Global Warming data... what is reliable?

Question

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8621

I'm not trying to stir the pot, I'm just looking for the truth.

Environmental contamination is obviously an issue, but is Global Warming?

I was a bit surprised to see anti Global Warming stuff on this site.

Answer 1

That site is right on.  60 Minutes recently lent it's program to Al Bore so he could push his propaganda.

Answer 2

Global warming is a natural phase of Earth, we human don't have to bother about it. Some of the environmentalist says that this is because of the CO2 we are emitting into the environment, but the reality is that we are just contributing towards 1% to 10% of actual global warming.

If the actual cause of Global Warming is CO2 emitted by the humans then why Global Warming occures on other planets. Just Google for "Global Warming on other planets" and see the results, there are no humans on other planets.

So, next time whenever somebody says you about global warming, just ignore it.

Answer 3

As the climate system is so complex, it is difficult to seperate the truth from fiction. In my studies, I have yet to find a study to support man made global warming. Those studies which seem to support it, are debunked once other scientist look at it (Hockey Stick).

All the evidence points toward natural causes. Who would have thought that the sun actually controls the climate.

Answer 4

I hate the term "global warming".

Yes the earth naturally has cooled and heated over time. Yes wether we are increasing the process or not there will be affects like ice caps melting and rise in sea level. That will happen and it's happening now.

One thing we do know is that polluting can't be good. When you smoke for a long period of time and a lot, you might just get emphazima/lung cancer or other diseases. Well we are smoking the earth up on a ton of toxins and the outcome cannot be good.

You are right, contamination is a sure fact. IT is killing wildlife right and left.

Answer 5

To put it politely, data regards man made Global Warming is being edited to make it appear as though the issue is cut & dried.

Skeptics are being called deniers.  Consensus is being fabricated by simply ignoring anyone who differs with the assertion that Carbon emissions must be severely regulated (read taxed) to avoid eminent disaster.

There is great cause for skepticism.   Global temperatures rose with CO2 levels from 1970 to 2000, but have remained constant the last 8 years.   Global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970 as CO2 levels were rising.

The overlay of Global Temperature on CO2 levels in geologic time presents and equally ambiguous picture.

It's also clear that the modern level of ~380ppm CO2 is low compared to vast geologic periods of 1000 to 3000 ppm.

"The Consensus" conveniently supports the notion that Government should gain sweeping power to control your 'carbon footprint' which in the age of Oil just happens to be the amount of energy you are allowed to use.

Answer 6

I like Kens response... It is true that the earth has gone through natural phases of heating and cooling.. with a few extreme swings due to natural disasters such as volcanic activity and possible meteor effects. However, we are now experiencing accelerated changes in absence of any natural triggers.

Any way you lsice it, we humans are to blame for polluting our environment, and altering the weather through our acts. It is in the interest of energy sectors such as coal and oil to dampen the push for cleaner sources. It is also in the interest of public officials, whose votes come from strong economies, to discredit the pollution fatcor... afterall, consumerism drives the economy, which our politicians use as a marker of their office "sucess".

But we can't ignore that times are changing. As a Canadian, with the arctic on my backdoor (figuratively)... we see the rapid loss of icesheets and drops in polar bear numbers. Personally, as a fisherman and wildlife watcher, I have seen the timing of hatches, and flower blooms being altered drastically over the last decade. Yes, when I say it, you can discount it as anectdote... but when we all are saying it, then can't be discounted anymore!

Answer 7

It was a interesting article, and it is always good to get both sides of the story.  I thought it interesting the Quote Gore made about Christy since Christy is a scientist and Gore is not.

Answer 8

Global warming is a complete hoax.  The media lie about it.  The current average annual temperature of the Earth is lower than the average has been for the last 10,000 years.  When the UN stated in 2006 that global warming was a fact, they relied on a report from NASA.  But the NASA scientist who wrote the report said that the UN removed two paragraphs from his report before they used it.  The first removed paragraph said that there was no evidence that greenhouse gases were responsible for the climatic changes we were seeing.  The second removed paragraph said that there was no evidence that human activity had anything to do with the levels of greenhouse gases we were seeing.  In other words, that the human contribution to greenhouse gases is so small compared to natural processes as to be very likely to be insignificant.  But the UN didn't like that, so they did what many organizations and people do when they have an agenda of their own.  They lied, by omitting information that disproved what they were trying to say.  And by doing so have done a profound disservice to the people of this planet.

Answer 9

Actually the "skeptics" get much more press coverage than their numbers deserve.

It's a rerun of the 70s when a few guys said (with no good scientific basis) that we were headed for an ice age.  And the media gave it coverage.

The IPCC is actually the most reliable source for data.  But people don't understand that they're not part of the UN, which simply provides administrative support to the best climatologists in the world, who essentially all have other full time jobs.

So check this out.  It's from the National Academy of Sciences, 1800 elite scientists elected by their peers.  No one has ever successfully accused them of bias.

http://dels.nas.edu/globalchange/

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change

Answer 10

I quickly skimmed the article and found this part:

"The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee released a list on Dec. 20, 2007, of more than 400 skeptical scientists from different fields – astrophysics, geology, climatology, meteorology and others. The release didn’t even earn a news brief from one of the three networks as of Dec. 31, 2007."

The reason the 3 networks didn't cover this, is because it wasn't news (plus it was somewhat fraudulent).  It was nothing more than a PR effort by the Oklahoma Senator Inhofe (clearly with vested interest in big oil).  What the above line doesn't point out is that some on the list actually agree global warming is real.  It also didn't point out that many on the list were economist, social scientists, TV weathermen (no scientific training is required for those jobs), or from other fields with no actual connection to climate science.

If the TV networks reported every press release from every Senator or congressman, they'd never have any time to report on real news.  It would all be spin put out by politicians PR offices.

If you want reliable data go to NASA, NOAA, or the Met Office Hadley Center (UK) for the highest quality.  Or even better read the peer reviewed scientific literature directly. Even if it's over your head, you can at least read the abstract to get a feeling for what the authors think.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/G...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pr...