Evidence for, and against global warming?

Question

I need you guys to tell me is it happening or is it just a load of c**p? What should i believe? Currently im not convinced. Please can you give evidence to back up your answers. Thank You in advance!

Answer 1

1.5 million years of well-documented evidence derived from ice cores, tree rings and other geological materials as well 5 thousands years of historical documents show that our current and future climate is well within its normal range. It has been much hotter in the recent past (1930s) and very much colder. The AGW pogrom is a deliberate fraud sponsored by the oil companies in order to enhance their profits as oil in areas they control starts running out. You must realize that the very people who are promoting this fraud are the same exact people who have fought tooth and nail to prevent practical alternate energy systems from being developed. The have also put in place laws to prevent existing alternative systems from being used to their maximum in order to promote the use of coal and oil fueled plants instead.

So when people do real research and follow the money it is easy to see that the energy companies that sell oil and coal are the only ones benefiting from the AGW fraud. The people are losing all across the board in the price of all energy products, electricity, fuels and gas costs more because of AGW promoting.

Answer 2

There is no correlative relationship between temperature and CO2, let along a causative one.  

Follow the money.  Humans don't control the climate.

Answer 3

These respected scientific organizations don't think it's a "load of c**p."

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_...

http://www.geosociety.org/positions/posi...

http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.a...

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positi...

http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/...

Answer 4

There is very good scientific evidence against it. You cannot come to your own conlcusion about it without seeing the evidence on BOTH sides. That is what I did spending many days reading all I could find. I concluded the evidence against MAN MADE global warming is very strong. Most of it has come to light in the last 10 years.

I am PhD scientist, mathematician and professional statistician with a lot of experience evaluating scientific arguments.

I challenge anyone to prove with bona fide evidence that the conclusions you find at www.CitizensEnergyForum.com are wrong.

Answer 5

James W. Early: AGW is a fraud sponsored by the oil companies in order to enhance their profits

Thats hilarious, so oil companies are funding a theory that is going to bring a carbon scheme that will cost them billions and a theory that is driving faster implementation of electric and hydrogen vehicles and yet oil companies are funding many groups like heartland institute to fight the theory tooth and nail.

Answer 6

well....the air you are breathing is polluted

Answer 7

Scientists don't like to use the word "proof" because everything in science is subject to revision as new data comes in. But the case for human-caused global warming is about as strong as it gets.

1. World surface temperatures are getting warmer, and this trend has accelerated since the mid 1970's. Almost no scientist in the 21st century has disputed this basic fact, even among the most diehard GW skeptics. Here is the data from NASA / GISS:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabled...

... and from the UK's Hadley Centre:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3259/2620...

As I said, even GW skeptics accept that it's getting warmer; the major dispute is what's causing it: human beings, through increased greenhouse gases in the air? Or natural causes, like the Sun? The dispute is more political than scientific, though, because the scientific case for increased greenhouse effect is rock solid.

2. If the Sun is causing the current warmth, then we're getting more energy, and the whole atmosphere should be getting warmer. If it's greenhouse, then we're getting the same amount of energy, but it's being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, and less heat is escaping to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, but if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling.

In fact, the stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend ever since we've been keeping radiosonde balloon records in the 1950's. Here's the data:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images...

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/hadat2...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin...

3. If it's the Sun, we're getting more energy during the day, and daytime temperatures should be rising fastest. But if it's greenhouse, we're losing less heat at night, and nighttime temperatures should be rising fastest. So if it's the sun, the difference between day and night temperatures should be increasing, but if it's greenhouse, the day-night difference should be decreasing.

In fact, nighttime temps have risen about twice as fast as daytime temps during the last 100 years. Here's the data:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGdealte...

... and as a result, the daily temperature range has been decreasing throughout the 20th century. Here's the science:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...

http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff...

4. Total solar irradiance has been measured by satellite since 1978, and during that time it has shown the normal 11-year cycle, but no long-term trend. Here's the data:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solar...

5. Scientists have looked closely at the solar hypothesis and have strongly refuted it. Here's the peer-reviewed science:

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publi...

6. CO2 levels in the air were stable for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, at about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Since 1800, CO2 levels have risen 38%, to 385 ppmv, with no end in sight. Here's the modern data...

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends...

... and the ice core data ...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

... and a graph showing how it fits together:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3006/2615...

7. We know that the excess CO2 in the air is caused by burning of fossil fuels, for two reasons. First, because the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 started exactly when humans began burning coal in large quantities (see the graph linked above); and second, because when we do isotopic analysis of the CO2 we find increasing amounts of "old" carbon combined with "young" oxygen. Here are the peer-reviewed papers:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JGR......

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mk...

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

So what's left to prove?