Global Warming? Natural progression or media hype?

Question

Is it a natural cycle? Is it some man made eartly cancer?

Im tending to a blend of both. What do other people think?

Focus: Im really leaning on a man made hysteria. I know we arnt helping much these days. But a hundred years or so of pullution is gonna send the earth into a F'ing hellstorm? I think not. I cant subscribe to this no matter what. Yes we can do better, emissions are at a high time max, but can I base my choice on temperatures that are taken a hundred years ago? h**l no i cant. Im expected to believe that 60-100 years ago temp readings are 100% accurate? This subject really gets me heated. I dont want our earth to die but is the hype warrented? How can scientists says earth has increased 1 degree average over the last 100 years if you cant really base it on anything?

Answer 1

Look at my previous question and the two links that purport that GW is upon us and you will clearly see that it is a bunch of hype that the scientists have to alter the data in order to get the Federal Funding and the data that is conducive to their alarmists' needs.

It is nothing but hype and media induced bull.

Answer 2

Real, mostly caused by us.  It's based on massive evidence.

Scientists understand the accuracy of their data very well.  The green bars on the graph are "error bars" showing the accuracy of the data.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Do you actually think your guesses are better than the studies of the scientists of the National Academy of Sciences?  They say it's real, and mostly caused by us.

And very few of them get funding for global warming.  They're kind of a Supreme Court of science.

Answer 3

Hype..someone came up with this wonderou idea on how to make money..another snake oil salesman is born.

Answer 4

all hype, Mr. Al Gore is trying to impose new taxes for 'carbon footprints" these taxes are bogus and al gore should be sued.

Answer 5

We have had thousands of Global Warmings in our past history, maybe even tens of thousands if you really go back in the past - none of them caused by man!

There are some people who believe that humans are causing this natural cycle to occur sooner but there is no way that this can be proved!   No one was taking accurate records 20,000 years ago when the last Ice Age was upon us!  We don't know the effect of solar flares, sun spots, closeness of the moon, sudden eruption of hundreds of volcanoes at the same time or meteor impacts that pollute the air, etc.  

There is not enough data to blame human beings for anything because if there were no human beings living on earth there still will be Global Warming taking place!

Global warming is big business - invent a cure and then invent the environmental problem that cure fixes!  Big companies are poised to make billions of dollars off Global Warming hype!   Global Warming will take place with or without human beings on earth!

Answer 6

Hype, natural.

Answer 7

Earth has gone through many cycles from ice age to very warm to ice age.

If there is a difference this time round it is that we have a lot of extra GHGs in the atmosphere. And, if these GHGs are adding to our temperature profile, we should not assume that maximum temperatures reached in previous cycles will be our maximums for this cycle.

This does not mean that in absence of additional GHGs we can turn off global warming. We can not stop it, but we conceivably might mitigate it.

Would we prefer very hot to very cold?

Now if we had a choice, but we do not.

It takes a lot of global warming to get ready for the next ice age. It takes less time for that to be accomplished if we have GHG enhancement. So, bringing on global warming earlier or to higher temperatures ironically means we get to the next ice age sooner.

Now as to media hype. I have seen a lot more media hype trying to persuade me that global warming is a myth, so I see hype mostly as an attempt to convince me to go on using all the fossil fuels I can, to make more money for business interests.

I do not make my decisions based on the general media, but peer reviewed science with a bit of skepticism. And no, I do not look at conclusions alone, but the evidence upon which the conclusions are based, and the reasoning from that evidence.

Answer 8

Most certainly media hype.  If you want some real data I would suggest talking with a meteorologist.  These people have a far better understanding of the atmosphere and all the other things that affect actual temperatures than any other scientific field.  Also, their jobs, or source of funding, are not dependent on how many people they can scare.  I was just listen to the radio yesterday when a local meteorologist was asked about GW.  He said 1-2 degree increase is not a big deal over a hundred years.  He was actually more concerned with cooling.  The people who are telling us the sky is falling and we have to do something now are basing their opinions on data that they don't really understand.  All this data they come up with is useless unless you know how to interpret it properly, and you can't do that without a clear understanding of how the atmosphere really works, and all the different things that can affect temperature change .  

My opinion is that it is a natural cycle.