Global warming is a load of c**p?

Question

try make me think differently

Answer 1

Right with ya there bud lol. Global warming is an example of what happens when a scientific debate gets publicized and politicians take control. Al Gore is in NO way a scientist. There are probably more skeptical scientists then there are for it.

I know here in Wyoming we have been below average temperatures almost every day this year. It snowed in JUNE! Talk about global warming. I can only remember about 10 days in track where it was warm enough to wear shorts.

Answer 2

I'm not sure to be honest, but I do have a problem with it, I suspect it may be a way to stop india and china becoming global powers. I actually think it might be both - there is some evidence for global warming, but they are just using it to keep india and china under control...

Answer 3

No, it is not a load of c**p.  That type of arrogance is typical of the current administration in Washington which is loosely disguised as Corporate America.  Multinational corporations are very powerful and will tell any lie in order to keep the status quo.  We are almost at the point where the damage to the environment is irreparable, you should really try to educate yourself and look past the propaganda and mud slinging for the truth.  

Do you think that millions of motor vehicles traveling across the earth can't possibly have an negative effect on the environment?  If you believe that, then the propaganda is working.

Answer 4

First you must try to think.

Answer 5

All this stirred up c**p about global warming is only generating money making schemes which is probably why it was released into the public in the first place.  Look how much it is costing everyone...

Answer 6

I wholeheartedly agree that global warming is a load of c**p.

Answer 7

Sounds like a waste of time, you likely won't be convinced until 20 years have passed but here is why I don't share your beliefs:

1) The hockey stick diagram - to me its very clear, undeniable proof that we are going throug a warming cycle. I admit it does nothing to speak of cause, of course.

2) The IPCC report. It did not evade or equivicate. It was quite direct and had the vast majority of climatoligists behind it.

3) Glaciers in Greenland and continetal Europe have been receding and having dramatic local impacts. They are shrinking at a very alarming rate and we should lose a few in a couple of years. The last link talks of retreating glaciers.

4) The Antarctic ice shelf is losing chunks on a pretty regular basis.

5) You can see maps of the Arctic ice of the last few decades, its about 30% smaller than usual. (see first link)

6) I have a Coast Guard friend. He plans their supply trips to the Canadian north. Hee also makes a trip himself most years. To him th eimpacts are beyond obvious. Homes built on permafraost are now sinking in marshes, frozen streets are now mud paths. As he describes it to me, it likes 10 years ago, it would be your neighbourhood in January, now its like your neighbourhood in April (if you are in a temperate zone) - both, of course at he same time of the year.

7) The Coast Guard and cruise lines have adjusted their visitation plans because new channels are open, ports are open later, etc. Anyone who regularly cruises to Alaska (and I know a few) can tell you that bays they visit are different. (see third link, watching the differences is becoming a major Alaskan tourism impact)

8) All this was predicted about 20 years ago and it matches the predicitions quite faithfully.

9) The Bush administration that would dearly love to ignoore global warming was forced by the courts to acknowledge the  polar bears beacuse the science proved they were endangered by man made causes. (see second link). It was a court ruling that forced the EPA to do the listing so the US courts have ruled that GW is scientifically sound.

10) As evidence mounts people who deny it are becoming more and more out in the fringe. I believe in evolution, the holocaust and that the earth is billions of years old. It just makes sense to believe in such things and scoff at deniers.

Answer 8

No, the warming is happening:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2...

The biggest problem however is that the problem is being misused to shove through limited approaches guaranteed to fail.  None of the global treaties or proposed taxes do anythnig to decrease global CO2 emissions.  All countries must contribute to the solution.

Here's who is being asked to pay the bill to sovle the problem:

Unemployment rate jumps to 5.5 percent in May, biggest rise since 1986; payrolls cut again

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080606/economy.h...

While China's economy is booming, and they've comitted to no pollution reductions or restraints whatsoever!

Containing over 1/3 of world population, when the heck are China and India going to agree to invest some reasonable portion of their exploding profits towards this problem?  It's far easier for them to make informed choices about low carbon impact development than it is for a country to replace its entire high carbon impact infrastrucure (everyone's homes for example).  

The U.N., including its IPCC organization, needs to get a clue fast.

Answer 9

I won't even try. I'm right there with you. As I answered in another question just now, the effect we could have on such a powerful force as nature is negligible. Liberals want to spank us for living our lives as we do, so they claim that a perfectly natural progression is because of our naughty ways.

Answer 10

No, science is not c**p.  I've summarized the scientific evidence supporting man-made global warming at the link below.

Answer 11

Yes it is! At least the warming caused by man.

If the temperature is going up, Mars and Jupiter are likewise affected.

Answer 12

no for some people its just hard to billive and they think it has something to do with the planets. but i mean it was predicted like 20 years ago and i dont see any commercials these days about it not being true. i wish it was fake

Answer 13

You are absolutely right. In fact, right now we are in a 10-30 year time of global cooling and have been in it for the past few years. The media doesn't want to talk about it because they have been on the Global Warming band wagon for a long time.

The Earth warms and cools all the time. It was only in the 1970's that scientists said we were headed for the next ice age.

After the Global Warming scare, now it is cooling again. But according to the scientists, this cooling isn't because of man like they claim global warming is, it is because of a natural cooling cycle. Well I say if that is the case, then when the planet warms, it is because of a natural warming cycle.

Time to get real folks and stop buying into this stuff. This is a big reason we have $4 per gallon gas. We are not destroying the planet, in fact human beings only produce 3% of all CO2.

Answer 14

You're totally right.

Answer 15

Nope, it's proven science.  The proof is massive, Many times too much for a Yahoo answer.  Even this answer is edited way down, since people don't even read long ones.  The real proof is in the links, particularly the second one.

This is science and what counts is the data, not people's intuition.

"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...

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Good websites for more info:

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.a...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

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

Answer 16

Really? When you're older and have grandchildren or great-grandchildren, try telling that to them as they crawl up on your lap wearing gas masks because it's the only way they are able to breathe fresh air. When they ask what you did to protect the planet and its environment, tell them you kept squandering fossil fuels so that you could drive around in your gas-guzzling Hummer or SUV. When they can't find enough fresh drinking water, explain how you and your compatriots embraced the effects of a 150-year-old "industrial revolution" that allowed factories to belch smoke into the air and dispose of toxic chemicals in our waterways. When they ask you why you refused to REuse, REduce or REcycle, admit to them that it was your own ignorance, arrogance, avarice, sloth and hubris that kept you from trying to do anything good for the world. And when that beautiful little grandchild is diagnosed with a rare, terminal, untreatable cancer, think about how you went along with the destruction of mangrove forests, wetlands, polar bears, oceans, rainforests, remote Eskimo tribes, swamps, glaciers, caribou migration patterns, pristine beaches, mountains and all other natural resources of the Earth - which MIGHT have held the cure for that cancer in an exotic plant or a rare frog's venom.

Explain to that innocent little grandchild that you 'needed' all that plastic junk you bought from WalMart at "low prices -everyday" more than you needed to help keep the Earth a viable, living organism that sustained all species. after all, your "things" and "creature comforts" were more important than the future of the planet.

And when that grandchild dies in your arms, why not send up a silent prayer to "God", or your "intelligent designer" or the evolutionary "big bang" you believe in, or "Allah", or "Buddha" or "Mother Nature" and give thanks for all the material possessions and comforts YOU enjoyed as you allowed coal companies to rape the landscape so you could heat your home at a comfortable 72 degrees year 'round; loggers to destroy forests so you could build a home with five bathrooms; oil drillers so you could injure the manatee while you tooled around in your luxury speed boat, and fishermen who swallowed up all the ocean's abundant life so you could enjoy a $100-a-plate swordfish dinner at a five-star restaurant.

After all, YOU and the rest of us who worship at the altar of consumerism, were far more important than the other species (who couldn't possibly have any worthwhile purpose on Earth). YOU and the rest of us who squandered natural gas, sucked all the oil from the Earth, dug out all the coal, destroyed most plant and animal life, and decimated the planet with asphalt parking lots, concrete highways, steel buildings and 6-passenger cars we drove to work by ourselves - YOU were much more important than your gorgeous little grandchild who now lies lifeless in your arms, bronzed by the tanning lotion made from chemicals that might have contributed to the need for your dead grandchild to wear a gas mask with which to breathe.    -RKO-   06/06/08

Answer 17

Absolutely 100% c**p to me. those b*****d scientists are making bussiness interest about this Global Warming propaganda Sh** !....

Answer 18

Its kind of warm outside in Texas... I don't know if its this hot globally but it sucks here.

Think about that... yankee.

Answer 19

Nobody can MAKE you think anything, and even if I could, I wouldn't.    Besides - you're right.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...

Answer 20

Recent book by 'Lord Nigel Lawson'  titled "An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming"  tells us that we now have entered a cooling phase, average temperature dropped  in 2006 and also in 2007.  I don't have the book.  Read an article about it by Charley Reese in the 6/2/8 American Free Press.  Fortunately the Republicans did the right thing though for the wrong reasons.

Answer 21

Objection:

Global Warming is just a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government.

This is a very common line and is usually couched in more colorful language (enviro-n***s, liberal wack jobs, that kind of thing). While appeals to authority are not always the most convincing of scientific arguments, this non-scientific attack is best answered with just that, to wit:

Answer:

Here is a list of "enviro-n***s" and "left-wing loonies" who believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and well supported by sound science:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

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

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1...

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_...

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost...

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarmin...

The Royal Society of the UK (RS)

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=31...

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatecha...

American Institute of Physics

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

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacade...

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.htm...

Every major scientific institute dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.





Objection:

So 2005 was a record year, one really warm year or two is not global warming.

This kind of objection only indicates an unfamiliarity with the actual long term temperature record and is just asking for a few good temperature facts, so let 'em have it!

Answer:

2005 breaking the record is not convincing? Let's see then, how about:

• every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992

• the ten hottest years on record occured in the last 15

• every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976

• the 20 hottest years on record occured in the last 25

• every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956

• every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917

The five year mean global temperature in 1910 was .8oC lower than the five year mean in 2002. This and all the above come from the analysis by NASA GISS here:

Objection:

It was just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period as today, in fact Greenland was green and they were growing grapes in England.

This one often comes with additional anecdotal evidence, but it is not often useful to get into those details, just refer to the wealth of proxy studies that refute this idea.

Answer:

There is actually no good evidence that the MWP was indeed a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that did exhibit notable warmth but all of the various global proxy reconstructions agree that it is warmer now and the temperature is rising faster than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years. Anecdotal evidence like that above can never tell you a global story.

NOAA presents a whole selection of proxy studies together with the data they are based on and these can be found here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.htm...

Specifically, they have this to say about the MWP:

"The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwar...

Objection:

A few glaciers receding today is not proof of Global Warming, glaciers have grown and receded many times.

This is part of the divide and obfuscate approach to climate denialism and the trick is not to vociferously defend glacial melt as proof of anything as that falls into the trap of promoting one single piece of evidence to a "make the case or break the case" status. Instead, put these findings in context with other similar findings which when viewed as a whole are impossible to ignore.

Answer:

No one claims that a few melting glaciers is proof of Global Warming. Proof is a mathematical concept. In climate science one needs to look at the balance of evidence and this is just more evidence on one side of that balance. Widespread and rapid retreat of glaciers is merely yet another observation consistent with all the other kinds of "melting" evidence.

Here is some of that evidence:

Sea ice reaches new record declines: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_tre...

Glaciers in Greenland are receding and calving at record rates:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/looking...

http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...

This is a global phenomenon:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=1...

http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.ht...

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/...

Ancient permafrost is also thawing:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/eart...

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/AS...

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1215...

Clearly we are dealing with much more than a few receding glaciers.

Objection:

Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.

Seems like we need this one answered just as a one stop shop for all the various lines of evidence.

Answer:

Global Warming is not an output of computer models, it is an observation. The following diverse and numerous empirical observations lead us to the unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:

• NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis

• CRU direct surface temperature analysis

• Satellite Data

• Radiosondes

• Borehole analysis

• Glacial melt observations

• Sea ice melt

• Sea level rise

• Proxy Reconstructions

• Permafrost is melting

All of these completely independent analyses of widely varied aspects of the climate system lead to the same conclusion: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.

Objection:

The current warming is just a natural cycle.

I always find this one a little amusing in the sense that you might as well call it "magic", because natural cycles do in fact have causes. So this is really just trying to insist that the climate science community is as ignorant as whoever it is writing this objection.

Answer:

While it is undoubtably true that there are some cycles and natural variations in global climate, anyone who wishes to insist that the current warming is purely or even just mostly natural has two challenges. Firstly, they need to identify just what this alledged natural mechanism is because absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. So natural or otherwise we should be able to find this mysterious cause. Secondly, a "natural cause" proponent needs to come up with some explanation for how a 30% increase in the second most important Greenhouse Gas does not itself affect the global temperature.

In other words, there is a well developed, internally consistent theory that predicts the effects we are observing, so where is the sceptic model, or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature and where is the evidence of some other natural forcing?

There is a fine historical example of a very dramatic and very regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic. A naive reading of this cycle indicates we should be experiencing a cooling trend now, and indeed we were very gradually cooling over the length of the preindustrial Holocene, something around .5C averaged over 8000 years. It is informative to compare those fluctuations to today's changes. Leaving aside the descents into glaciation, which were much more gradual, the very sudden (geologically speaking) jumps up in temperature every ~100Kyrs actually represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower than the rate we are currently witnessing.

So could the current change be natural? Well, there is no identified natural cause (and they have been looked for), there is no theory of climate where CO2 does not drive the temperature and the natural cycle precedents do not show the same extreme reaction we are now witnessing.

(That would be a "No")

Objection:

It was even warmer than today during the Holocene Climatic Optimum without any human influence.

This one is usually delivered with a snark or two about SUV's not being around then. Just remember: Don't Take the Bait! Your opposition is only trying to drag you down to a level they can deal with.

Answer:

Actually, it turns out that though there may have indeed been some temperatures in the same range as today, this was regional to the northern hemisphere and confined to the summer months! What's more, the cause is understood (orbital forcing similar to what controlled the Ice Ages), just as today's cause is understood (CO2 emissions), and these causes are different.

"In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate fo

Answer 22

Yes....absolutely!  

Scientists have offered absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF.... only speculation.  I can't believe that there are those who would dare to spread the lie that there is proof.

The Earth's climate Cools and Warms in cycles..... this has been going on for millions of years and will continue to do so with or without man!

Answer 23

Its not my resposibility to try to make you think differently. What i CAN suggest is you watch documentaries on Global Warming and just don't watch those that are against it. I suggest u watch both the "Incovenient Truth" [says GW is man-made] and "The global warming Swindle" [says GW is not man-made]. And after u watch them maybe then base ur opinion on whatever you agree with more.....

Answer 24

I like the "blame the hockey stick" approach.