Why is so many people are banking on Global Warming being caused by MAN?

Question

Last time I checked the relation of the Earth to the Sun either being closer or farther away has more to do with this than anything we do i.e. orbit. I am for a cleaner planet but taxing me for so called "green house emmissions" solves nothing until the likes of China and India not to mention Eastern Europe clean up their acts. All of these so called models predicting the future can not even 'back cast' past weather patterns and we know what the weather was like 100 years ago so who do we believe Al Gore a life long politician with an agenda or the scientist no intemidated but the Global Warming crowd? Who benefits? Who gets more power over our lives?

To the woman who says that Polar Bears are dying from melting Ice: How? melting ice means they can get to their food easier. Water Vapor is a huge reason for some warming and the SUN FREAKIN HEATS THE EARTH last time I looked so of course it is the biggest reason and thus the relation of the Earth to the Sun is important. Consensus is not science we need proof not models that do not work and one whole degree celsius is not that big of a deal. warmer climates mean longer growing periods for food. A good thing I believe. What happened to all of the monster Hurricanes 'predicted' the last two years. If one prediction comes to fruition then I will believe it but until then stop with the BS.

Answer 1

I read that there was a period of "global warming" in the Middle Ages, and then it got colder again. That cold period is what we're (possibly) coming out of now. I say possibly, because even the scientists admit that the average temperature will only go up about one degree in the next century. That said, I'm all for cleaning up industry and other polluters. Just don't take away my AC in the middle of "global warming".

Answer 2

It is because it is MAN (;and WOMAN, of course) who has the money and the votes to be exploited!

Answer 3

First and foremost:
- CLIMATE DEALS WITH LONG TERM AVERAGES.
- WEATHER FLUCTUATIONS AND FORECASTING ARE IRRELEVANT
...except to special interests, who want to cloud the issue and confuse the public, and delay our response.

For example, it doesn't matter what the weather is on any day, week or month, but if the long term averages creep slightly higher and more bark beetles survive the winter, a forest can be decimated and catastrophic forest fires result, injecting significant CO2 into the atmosphere.

As another example, coral reefs are dying due to minor temperature difference and slight acidity changes, with daily, weekly and monthly weather patterns entirely irrelevant to that process. Coral reefs are critical to much of the ocean's productivity (providing critical spawning and feeding grounds), so given that many ocean species are overfished already, we're playing with fire, with one of our fundamental food sources.

There are dozens upon dozens of examples where ecosystems are unravelling like this, which is contributing to accelerating species extinction. One myth is that most changes will affect developing countries like drought affecting water supplies and food production Africa, or flooding affecting Bangladesh. In reality however, the degree of climate change generally increases towards the poles, so many changes will hit developed countries such as Europe and the U.S., such the increased incidence of formerly tropical diseases. We may have serious water supply and water quality issues. Rising water levels may not be insignificant to many developed countries, states and cities. The list goes on from there.

It is exactly because the scientists have looked at "the Sun either being closer or farther away," and that fails to explain the magnitude or timing of many past observed climate change events, that greenhouse gasses can close that gap, and contrary scientists have been unable to unseat that theory for the past 30+ years. Meanwhile those last 30 years have provided ample supporting evidence as the process continues, and as it accererates with world "development."

Furthermore, the man-made contribution to current greenhouse gasses is fairly easily calculated by measuring isotopes, so we know our share of existing greenhouse gasses today, and we can monitor the changes from year to year.

Some analysis and debate over which temperature data to use, and over the relative power of solar vs. greenhouse gas warming is valuable to the scientific process of theory confirmation and development, and that has been going on for about 31 years now, since 1976 when the greenhouse gas global warming theory was identified (in spite of a recent cooling trend identified by a very small handful of scientists at the time).

Regardless of what individual scientists think of the IPCC consensus process, especially if their theories were not adopted as the most likely scenario (contrary to the misinformation being spread, the definition of consensus implies and requires that differing theories be included and considered in the process of determing the strongest group opinion), the IPCC has outlying scientists on both sides who think its forecasts are far too dire, and who think its forecast are far too mild and conservative. So far in the IPCC's history some fo the assumptions (such as freezing CO2 at 2001 levels) and some fo the observed responses (accelerated melting in Greenland, possible disappearance of Arctic ice by 2012) imply pretty clearly that the political review part of the IPCC process allows the scientific view of global warming to be grossly eroded and understated.

Unfortunately the scientists with the most familiarity and knowledge of carbon cycle processes are now telling us that we may have as little as 8 years left to make concrete progress towards substantial greenhouse gas reductions, or the process may run away from us and be unstoppable.

Special interests (oil, gas, coal, auto industries) want to protect profits and delay action, but due to the political and technological leadtimes required to make many of the required changes (without exhorbitant costs), it's time to act.

The human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions have been identified and quantified. Possible remediation efforts and their timeframes and costs have been identified, so we know what's cost effective to do now, and what to work on when for the next few decades. The good news is that the biggest contributors of energy production (mostly coal-fired power plants) and transportation account for 70-80% of emissions, so a few conservation steps can get us most of the way to reasonable reduction goals.

Obviously our priorities might change slightly as things like oil prices fluctuate. It's mostly good news: some actions may become more cost effective at higher fossil fuel prices.

No one wants global warming to be happening, or for it to be man-made, and we sure don't want to be accountable for a potentially large bill required to clean up our act (much larger each year that we delay), so it's natural for all of us to want a degree of certainty before we get on board. Some people will never reach that point, for political or personal reasons, so there will always be people who are willing partners and allies to the special interests, doing everything in their power to confuse the discussion and delay action (just look at all the-off-the-cuff, poorly supported, sniping responses here from some of the most aggressive and active participants). People will just have to decide for themselves which side is more credible, which turns out time and again to be fostering baseless propaganda, and choose what action they will take (or not) based upon their own personal value system.

I'll go back and support most of these paragraphs with relevant links shortly.

Edit -

Al Gore is less than irrelevant. He may or may not have good intentions, but his movie contained too much self interest and that hurts the credibility of his message, and therefore of similar messages, doing all us a disservice by clouding the issue. I'm sick of hearing about him, because clearly it's a weak attempt to shift the conversation away from the science and any required response.

I also agree wholeheartedly with people who recognize that China and the developing countries cannot be let completely off the hook. We're all on this ball together, and on this issue we'll thrive or struggle together. The key to getting China involved is for the U.S. to get out of the position of the largest cumulative emitter and nearly tied current emitter, while being by far the largest responsible party without any plan. Once the U.S. is engaged (has a plan), focus can shift to the largest and fastest growing sources that do not have adequate reduction goals (namely China). I've seen some interesting charts on this and I'll provide a link. China operates on 5 year plans and I believe the next one will come out around 2011, so the U.S. may be getting on board just in time to get China more involved by then (before the next opportunity in 2016).

Answer 4

Earth has been around... 250 million years? or more what I'm getting at is that recorded man has been on this planet for..lets say 10k years, that's not even a pimple on the earths butt. So how can anyone say that man is the cause of global warming.. this planet has been both hot and cold over the this time span

Answer 5

Because it is being caused by man.

1) You should check again. Right now we're in the middle of a very long-term gradual cooling portion of the Earth's orbital cycles. Read up on Milankovitch Cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#The_future

If the cycles were the strongest factor in the Earth's climate change right now, the temperature would be stable and cooling slightly.

2) Nobody is taxing greenhouse gas emissions. The USA isn't even proposing to tax them. Congress is considering a carbon cap and trade system.

3) The USA is responsible for the largest amount of the atmospheric CO2 increase, and emitting all that CO2 helped us become a wealthy nation. For us to expect developing countries to curb their emissions before we do is absolutely ridiculous. They have every right to expect us to clean up our own emissions first.

4) Climate change over the past century has been hindcasted with very high accuracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

5) Who cares about Al Gore? Listen to the scientists.

Until you can understand the science behind global warming, you should not be forming political opinions on the issue.

Answer 6

People want to believe that we if we have the power to make it warmer then we have the power to make it cooler. Thus we are more powerful than nature. Good luck with that one.

Every time man has attempted to tame or control nature, it has eventually come back and bit us.

Answer 7

It has been proven time and time again that the sun is not the cause of the current warming . Here is the latest study : http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf


Al Gore is not a scientist- He is simply trying to get the word of the scientists out, because , without his public profile - no-one would listen to the scientists. Just because you dislike him as a politician do not disregard the scientific data.

I am a scientist. I work with scientists. I know climatologists. I promise you. As far as all the data shows, and as far as all the current knowledge shows. Mans influence on the climate, is causing global warming. It may be a small influence, but the climate is a delicate system , and easily unbalanced.

Agreed it is very hard to predict the EXACT weather each day, but predicting the general trends is far easier. Ice cores data backtracks much more that a hundred years , this is where the understanding is coming from.

Before you start on " warming begins years before the C02 begins to rise " I suggest you look into positive feedback.

Please , if you are going to argue against AGW theory- do not use Al Gore as some sort of proof that its all lies. He is , as you said, a politician not a scientist and definitely not an expert.

If that not very well worded forgive me, its new years eve and I have had 5 pints.

Answer 8

Once again:
view the Al Gore movie and stop it when he shows his only graph. Then take a ruler and put it vertically to the curbs. You will see, that the temperature rise starts before!!! the carbon dioxide!
I did it at several positions . Even on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years it is still obvious.

And how about vapor from water, the most present greenhouse gas?

Answer 9

Your question is a good one.

The only entity that benefits is government. And unfortunately, a "problem" so big has to be tackled by bureaucratic organizations that are far removed from everyday producers, like the U.N.

Once this ship leaves the dock, good luck turning it around.

Answer 10

They're levering Judeo-Christianity guilt for their cause. If you say that warming in natural, no one can do anything to "fix" the "problem". However blame man, and you can use people's guilt to have them give up their hard earned money and freedoms to any snake oil sales man who says they have the "cure"

Answer 11

al gore doesn't even want to be present to anymore, he's been asked to run and won't.
the earth's orbit around the sun has nothing to do with the increase in global warming. carbon dioxide is the problem= too many people are driving cars, and the problem is with fuel.
nobody benefits from global warming..that's stupid to even think. i know you don't understand it, but the "man" got a nobel award, not you, go to school.
carbon dioxide is killing polar bears, and melting water everywhere, that's what's going on.
NOBODY is cashing in on killing our planet, he just wants to fix it..or try to convince another to do the same.
ignorance kills.