Do You Believe In Global Warming And That It Causes Harmful And Dangerous Climate Change?

Question

Do You Believe In Global Warming And That It Causes Harmful And Dangerous Climate Change?

Answer 1

YES,YES of course I do.But don't listen to  these people,! do some research !Then deiced what you think.

Answer 2

Yes

Even though most politicians and cynical idiots in this country believe man created the Earth and politics are greater than the climate.

The fact is we just live here. We didnt make the Earth or the universe, so who are we to say what can't happen.

They wont be satisfied until Wall Street and New York City are completely under water.

Answer 3

Yes I do. It is a cycle of the earth: ice age- extreme heat-ice age-extreme heat. It's heat is dangerous but so are the side effects. I recommend watching An Inconvenient Truth. There IS Global Warming. Humans are speeding up the process though so you should research on how to be more energy efficient.

Answer 4

The earth is going through a warming period just like it has many times.  We did nothing to cause this.  We can do nothing to stop it from occurring again.  Check out the link.  Very interesting

Answer 5

no, why were there olive trees in Greenland a few million years ago? until someone explains i don't believe in global warming however i still believe that we need to take care of our planet. global warming is the excuse the environmentalists use to get the proles to recycle.

Answer 6

What harm?  what damage?? Personally I don't see anything actually happening that is bad, because of GW--------- anyone died lately from GW?

Answer 7

Hello, how do you not belive in Global Warming? Its the reason the Summers are getting so hotter every year.Its the reason the polor ice caps are melting. Its the reason we're looking for different fuel alternatives.

Answer 8

I can see arguments for both ways. But regardless if global warming is true or not, it shouldn't keep us from taking care of our planet. There are other problems besides rising temperatures like pollution, world hunger, droughts and alot more. We should continue to develop things that are more environmentally friendly like alternative fuels and things like that.

Answer 9

r u serious its pretty obvious whats happening nowadays...global warming is taking its toll on us..and EARTH WANTS REVENGE

Answer 10

yes because global warming cause natural disaters like storms and floods

Answer 11

I would suggest a majority of people believe in global warming however they do not agree on the cause or what the outcome will be.

Answer 12

Global dimming is nice. And the weather is always changing. I'm more worried about pollution that can ruin an enviroment even for humans to live in or near to.

Answer 13

Yes.  The evil, monstrous capitalist wizards cast their spells on the earth and make it cold sometimes to fool people into thinking the pollution they make doesn't cause global warming.

But we are too smart to fall for that, aren't we?  We know that they are greedy, war-mongering, running dog capitalists just as they always have been.  They are responsible for all the evil in this world and we are going to prove it if that is the last thing we ever do.

They must pay for their exploitation of the working classes.  They must suffer for spoiling our world and everything in it.  We must tear them down, no matter what it takes.  Who cares whether global warming is actually true or not?  Our cause is far more important than that.  Capitalism must die!

Answer 14

WELL WHAT DO U BELIEV IN, THAT GOD IS MELTING THE ICE CAPS OR SOMETHING??????

Answer 15

yep,

Answer 16

Listen up all of you right wing evangelicals in disguise. If you had actually attended a real school instead of being home schooled on that evangelical BS, you would have the answers to all of your questions already. You see, you can pray all you want but the only thing that is gonna solve problems in this world is science and technology. So just let the overwhelming majority of scientists that agree that anthropogenic global warming is real solve the problem and you stop confusing the issue by believing right wing driven, jesus-camp sponsored groups like the Heartland Institute. Go back to reading your bible and being ignorant and let the real people (AKA, scientists) solve the problem. I can guarantee you, scientists will solve the problem faster than your "god" who is just about as real as ceiling cat, the flying-spaghetti monster and the invisible pink unicorn deity.

Answer 17

Yes.

Answer 18

I know it's real, and mostly caused by us.

This is science and what counts is the data.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

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

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

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

"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://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.a...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Answer 19

Yes, it's pretty irrefutable evidence, however it might of been sensationalised a little.

Answer 20

well yes. for the simple reason that its a fact not a belief. u cant question on beleiving a fact.

stupid.

Answer 21

Hope you find this helpful

Our Climate Numbers Are a Big Old Mess

By PATRICK MICHAELS

April 18, 2008; Page A17

President George W. Bush has just announced his goal to stabilize greenhouse-gas emissions by 2025. To get there, he proposes new fuel-economy standards for autos, and lower emissions from power plants built in the next 10 to 15 years.

Pending legislation in the Senate from Joe Lieberman and John Warner would cut emissions even further – by 66% by 2050. No one has a clue how to do this. Because there is no substitute technology to achieve these massive reductions, we'll just have to get by with less energy.

[Our Climate Numbers Are a Big Old Mess]

Getty Images

Disko Bay, Greenland: Temperatures on the island are no warmer than they were in the mid-20th century.

Compared to a year ago, gasoline consumption has dropped only 0.5% at current prices. So imagine how expensive it would be to reduce overall emissions by 66%.

The earth's paltry warming trend, 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the mid-1970s, isn't enough to scare people into poverty. And even that 0.31 degree figure is suspect.

For years, records from surface thermometers showed a global warming trend beginning in the late 1970s. But temperatures sensed by satellites and weather balloons displayed no concurrent warming.

These records have been revised a number of times, and I examined the two major revisions of these three records. They are the surface record from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the satellite-sensed temperatures originally published by University of Alabama's John Christy, and the weather-balloon records originally published by James Angell of the U.S. Commerce Department.

The two revisions of the IPCC surface record each successively lowered temperatures in the 1950s and the 1960s. The result? Obviously more warming – from largely the same data.

The balloon temperatures got a similar treatment. While these originally showed no warming since the late 1970s, inclusion of all the data beginning in 1958 resulted in a slight warming trend. In 2003, some tropical balloon data, largely from poor countries, were removed because their records seemed to vary too much from year to year. This change also resulted in an increased warming trend. Another check for quality control in 2005 created further warming, doubling the initial overall rate.

Then it was discovered that our orbiting satellites have a few faults. The sensors don't last very long and are continually being supplanted by replacement orbiters. The instruments are calibrated against each other, so if one is off, so is the whole record. Frank Wentz, a consulting atmospheric scientist from California, discovered that the satellites also drift a bit in their orbits, which induces additional bias in their readings. The net result? A warming trend appears where before there was none.

There have been six major revisions in the warming figures in recent years, all in the same direction. So it's like flipping a coin six times and getting tails each time. The chance of that occurring is 0.016, or less than one in 50. That doesn't mean that these revisions are all hooey, but the probability that they would all go in one direction on the merits is pretty darned small.

The removal of weather-balloon data because poor nations don't do a good job of minding their weather instruments deserves more investigation, which is precisely what University of Guelph economist Ross McKitrick and I did. Last year we published our results in the Journal of Geophysical Research, showing that "non-climatic" effects in land-surface temperatures – GDP per capita, among other things – exert a significant influence on the data. For example, weather stations are supposed to be a standard white color. If they darken from lack of maintenance, temperatures read higher than they actually are. After adjusting for such effects, as much as half of the warming in the U.N.'s land-based record vanishes. Because about 70% of earth's surface is water, this could mean a reduction of as much as 15% in the global warming trend.

Another interesting thing happens to the U.N.'s data when it's adjusted for the non-climatic factors. The frequency of very warm months is lowered, to the point at which it matches the satellite data, which show fewer very hot months. That's a pretty good sign that there are fundamental problems with the surface temperature history. At any rate, our findings have not been incorporated into the IPCC's history, and they probably never will be.

The fear of a sudden loss of ice from Greenland also makes a lot of news. A year ago, radio and television were ablaze with the discovery of "Warming Island," a piece of land thought to be part of Greenland. But when the ice receded in the last few years, it turned out that there was open water. Hence Warming Island, which some said hadn't been uncovered for thousands of years. CNN, ABC and the BBC made field trips to the island.

But every climatologist must know that Greenland's last decade was no warmer than several decades in the early and mid-20th century. In fact, the period from 1970-1995 was the coldest one since the late 19th century, meaning that Greenland's ice anomalously expanded right about the time climate change scientists decided to look at it.

Warming Island has a very distinctive shape, and it lies off of Carlsbad Fjord, in eastern Greenland. My colleague Chip Knappenberger found an inconvenient book, "Arctic Riviera," published in 1957 (near the end of the previous warm period) by aerial photographer Ernst Hofer. Hofer did reconnaissance for expeditions and was surprised by how pleasant the summers had become. There's a map in his book: It shows Warming Island.

The mechanism for the Greenland disaster is that summer warming creates rivers, called moulins, that descend into the ice cap, lubricating a rapid collapse and raising sea levels by 20 feet in the next 90 years. In Al Gore's book, "An Inconvenient Truth," there's a wonderful picture of a moulin on page 193, with the text stating "These photographs from Greenland illustrate some of the dramatic changes now happening on the ice there."

Really? There's a photograph in the journal "Arctic," published in 1953 by R.H. Katz, captioned "River disappearing in 40-foot deep gorge," on Greenland's Adolf Hoels Glacier. It's all there in the open literature, but apparently that's too inconvenient to bring up. Greenland didn't shed its ice then. There was no acceleration of the rise in sea level.

Finally, no one seems to want to discuss that for millennia after the end of the last ice age, the Eurasian arctic was several degrees warmer in summer (when ice melts) than it is now. We know this because trees are buried in areas that are now too cold to support them. Back then, the forest extended all the way to the Arctic Ocean, which is now completely surrounded by tundra. If it was warmer for such a long period, why didn't Greenland shed its ice?

This prompts the ultimate question: Why is the news on global warming always bad? Perhaps because there's little incentive to look at things the other way. If you do, you're liable to be pilloried by your colleagues. If global warming isn't such a threat, who needs all that funding? Who needs the army of policy wonks crawling around the world with bold plans to stop climate change?

But as we face the threat of massive energy taxes – raised by perceptions of increasing rates of warming and the sudden loss of Greenland's ice – we should be talking about reality.

Mr. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of environmental sciences at University of Virginia.

Answer 22

heck yes.

are are totally at fault and we need to fix it before it's too late. i personal wouldn't like to see the end of the world, nor do i want my children or grandchildren to have to, so we all need to get our acts together.

Answer 23

Yes. Have you heard of the greenhouse effect. When the sun rays hit the earth the glaciers act as mirrors which make the rays go back in space, but now that the ozone layer is getting thicker 90% of the rays stay on earth and heat up the ocean which causes icebergs to melt. So it will get hotter and more consequences.

Answer 24

yes its true and its all the white peoples fault u know it and i know it (FTWP)  wooooooooooooooooooooo

Answer 25

ofcouse I do everyone should because It has already happened half of the horizontal layer is already broken in the 80's we fixed up and know it even larger than ever before dont beleive me watch the news

Answer 26

Climate change is a money and power grab scheme by bottom feeder politicians and power brokers. It's nothing to do with ecology and everything to do with money.

Con artists like Gore have enriched themselves on this issue, taking home Oscars, Nobel Prizes and millions of dollars. Meanwhile, evangelical leaders are setting up their flocks for extreme fleecing by leftist politicos like Barack Obama, who will appeal for Christian votes by talking in glowing, biblical-sounding terms about "being good stewards of God's creation."

Here is truth about global warming:

Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.

The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.

This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since

there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.

Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is

becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).

As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).

When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.

It's been happening for millions of years.

The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY.

As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to 'predict' chaotic systems such as weather.

Global warming/cooling, AKA 'climate change':

Humans did not cause it.

Humans cannot stop it.

Answer 27

Yes I do believe in global warming but I also believe we as a people are becoming more educated in how to take care of our world and are making great strides in doing so. As long as we recycle all our plastics, and use electricity and buy products with lower gas emissions we should be able to save global warming from becoming a total catastrophe.

Answer 28

yes...i do believe in global warming..

Answer 29

i partially believe in GB, but i'm all for climate change. i think that the earth is so huge that it's too unpredictable for us the make theories like that.  but i do know that odd things are going on right now and are scaring all the animals and humans. I'm sure elephants know exactly whats going on, they're so smart. i think "harmful and dangerous" is an understatement by the way. more like deadly.

Answer 30

We are just lucky to be in a warm period and humans have added a tiny amount that might account for less than a degree.  It is highly beneficial to have longer growing seasons and warmer nights.  It is the radical left, in their latest attack on capitalism, that portrays this as some sort of dire emergency.