Global Warming - Load of rubbish?

Question

Is there any one else who thinks that Global Warming is not as bad as is suggested and its a natural cycle and the car isnt to blame?

Answer 1

What I find really amusing is how you have all made up your minds that the majority of climate scientists in the world are somehow just part of a big hoax.  And you know better?  Based on what?

  What you are saying is pure belief.

Fourty years of observation tells me that we are damaging our environment in countless ways.  

What's your time frame on this, last week when the talk of global warming became a popular subject?  

How about the fact that species are going extinct in the last century at 1000 times the background rate of extinction over eons.  We have caused that.  Period.

How about the undisputed fact that the oceans are almost dead?  Most fish stocks worldwide are down 90%.  There is so much plastic in the ocean that the algae at the bottom of the food chain are ingesting minute particles and passing it along the food chain.  1% of some whales survive.  50 species of birds just in the San Francisco area are in danger of becoming extinct.  39 of 67 native fish species in California are extinct or at risk of extinction.  These are just a few of thousands of statistics that show what is happening to our planet.  If you can't see this, you are not looking.

Answer 2

I think it is a load of B*******

Answer 3

Yes. It's obviously happening and has been happening ever since the last Ice Age ended.  

The preposterous notion is that mankind has the ability to force something as massive and complicated at the Earth's Weather System to do anything at all.  

But weather is so much bigger than all that.

Once that seeps into heads of those suffering from acute cranial calcification they may realize what so obvious to some of us already.

1. We could possible have caused it.

2. There ain't nothing we can do to stop it.

We can mess with things, sure. Pollute and kill off species to extinction.  Mismanage forests and farmlands and stuff like that.  And we can also change behaviors and practices to fix some of those things.

But we just don't have the muscle to keep wind from blowing or rain from falling or the sun from shining.  Never have. Never will.

As always, we will do what we do best.

Adapt.

Answer 4

It's total BOLLOX but it it raises revenue.They haven't stopped chopping the trees down have they?Can't be that worried then

Answer 5

I would have to disagree.  Global Warming is a big deal.  It will continue to be a big deal in the future, unless we change our distructive ways.

Answer 6

Global warming is a bad and dangerous thing but to put the entire blame on human activities is stupid.

If CO2 emissions are destroying the earth, what about the millions of years ago when all that CO2 was in the atmosphere to begin with; before the plants sucked it in, died and became oil?

We should live cleaner, less polluted lives... but we should do it for a better quality of living... not to stop climate change.

(PS. We are still waiting for the 'warming' bit to happen in Britain ;-) )

Answer 7

Yes, it's just another form of taxation.

Answer 8

NO! It's our fault. We poluted the Earth, people seem to think that they can replace the earth, just like they can replace iPOds, comuters, cars, adn things like that! We are supposed to take care of the Earth, not hurt it! Why would Earth hurt itself in some "cycle"????

Answer 9

I believe that vested interests are exploiting this natural phenomenon (made worse possibly by human activity) for their own ends; governments to tax us more, green lobby to enrich themselves).

What nobody seems to be seeking to tackle is overpopulation, which will result eventually in food and water shortages and conflict.

Answer 10

No. It can't be natural. I am 21, and when I was young daffodils came up at Easter, now they're coming up in January!

People are getting flooded out of their homes constantly. That never happened years ago. Ships are forever crashing out at sea. It's all going wrong. You just don't want to have to feel guilty about it or accept that we're really in the ****.

Answer 11

bring on the sun I'm all oiled up and waiting

Answer 12

Yes. Government propaganda to extort even more money from us.

Answer 13

dont fink so read IPCC report it says most of warming last 50 years man's fault so there!  You prolly got shares in Exxon

Answer 14

Yep! Too bad they are using this as a means for a one world government in charge of the world economy sort of like the UN who could not even manage their own checking account and they want to control who manufactures what based on stupid 'carbon credits'? Give me a break. the climate is not a thermostat that can be controlled or willed to act in a specific way each and every day.  That is why we have average temps the record lows and highs and anything in between in average. I can not tell any difference in a 1degree increase in temps in my own house much less across the entire freakin planet.

I keep reading answers that talk or over population and we can never sustain our growth and feed all of these people.  That is rubbish also because the same thing was said in the 70s. Today we make the same amount of food on 40% less land so tell me we can not feed the extra new people.  Birth is a blessing not a burden by the way. Embrace new life and let them have a chance to prosper or fail on their own.

As for extinctions of species more have died than currently live now so man could not be responsible for all the extinctions that take place. Some species will overtake others and I guess Darwin is not required reading anymore.

Answer 15

i think that we are possibly something to do with it but not to the length that everyone says we are it's just a natural thing that no one can stop

Answer 16

there was a time where the two top lies were

"I love you"

and

"the check's in the post"

America changed them to

"global warming doesn't exist".

and

"muslims want to kill you."

i don't want America in charge any more they've lost it!

Answer 17

Yes it is rubbish.  What I would also say to those folk who post answers on the sites often to actually write something new every once in a while instead of copying and pasting your stock answers.  You know who you are DanaBob.

Answer 18

The problem with the natural cycle hypothesis is that even nature must have explanations that science can discover.  After 30 years of intense climate research (things really got going in the 70's), scientists have eliminated every explanation (e.g. solar, volcano, earth's orbit, etc.) for the increase in global temperature except for the increase in atmospheric CO2 (which we know most comes from human activities and which we know helps keep the planet warm).

It makes no sense to simply deny a well studied and supported theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming) unless another theory with more evidence comes along.  Saying it's natural only avoids answering the question of "what force in nature?"  Some past climate changes are believed to be associated with large CO2 increases, so human induced CO2 increases are simply another form of a natural process.

Before jumping to any conclusions about it being a "load of rubbish", I'd encourage you to read and learn a little about the actual science.  Here's a few easily read overviews that should help get you started:

The scientific basis for anthropogenic global warming:

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12...

An introduction to climate change:

http://www.logicalscience.com/climate_ch...

The IPCC FAQ on the physical science of global warming:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4W...

And with the recent 50,000 member Association Geophysical Union's position paper on this issue, calling this a "load of rubbish" seems a bit ill-conceived.

Human Impacts on Climate:

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

Answer 19

Fred is right.  Government propaganda.  Also Algore the hypocrite is desperate for the public eye.  This is the only way he can get it.

Answer 20

yes...me

Answer 21

There is definite changes happening to the planet in regards to climate change and wether or not its a cycle or not it is affecting bio-diversity

Answer 22

Clearly there are and have been natural cycles.  As a geologist, I understand very well that climate is not stable.  Those that pretend it is are not geologist and invariably seem to be leftists.

Answer 23

What you saying is about as educated as saying ‘I think the moon is made of cheese’ whdyathink> or ‘every time I scratch my @rse the tooth fairy catches a cold’

Natural cycles (astronomical cycles etc) have been intensively studied and they can’t account for the recent warming of the last 50 yrs or for its rate. When earth came out of the last ice age it only warmed by half a degree C per 1,000 years. Half a degree C in 50 yrs if very, very rapid in geological terms.

If you’re interested in the science (as opposed to being driven by an existing political agenda) then check this out:

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

At the end of the day, does it matter? We both get a vote.

Answer 24

It is just another legal taxation for something we can't see. They say the evidence is there with the ice caps melting, but I say "How much are they being paid to promote this?"  If it were all true, the government would restrict flights, but what do they do? Decide to build longer runways. They ask us to change to energy saving light bulbs but they spend millions on lighting football stadiums not to mention the Olympic stadium. They say that the climate is getting warmer and yet we have another cold winter. They state that our cars are polluting the atmosphere but the MP's are still driving round in luxurious gas guzzling cars, the list is endless.

Don't you think that my evidence outweighs the governments?  I do, that's why I think it's just a load of gibberish nonsense.

Answer 25

Nope.  The science proves otherwise.

There are many basic scientific facts which can only be explained if the current global warming is being caused by an increased greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels.

For example, the planet is warming as much or more during the night than day.  If the warming were due to the Sun, the planet should warm a lot more during the day when the Sun has influence.  Greenhouse gases trap heat all the time, so they warm the planet regardless of time of day.  Another example is that the upper atmosphere is cooling because the greenhouse gases trap the heat in the lower atmosphere.  If warming were due to the Sun, it would be warming all layers of the atmosphere.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

We know it's warming, and we've measured how much:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science...

Scientists have a good idea how the Sun and the Earth's natural cycles and volcanoes and all those natural effects change the global climate, so they've gone back and checked to see if they could be responsible for the current global warming.  What they found is:

Over the past 30 years, all solar effects on the global climate have been in the direction of (slight) cooling, not warming.  This is during a very rapid period of global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/62902...

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

A recent study concluded:

“the range of  [Northern Hemisphere]-temperature reconstructions and natural forcing histories…constrain the natural contribution to 20th century warming to be <0.2°C [less than one-third of the total warming].  Anthropogenic forcing must account for the difference between a small natural temperature signal and the observed warming in the late 20th century.”

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104...

You can see this in the third graph here, where the dotted lines are just from natural causes, and the full lines are natural + human causes:

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol104/issue...

If that’s not enough to convince you the Sun isn’t responsible, consider the fact that no scientific study has ever attributed more than one-third of the warming over the past 30 years to the Sun, and most attribute just 0-10% to the Sun.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

So the Sun certainly isn't a large factor in the current warming.  They've also looked at natural cycles, and found that we should be in the middle of a cooling period right now.

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitc...

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

So it's definitely not the Earth's natural cycles.  They looked at volcanoes, and found that

a) volcanoes cause more global cooling than warming, because the particles they emit block sunlight

b) humans emit over 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes annually

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man....

So it's certainly not due to volcanoes.  Then they looked at human greenhouse gas emissions.  We know how much atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased over the past 50 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna...

And we know from isotope ratios that this increase is due entirely to human emissions from burning fossil fuels.  We know how much of a greenhouse effect these gases like carbon dioxide have, and the increase we've seen is enough to have caused almost all of the warming we've seen over the past 30 years (about 80-90%).  You can see a model of the various factors over the past century here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clima...

This is enough evidence to convince almost all climate scientists that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming.

Answer 26

George bush thinks Global warming is rubbish.

It isn't, because if we keep on adding C02 in the air, and other gasses, all the polar ice caps will melt, and more, because CO2 is keeping the heat in our atmosphere.