Global warming..?

Question

Why does everyone doubt global warming?

Answer 1

Some are honestly mistaken.

Other are conspiracy theorists.

And many are conservatives who take their politics to extremes. If liberals, environmentalists or worst, Al Gore say something, it MUST be wrong. No matter how many scientists also say it.

They might want to pay some attention to this:

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

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story this past week calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

Don't be fooled by the discussion here.

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

BDOG 1321 - The wikipedia reference is simply an easily verifiable list of scientific organizations that agree about global warming. Show me how that's wrong.

JACOB W - No peer review for global warming science? I really can't understand why you would say that. Here's one peer reviewed paper of hundreds by global warming scientists.

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

summarized at:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

For someone who worries about truth to cite Senator Inhofe's website as credible is strange.

Answer 2

Because the people who claim it is true refuse to submit their work for peer review and are doing everything possible to silence those who disagree. NOTE: they do not attempt to openly debate or disprove the opposing viewpoint just keep everyone from hearing it.

I bet you have probably never heard, seen or read any of the opposing viewpoints coming from very important and respected scientists in the Climate field. It is an easy bet. You cannot turn on a TV without hearing one side of the Global Warming Issue. Well, attached are several opposing opinions, all clearly accredited. Read them. You may come away with a different point of view or you may not.

Just remember: There is no consensus in the Scientific Methodology. A scientific theory must fit all the known facts and answer all arguments. It must include and explain all phenomena. Literally, a Zillion scientists can all be wrong and one can be the only one right.

Here is a clue that the data supporting the Global Warming argument is suspect. You have probably heard that many prestigious scientists read the Global Warming Report and reported that they could find nothing to disagree with in what they read. Sounds pretty convincing right? What you are not being told is that not one of those scientists got the entire report to read. They only got small sections of it. Some as little as one page.

So, they read one page and cannot find anything to disagree with. Of course they didn't! They only read one page out of several hundred. See how suspicious that makes you? What's the matter? Don't they have a copy machine? Why not let them read the entire report including all conclusions and claims made?

I am an old timer. I have been through this Global disaster nonsense before. The results are always the same. Nothing happens. But those academics get millions of dollars in grant money to do more and more research. Once everyone tires of this one, there will be another discovery right after it.

The Federal Government, by throwing around a bunch of free grant money has succeeded in corrupting many in the scientific arena particularly at the university level.

Mark my words. Soon more and more people will start to doubt their claims. It is becoming more and more difficult to keep the lid on this little money maker. The Internet provides easy access to vast stores of data that would be inaccessible just a decade or two ago.

Merry Christmas!

Answer 3

I believe global warming is happening, but it is just a natural phase, not necessarily "doubting" it. I understand where you are coming from, but I read all the facts on a natural global warming before I watched Al-gore's film. After I watched it I still strongly believed the idea that man-made global warming doesn't scientifically justify itself, Al-gore's claims like other major idea's could be counterclaimed. Ever heard of the 1970's "Global Cooling" scare? If not find out how it contradicts today's global warming theory.

Answer 4

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 5

I have already posted this in another question but i feel it will be quite adequate here too, eh?

and, i guess by your standards, BOB, I am in "denial" of a made up concept we all thought had mercifully died, but was revived by the man with the arts degree. thats right folks you guessed it, the man who invented the internet all by himself! al gore!!!!!!


heres the answer at any rate. this is why i disagree with global warming

The study done by scientists out of new york louisiana and california contradicts popular belief that we are contributing to global warming through the increasing introduction of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. They say that warming is real, however it is caused by solar winds, and the ever-shifting magnetic fields of the earth, and that the pollution of the ozone layer does not contribute to it, only a negligible amount that will not cause any great harm. The liberal response to this REAL SCIENCE was "thats wrong" and "that contradicts the consensus."
the consensus was based on bias liberal scientists. It is, in fact not a consensus at all, as the scientists that contradict global warming are never given air time, because the media likes their imminent-doom stories. So, basically, when confronted with facts, liberals can only point and say thats not right, their only proof being the junk science their liberal "scientist" lackies are producing. Which is fake :)

Have a nice day, I hope I opened some eyes here today.



P.S. asker, you really should ask questions from neutral points of view, or you will encourage the liberals (you?) to post their agenda all the more.

Also bob, just for your info, wikipedia does not count as a legitimate source to back up the fluff.

Answer 6

If you wish to receive grant money for climate research, do you think that you'll get a cheque if you say," I need the grant, as I think that I can prove that the figures that the current paradigm is based upon are wrong" ? The great environmentalist, David Bellamy, has been silenced, and refused airtime. There is still no proven causative link between the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere, and an increase in global temperatures. The WWWF photographs of the polar bears swimming were taken in the Arctic summer; when the ice cap partially melts, as they couldn't get up to photograph in the winter. The ice was too thick! The East-Anglian uni research figures. "Oh! The figures don't match our expectations. Oh well. Keep quiet. Because we know that we are right." When the belief, and the faith is more important than squarely facing the legitimate doubts of a lot of non grant-supported scientists, science has been superceded by religious zealots. As Oliver Cromwell colourfully said." I pray thee, in the bowels of Christ, consider that thou mayest be wrong."

Answer 7

We do not deny global warming, we deny Man Made Global Warming (AGW). The reason we deny it is there is no scientific evidence supporting the claim. The only evidence the AGW fanatics can use are based on models. Models which have never been able to recontsruct history. Also, these models do not contain many of the variables needed to give an accurate representation of our climate (ie: clouds).

Answer 8

No one doubts global warming or cooling. People doubt doomsday sayers and people who say man can control the climate as if we have the power to do so short of nuclear world war. One volcano emits as much as the entire world's output of CO2 and particulate matter can in 20 years.

Answer 9

Check out this web site and send it to anyone who doubts global warming.

http://www.willsteger.com/

Answer 10

A careful look at global warming, as a topic, shows that there is a great deal of disagreement about the facts and substance of climate change. Those who blame man for climate change often disagree about what facts lead them to that conclusion. Those who hold man totally innocent of it often ignore established facts. Experience and research leads us to believe that warming is, in fact, occurring; however, there is little to no objective evidence that man is the cause, nor that the effects will be catastrophic. The idea of earth “wearing out” is an apt analogy. This entire world has been continually decaying since the fall.

Global warming “facts” are notoriously hard to come by. One of the few facts universally agreed upon is that the current average temperature of Earth is indeed rising at this time. According to most estimates, this increase in temperature amounts to about 0.4-0.8 °C (0.72-1.44 °F) over the last 100 years. Data regarding times before that is not only highly theoretical but very difficult to obtain with any accuracy. The very methods used to obtain historical temperature records are controversial, even among the most ardent supporters of the theory of human-caused climate change. The facts leading one to believe that humans are not responsible for the current change in temperature are as follows:

• Global temperature changes from past millennia, according to available data, were often severe and rapid, long before man supposedly had any impact at all. That is, the current climate change is not as unusual as some alarmists would like to believe.

• Recent recorded history mentions times of noticeable global warming and cooling, long before man had any ability to produce industrial emissions.

• Water vapor, not CO2, is the most influential greenhouse gas. It is difficult to determine what effect, if any, mankind has on worldwide water vapor levels.

• Given the small percentage of human-produced CO2, as compared to other greenhouse gases, human impact on global temperature may be as little as 1%.

• Global temperatures are known to be influenced by other, non-human-controlled factors, such as sunspot activity, orbital movement, volcanic activity, solar system effects, and so forth. CO2 emission is not the only plausible explanation for global warming.

• Ice Age temperature studies, although rough, frequently show temperatures changing before CO2 levels, not after. This calls into question the relationship between warming and carbon dioxide; in some cases, the data could easily be interpreted to indicate that warming caused an increase in carbon dioxide, rather than the reverse!

• Computer simulations used to “predict” or “demonstrate” global warming require the assumption of human causation, and even then are not typically repeatable or reliable. Current computer weather simulations are neither predictive nor repeatable.

• Most of the global temperature increase of the last 100 years occurred before most of the man-made CO2 was produced.

• In the 1970s, global temperatures had actually been dropping since 1945, and a “global cooling” concern became prominent, despite what is now dismissed as a lack of scientific support.

• The “consensus” claimed by most global warming theorists is not scientific proof; rather, it is a statement of majority opinion. Scientific majorities have been wrongly influenced by politics and other factors in the past. Such agreement is not to be taken lightly, but it is not the same thing as hard proof.

• This “consensus,” as with many other scientific theories, can be partially explained by growing hostility to those with differing viewpoints, making it less likely that a person without preconceived notions would take on the subject for research. The financial and political ramifications of the global warming debate are too serious to be ignored, though they should not be central to any discussion.

• The data being used to support anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is typically based on small data sets, single samples, or measurements taken in completely different regions. This creates an uncertainty in the results that rarely gets the attention that alarmist conclusions do.

While the above list is not exhaustive, it does include several of the major points that raise doubts about mankind’s actual effect on global temperatures. While no one can deny that warming is occurring, “overwhelming evidence” of any objective type does not exist to support the idea that global warming is significantly influenced by human actions. There is plenty of vague, short-sighted, and misunderstood data that can be seen as proving “anthropogenic” global-warming theory. All too often, data used to blame humans for global warming is far less reliable than data used for other areas of study. It is a valid point of contention that the data used in these studies is frequently flawed, easily misinterpreted, and subject to preconception.

In regards to issues such as this, skepticism is not the same as disbelief. There are fragments of evidence to support both sides, and logical reasons to choose one interpretation over another. The question of anthropogenic global warming should not divide Christian believers from each other (Luke 11:17). Environmental issues are important, but they are not the most important questions facing mankind. Christians ought to treat our world with respect and good stewardship, but we should not allow politically driven hysteria to dominate our view of the environment. Our relationship with God is not dependent on our belief in human-caused global warming.

For further research on global warming, we recommend the following articles:
http://www.icr.org/article/3233/
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://www.xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/14/161152.shtml
http://www.whrc.org/carbon/images/GlobalCarbonCycleLG.gif
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/global-warming.html#ixzz3IgkPqYcx