Global warming, is a new religon that depends on faith and not facts or hard evidence?

Question

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change New York, March 2nd - March 4th) was attended by over 500 scientists, economists and policy-makers, with over 100 speakers

Their findings:

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed 'consensus' among climate experts are false;

Facts for this year:

• This year, China had its coldest winter in 100 years

Baghdad saw its first snow in all recorded history

North America had the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began

Answer 1

I feel the same heat from 1980 to this day. Sorry I am no buying into the New Age or the Baptist belief, they are all wrong. They all lie to us and we believe them, they use scare tactics. We will get hotter because the Bible says it. But that will be in the very last days. Anna

Answer 2

global warming can affect certain currents and make places colder than they should be

This is besides the point, if global warming is true or not

WHY DO WE WANT POLLUTION IN THE AIR ANYWAYS?  even if it doesnt affect global warming as you say, it still does a lot of damage on the air we breathe and the water we drink!  In the long run it will take more money to fix our problems than if we put some money to stop overpolluting our earth now

Answer 3

Blah blah blah.  The entire purpose of the conference was to show those "findings".  They only invited people who were 'skeptics', and almost no scientists even showed up.

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

As for the rest of your 'question', either look up the definitions of 'weather' and 'climate', or read this question:

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

And if you honestly think the scientific facts support your side, then prove it here:

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

Answer 4

Ya, the responses to YA posts on global warming have demonstrated that it is something of a religion with many and cannot be questioned or discussed reasonably. Your post is not the first time this information has been on YA and it has had little impact as far as I can see.

Answer 5

You aren't talking about a Scientific Conference held by experts on the climate, you are talking about a publicity stunt held by what amounts to marketing firms and paid shills.

You also seem to fail in your understanding that weather is not equal to climate.  Additionally, you buy into the whole 'Global Warming' idea, not the realization that the issue is 'Global Climate Change' which you mention several facts in support of.

Global Climate Change means more extremes and more extreme fluctuations.  It does not mean that everywhere is going to be warmer all the time every day, and to imply that is the case immediately shows your lack of understanding on the topic.

Also, I fail to understand people who still - to this day - support the idea that the earth is too large of a system for humans to influence.  It demonstrates a clear lack of understanding when it comes to scale, feedback, or systems in equilibrium.  Ten billion people have changed the face of the earth as much in a century as nature has in millions of years.

But, there really isn't any point in arguing with ignorance.  Global Climate Change is real, it's happening, and it's not debated by anyone with any understanding of climate.  The only debate is between layman and the ignorant. Among experts, the only questions are how much of this was caused by humans, how much is this going to change life on earth as we know it, and is there anything we can do to stop it at this point.

Answer 6

Read and learn:

Isotopes of carbon may hold a key to determining the source of the increased carbon in the atmosphere (4,5,7). The studies are based on the ratio of the three different carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2. Carbon has three possible isotopes: C-12, C-13 and C-14. C-12, which has 6 neutrons, is by far the most prevalent carbon isotope and is a stable isotope. Carbon 13 is also a stable isotope, but plants prefer Carbon 12 and therefore photosynthetic CO2 (fossil fuel or wood fuels) is much lower in C-13 than CO2 that comes from other sources (e.g.: animal respiration) Carbon-14 is radioactive. Studies of carbon isotopes in CO2 has resulted in the following findings (5,7,8).

There has been a decline in the 14C/12C ratio in CO2 that parallels the increase in CO2. In 1950 a scientist named Suess discovered that fossils do not contain 14C because they are much older than 10 half lives of 14C.

There has been a parallel decline in 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This has been linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon which is low in 13C. If the increased CO2 was due to warming of the oceans, there should not be a reduction in the ratios of C-13 and C-14 to C-12.

There are other clues that suggest the source of increased CO2 is not related to the warming of the ocean and subsequent release of CO2 from the ocean.

There has been a decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere. If ocean warming was responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2, because O2 is also released as the water is warmed.

The ocean is a sink for atmospheric carbon, and the carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118±19 PgC in the last 200 years. If the atmospheric CO2 was the result of oceans releasing CO2 to the atmosphere, the CO2 in the ocean should not be rising as a result of ocean warming.

Larry W - Where to begin with all your flawed reasoning?  What is your education level?  Have you ever had a meteorology course?

Answer 7

No.  It's solidly based on facts.  The conference that you speak of was not a scientific conference, just a publicity stunt by "skeptics".  Most all of the participants were not qualified climatologists.  This is the truth:

"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...

Weather can overcome global warming for a short time.  It happened in 1982, 1991-1992, 1999-2000.  EVERY TIME global warming came back stronger than ever.  Proof.

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

discussed in detail, with confirmation, at:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/g...

As long as we keep making greenhouse gases in enormous amounts, global warming will dominate in the long run.  It's simple physics.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/di...

Answer 8

That conferecne was funded by the oil and tobacco industry

Enough said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment...

Answer 9

It is all confusing to me.

But if everyone is getting colder, how come in Northern Ireland, snow is more like a long lost memory?  We used to get much more of it, now, only once every 3 or four years.  Winters here are not as cold, summers are much wetter; and generally in the news there seems to be more extreme weather.

Will one of you scientific experts explain that to me.

Answer 10

Global warming is not an objective science, it's subjective.  This is why it needs a 'consensus' to tell people that there really is "global warming".

No one can tell you if it will be warmer or colder any time in the future.  They can only "believe" that the temperature is going to change.

And "beliefs" the realm of the mystics, not scientists.

Answer 11

Exactly.

Answer 12

Oh but those are anomolies.... LOL...  They are way too brainwashed to see REAL facts...  If it don't come from GORE then they won't buy it.... lol  

Seriously though, CO2 won't even pass the day and night test...  When it gets cold at night, even the water, with thermal properties far greater than CO2 even gets cold.  CO2 obviously gets cold, yet somehow STORES THERMAL ENERGY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE FOLLOWING DAY.... But wait a second... These freaks say it MAINTAINS THERMAL ENERGY FOR DECADES AND EVEN CENTURIES...

It was 80 degrees yesterday but in the 40's last night...  EVERY SINGLE DAY CO2 cools!!!!!  WHERE IS ALL OF THIS VAST STORED UP THERMAL ENERGY???????????