving the religion of global warming, they will be in line for a slice of that money. Honestly, this has to be the biggest scam in the history of man. Scientific research needs to be inclusive of all information, not tied to an outcome and manipulated to fit. Is the earth in a cycle of warming? Possibly. Is that warming due to man? I think we over estimate our importance to this planet and its changes.

Answer 7

If man has everything to do with global warming why are Australian scientist trying to introduce bacteria from the digestive system of kangaroos into the digestive system of cattle?

Answer: While man causes less than 4% of greenhouse gases, cattle produce more than 14% and kangaroos produce 0%. That's right boys and girls, kangaroo gas contains no greenhouse gases...

BTW, when Mt St. Helen blew a couple of decades ago it introduced more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in 48 hours than man has since the industral revolution began.

There are "Libs" in the science community just like in the political community. The father of climatology calls "Man made Global Warming" BS. And, so do I.

Answer 8

Because thet are getting funds for research from capitalistic masters. it appears from the Yahoo! answers that most of the people who support the global warming are just ignorant of the earths system. man is just a tiny flake on this earth. just go on the top of a 10 story building and see below. every thing will appear tiny. there is water cycle, carbon cycle, oxygen cycle, nitrogen cycle which are very well balanced and man can not do just a little in these cycles. CO2 is 0.02% in air. tell me how many peopledied of global warming in last 5 years? human migration is comman in history. it has become status symbol to talk about the Global warming.

Answer 9

Why, because a few scientists bought and paid for by big industry are shouting the loudest that Global Warming is a farce - so they must be telling the truth.

Answer 10

there is something to do. many oppose this because it is so hard to cut greenhouse emissions and if ever cut, will lead to the fall of numerous industries.