where do you stand on global warming, and how do you feel about it?

Question

do you think it's true? do you dislike it? how can you prevent it? why don't many people try to prevent it?

Answer 1

People say that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over a period of 650,000 years. Actually, that is misleading, the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature increases by 800–2,000 years.

Polar bears are not dying off by the hundred due to polar ice caps melting. Actually, only 4 have died due to drowning and that was due to a particularly violent storm.

"Global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, throwing Europe into an ice age." This is a scientific impossibility.

Greenland will not melt for a millennia.

Antarctic ice covering is in fact increasing.

Sea levels are only going to rise about 40 centimeters in the next hundred years. (Not by the feet)


As said by John Coleman (Creator of the Weather Channel):

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.

Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.

Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.

I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.

The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.

I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

Answer 2

I do believe that global warming is happening (nearly all the evidence put out acknowledges this). What I can't understand is how people can think we are the main cause of it.
The theory behind anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is that, when humans burn fossil fuels, it emits CO2, which is a greenhouse gas. This, supposedly, what is causing the recent warming trend we are experiencing.
One of the main problems with the theory is that CO2 is a fairly minor greenhouse gas, without much heat-trapping ability. CO2 is an extremely minor part of the atmosphere.
Take a look at the chart on the right of the linked page. CO2 is in the "Other" category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere

Humans aren't even the main contributor of CO2. Dr. Wallace Broecker of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University say this:

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Independent satellite and weather balloon data show that, if CO2 was the main cause of our recent warming trend, the atmosphere would be warming at a rate faster than the surface. This is not the case. Professor John Christy explains:

http://epw.senate.gov/107th/chr_0502.htm

One final problem with the theory of anthropogenic warming by an increase of CO2 -- in the past, CO2 rise has always been shown to FOLLOW an increase in temperature, rather than cause it. Here are a couple of good links:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/book/v5_book/mathiesen.jsp

So, in short, anthropogenic CO2 doesn't seem like a likely culprit for the main cause of global warming.

Despite what you may here, many scientists have been studying a link between the number of sunspots (the more sunspots there are, the hotter the sun) and climate change. To me, it seems to make a lot more sense that the sun would be driving climate. Again, here are a few links:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temperature.html
http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2005/Projects/S0610.pdf

One last thing. As Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" seems to be one of the leading sources on the theory of AGW, I thought I would put the link to a book that refutes every single point brought up in the documentary. It is especially good for learning all of the misinformation about the so-called effects of global warming.
As it is rather long, I would especially recommend the "Appendix: A Summary of Distortions," which is the last link on the page.

http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm

I really hope all of this helps. I think it is extremely important that people can see the truth through the hype and scare-tactics of the media, however hard that may seem.
~~punker_rocker

Answer 3

Hello Lemon,

Do I think it's true? Yes I do, this is my line of work and something I've been involved with for a long time. The science behind global warming is actually remarkably simple, once a person is able to see for themselves just how we are able to affect our climate it becomes difficult to refute it.

Do I dislike it? From a purely personal perspective then it doesn't really bother me. I live in a country and location that isn't going to be particularly affected, not directly at least. There will be many indirect consequences such as higher food prices but these are minor inconveniences compared to the consequences that many people will face. Of course, if I had a magic wand and could make it go away then I would, the negative aspects are far greater than the positives and on a global scale there could, potentially, be billions of people affected.

How can it be prevented? There's a great many things that can be done, I won't list them here because it's a long list. Have a look here http://profend.com/global-warming/pages/combat.html it's condensed from a great long list of things that I wrote a while back.

Why don't many people prevent it? There are a lot of people who have taken steps in the right direction - perhaps changing thier lightbulbs to more energy efficient ones, turining appliances off when not in use etc - little things that add up to a lot. Some people have gone much further and radically altered their lifestyles but this isn't always necessary, we can make changes without making sacrifices. Pretty much everyone is aware of global warming, not everyone accepts it is caused by, or contrubuted to, by our activities but most people do. Progress is being made and people are doing more and more but one of the problems is that those who can do the most - the developed world - are the ones least likely to be directly affected. Often people are only spurred into action when there is a personal benefit or when they have come face to face with the consequences of global warming.

Answer 4

The general masses either do not care, or feel like nothing they do will make a difference. Coupled to that is a very old idea that science will save us, as well as the government making it all, alright. Neither of these is true.
I would have to agree that global warming is an issue, but one that only apocalypse is going to change. There are simply to many forces at work that only care about themselves and the profit to be made for themselves to care about global warming. Yes we all hear about it, but what is the "other guy, or country" doing about it. When they do, we will, or at least give it fleeting consideration. The government of China has already stated that it will resist any move by any one to limit their efforts to make life better for their people. China is moving out of poverty, and if that means someone else suffers with pollution, to bad.
Another issue is what are those who keep talking about it doing about it for themselves. What new electronic gismo are they willing to do without? None, then the drive for the newest electronic thing that is simply a must have adds to the problem. For myself, once I can, I'll use as much renewable energy as I can. Alcohol as a motor fuel is a great idea. Bio-diesel is another, as is what is known as producer gas, or the gases produced by drawing the smoke from a wood fire back down through the fire itself, cleaning it of ash and tars, then using it in an engine. There is a lot that can be done, the question is, how many will actually do something about it?

Answer 5

Those denying it say Earth has gone through this cycle many times, but evidence is available in more scientific research than in research that claims average cycle. Never before has Earth had this population, this amount of industrial waste and other pollution in the atmosphere. We've had volcanic eruptions over centuries but never combined with the chemicals the numbers of us add.

It's too late for prevention. It is happening. But everywhere, with a search on participatory actions, individual efforts in various acts can be found to do our part to ameliorate effects. Sundance Channel, The Green, is one source of people taking constructive action. Just search Green Action, Green Living, or the like.

Why don't many people try to prevent it, you ask. Notice the news. Global warming treaties are being signed worldwide. Carbon emissions, alternative energy, hybrid cars, fuel efficiency standards and more are in the news every day. Flourescent light bulbs. Every one of us can help slow the process while those in industry develop green measures.

Answer 6

Hmm, where do I stand on global warming? Well I stand here on the earth looking around wondering why so many people are still ignorant of the facts around the problem and refusing to do something about it?

How can we prevent it? Well we can't, the CO2 is in the atmosphere now and the residency time is measured in hundreds of years. The best we can do now is to limit the greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere and hope we can control future damage are we are doing.

Why don't people prevent it? Wow, if only we had and answer to that. Words that come to mind over this might be greed, egocentric, narcissistic or ignorance.

Answer 7

I believe the globe is warming because so many people say so. I don't worry about it much because it has become a political football, and I know when the government and environmental fanatics are involved, they will either do nothing, or they will screw it up more than it already was.

After all, they said we would freeze. They also killed Nuclear Power, the only real option that would have produced enough alternative energy to save us. Why in the f**k would I listen to anything they say??

Answer 8

Its a Hoax for you to Pay a Global UN Carbon Tax $12 a Gallon Gas & Electric

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”

Dr. Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.”

Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.

“The IPCC owe it to the world to explain who among their expert reviewers actually agree with their conclusions and who don’t,” says Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball. “Otherwise, their credibility, and the public’s trust of science in general, will be even further eroded.”

That the IPCC have let this deception continue for so long is a disgrace. Secretary General Ban Kai-Moon must instruct the UN climate body to either completely revise their operating procedures, welcoming dissenting input from scientist reviewers and indicating if reviewers have vested interests, or close the agency down completely. Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.

Answer 9

I believe it. I think we can stop it by stopping whatever we are doing to cause it. I also think that if we are going to change the emission standards for cars, we should also do something about the population. Lower emissions X growing population = continued global warming. The only way to turn things around is to lower our emissions and stabilize our population. We may not reverse the damage already done, but we can prevent any further damage from being done.

Answer 10

its getting worse for me. it's true, i dislike it. well by saving energy i can slow it down but we could never prevent it. many people don't believe in it because evidences that says global warming is true or natural are almost at the same scale.

Answer 11

I am sure Gwens drives her car and heats her house like the rest of us. Global warming is a non problem or at best a very minor problem. It has been hijacked by a political movement. I fyou don't believe me, analyze what one of the alarmist say. They only give negative consequences. If they were interested in the truth, doesn't it stand to reason that they would include positive consequences as well.