Denying Global warming makes world cooler? What's in a name anyway?

Question

Why people think that denying Global warming saying it's just a cyclical change in climate makes things better? Call this by any name you want, results are the same.

Answer 1

The main affect of Global Warming is that it's causing the melting of the Polar Ice Caps. Untouched before, the caps are melting, making sea level rise and climate change. Watch the Day After Tommorow movie with Dennis Quaid, it's not that far off from what could really happen.

Answer 2

The climate is a very complex engine and the more we unravel,the more question`s we find. And with more and more human`s action`s such has transport, farming etc, the climate will of course have some form of reaction. So it is our own interest for the environment and financial benefit's to do some thing even in a small way.

Answer 3

Its nature mate and we cant change that, I am not with the idea either.

Answer 4

Global warming is real and mostly caused by us.  Three reasons, with solid support, most important first.

There's an overwhelming amount of peer reviewed scientific data that says that.  Short and long summaries.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Science is quite good about exposing bad science or hoaxes:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater...

There's a large number of people who agree that it is, who are not liberals, environmentalists, stupid, or conceivably part of a "conspiracy".  Just three examples of many:

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

Good website for more info:

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

We can't totally stop it.  But we can slow it down enough so that we can cope with the results.  If we don't do something, it will be the biggest disaster in human history.  Rich nations will be made poor dealing with coastal flooding and damage to agriculture.  In poor nations many people will die of starvation, due to drought.

Answer 5

One reason why I am sceptical about global warming is because the behaviour of the global warming community is very suspicious.

Take this quote from the former science adivisor to Clinton and Al Gore:

Scientist’s need “to get some broader based

support, to capture the public’s imagination...that,

of course, entails getting loads of media coverage.

So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make

simplified dramatic statements, and make little

mention of any doubts we may have…each of us

has to decide what the right balance is between

being effective and being honest."

Stephen Schneider, Senior Fellow at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of

the Institute for International Studie, and Professor by Courtesy in the Department of Civil

and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, Discover Magazine.

The behaviour of the global warming community is very unscientific.  When a person puts out a theory it is the job of other scientist to attack the theory and find faults.  That is the way it always works.  With global warming, anybody who disputes it, is immediately attacked and his motives are questioned.

It was well known before the global warming debates of fluctuations in temperatures.  These periods were called the medieval warm period (MWP) and little ice age.  The MWP was the period of the vikings when they colonized Greenland (more info here http://www.archaeology.org/online/featur... )The MWP was a problem to people who tried to prove the theory of man made global warming.  How can you say this rise in temperature is unnatural when in the past, we had natural rises in temperatures?  How can you also claim of catastrophic changes when such warmings in the past did not?

So they had to get rid of it, as evidenced by this quote:  ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚€ÂœWith the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I

gained significant credibility in the community of scientists

working on climate change. They thought I was one of

them, someone who would pervert science in the service of

social and political causes. So one of them let his guard

down. A major person working in the area of climate

change and global warming sent me an astonishing email

that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm

Period.”

Source: Presentation by S McIntyre At Conference Stockholm Sweden, September 9 2006

Shortly afterwards they came out with what became known as the hockey stick graph. Also used in Al Gore's film. This eliminated the MWP and little ice age and showed temperatures the same for 1000 years with a huge spike in the 20th Century.  This is a huge perversion of science.  You do not need scientific data, when historical data shows the existence of the MWP.

In the scientific community, whenever some one comes up with a ground breaking result, it is hugely scrutinized by their colleagues.  This never happened with the hockey stick graph. It was accepted because it agreed with the dogma.

The hockey stick graph was such an egregious attempt at rewriting the historical record that two Canadians, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, to the extent they were able, analysed the data and methodology use by Mann and came to the conclusion that the algorithms used by him produced hockey sticks, regardless of the input data.

The issue was brought to the attention of US Congressman Joe Barton, then Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He wrote to Dr Mann and asked him to make his data and methodology available for scrutiny by other scientists, and was attacked in the most ferocious terms by the anthropogenist scientific establishment for doing so.

Undeterred, Chairman Barton asked Professor Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, regarded as the doyen of computational statistics in the US, to review the hockey stick. Dr Wegman secured the cooperation of two other leading statisticians, and independently they analysed what Michael Mann and his colleagues had done. Their conclusions were damning:

"In our further exploration of the social

network of authorships in temperature

reconstruction, we found that at least 43

authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by

virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our

findings from this analysis suggest that

authors in the area of paleoclimate studies

are closely connected and thus

‘independent studies’ may not be as

independent as they might appear on the study"

Then you have Chris Landsea's report on how they mislead the public on the incidence of Hurricanes and how the notion of global warming increasing hurricanes was that one one man, and not the decision reached by the experts.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promet...

I can go on and on, but given such behaviour why should I trust the global warming community?

Answer 6

I'll keep this short. Global warming exists. It's natural. Humans have nothing to do with it. It is caused by the sun. Don't believe everything you read. Yes, millions of people can be wrong.

Answer 7

The earth may be warming, but the problem is how some people can blame man, for the warming and all the propaganda they produce, not proving how man is the cause of a warmer earth, but mostly how we can "stop" global warming, etc.

If the warming earth IS a natural, cyclical change, we can't stop that. There's the difference. Either it's something we can change, or it isn't. There's nothing out there to prove the warming isn't a natural phenomenon.

You're right--no matter what, it's warmer.

Answer 8

The theory of man-made global warming is false.  Anyone who believes otherwise has not investigated the evidence or is purposely remaining ignorant to the legitimate opposition to global warming.  I have given up an one and a half hours to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” so I ask you to do the same and watch the movie detailing the opposition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...  

Another general resource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...

CO2 is not causing the globe to warm the opposite is true, the warming is increasing the atmospheric CO2.  When the world heats it gradually increases the temperature of the oceans which serve as the largest CO2 sink.  As the oceans heat up they release CO2 which is stored in them.  The information comes from the same data Al Gore uses, the temperature always goes up before the concentration of CO2 goes up.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/artic...

CO2 makes up only .03% of our atmosphere.  Water vapor, another greenhouse gas, makes up 1-4% of our atmosphere, this gas is acknowledged to be the main greenhouse gas.  All human activities combined contribute only 6 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year.  Animals, through respiration, decomposition, etc contribute 150 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere.  So humans contribute only a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere which is already in very small concentrations in the atmosphere.

http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.html This is where my data came from, it is an interesting site, it displays the same graphics as Al Gore in his movie but it tells how low the human contribution is.  So Al Gore is using the same data but coming to a different conclusion, who do you want to believe a politician with no scientific training or the NASA CO2 laboratory, a group of scientists who spend their entire careers studying CO2.

We know the greenhouse effect is real it is a necessary effect to keep our planet at a habitable temperature.  However if our current warming is due to greenhouse gasses it would cause warming in the troposphere , but the troposphere is actually getting cooler.

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature... That points to other explanations to our current warming.

So what is causing our current warming, it is the sun.

http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/spac...

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/s...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/06...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/...

The fact that only the earth’s surface is warming points to direct heating from the sun rather than heating due to greenhouse gasses.  Also other planets in our solar system are warming pointing to a common cause of warming, that common cause being the sun.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola...

The global warming crowd says our glaciers are melting and animals will suffer this is another false claim.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sci...

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.htm...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

the global warming crowd also claims a scientific consensus on the issue, this is wrong in two ways.  One, there is no consensus, this is a false claim to make you believe in global warming by suppressing the opposition.  http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Second, even if there was a consensus it would mean nothing, science is not politics, you don’t vote on theories to determine their legitimacy.

The IPCC is the main supporter of global warming, their statements are defended blindly by people who don’t want to admit that global warming is not real.  People will claim that they took into account natural sources of CO2, they didn’t.  Take a look for yourself:

http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index....  That is the latest IPCC report, read the entire report, do a search of the documents, there is absolutely no mention of natural sources of CO2.  The natural sources have been completely ignored.  Also people will claim that the IPCC took the sun into account in their report, this is not entirely correct, while the sun is mentioned the report it’s effects have not been accurately represented.

http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr....  The IPCC did not take into account the Svensmark factor.  This would greatly reduce the effect of solar radiation on the earth.  Look back up to the solar resources to see the effect of the sun correctly represented.

Also allegations have been by IPCC scientists who disagreed with the IPCC statements.  They say that their research was censored or taken out of the IPCC report.  This is not the first time the IPCC has lied, they forged the famous “hockey stick” graph, which later resulted in a reissuing of the IPCC report.

Quotes form politicians, CEO’s, and others are not proof of global warming, they issue these statements to get votes and customers.  Scientists are able to get published and get time on the media by supporting global warming.  The IPCC continually lies and misrepresents data so they keep their jobs.  

In regards to the precautionary principle that says we can only help if we switch over to alternative energy, this idea is not correct.  While this may seem legitimate it only helps the first world, third world countries can not afford to switch to the more expensive energy options.  Also the US currently spends 4 billion dollars a year on global warming research which could be better spent on research for disease or to fight poverty.  For an excellent example of how the precautionary principle is harmful you do not need to look further than DDT.  This pesticide was cheap and incredibly effective but it was banned because of it harmful effects on egg shells.  Now thousands of people die every year in third world countries because of malaria, a disease that could be easily controlled with DDT.

I hope anyone who believes in global warming they will take a look at the resources I provided.  These resources should convince you that global warming is not man-made, it is caused by cycles in the earths climate.  If you are not convinced I hope you at least take a new look at global warming as an unproven idea.  Remember that global warming is big business for anyone who aligns themselves with it.

I could not go this entire post without mentioning global cooling.  In the 1970’s it was claimed that there was a consensus on the fact that the world was headed into an ice age.  We have seen once before how damaging a false claim about our climate change can be to our world.  Most of the global warming crowd does not want you to know about this scare because it is so similar to the scare today.  Government panels were formed and claimed the world was headed to an ice age, evidence poured in supporting the claim, a consensus was claimed, then the whole issue just faded away.  That is what will happen with the false scare of global warming.

Answer 9

Yes you are a complete A R S E !

So are you runescap...... Ice caps melt all the time then refreeze.... bunch of "no nothing know it all's". Misled ignorant green Nancy boys...I say Cad doesn't remember waking up in such a bad mood !

Mind I feel much better for that rant...Well worth losing ten points I say... Come on then report me ....I don't agree with your stupid blinkered views ...

Answer 10

Well I answered this elsewhere and here goes again!

There's a lot of hysteria about global warming.  It exists; either because of sun spot activity, sun's orbit around the sun or just natural weather cycles over 1000's of years.  But I don't think it's because of man plus I don't think there's much man can do about it.  

I'm just not convinced man's contribution to CO2 gases is an issue in global warming.  I still think the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minute (<1%).  This is mainly caused by emissions from the sea (and volcanos!) and outstrips anything that man have ever contributed.  

However, pollution itself is a nuisance and affects all our health and well being.  I think people need to eradicate this but this is a separate issue to global warming.

Answer 11

Well, plainly, denying that global warming is being caused by mankind, doesn’t make it go away.

However, it *does* make the point that spending billions of pounds trying to prevent something that we aren’t causing is a complete waste of money.

Are you suggesting that we should spend those billions of pounds, even if we know it will do absolutely nothing? If you are, then I hope it’s your money and not mine, thank you very much.

Despite what you may have heard to the contrary, our present level of understanding *does not* allow us to state, with certainty, that we are the cause of global warming. It is a *possibility*, nothing more.

We should avoid making knee-jerk reactions which, at best, will have no effect at all, and, at worst, may make things worse, unless and until the evidence is conclusive and completely watertight.

Currently, it is not.

A few comments on RunescapeMike2, above. The polar ice capS are not melting – only the Arctic ice cap is. The Antarctic ice cap is *not* melting. Even the IPCC admit this - http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf (see the bottom of page 9). Oh, and since the Arctic ice is *floating* on the sea, its melting will have no significant effect on global sea levels.

He says that the ice caps have been “Untouched before”. This is nonsense, they have been bigger and smaller in the past than they are today.

He then quotes “The Day After Tomorrow” as being “not that far off from what could really happen.” Again, this is nonsense. The Day After Tomorrow is a Hollywood disaster movie. The scenario may make a good story, but that’s all it is: a story. There’s no science, and therefore no truth, in it at all. See http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/day...