How can you believe in this hoax of Anthropogenic Global Warming?!?

Question

The true science says that it is the Sun that is causing most of the recent warming that we have been hearing about.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only accountable for less than 5% of greenhouse gases and we only make about 5% of that. (About 90-95% of Greenhouse Gases is Water Vapor)

The reason for increased CO2 is because as the oceans become heated, they cannot hold as much as they could if they were cooler, so the oceans release the excess into the atmosphere. From what I hear, the oceans can hold many times more energy and heat then the air. This meaning that the atmosphere should have very little effect on the oceans and that the sun or perhaps the Earth itself is heating up the surface since those are two of the only things that could heat our vast oceans.

Answer 1

water vapor is irrelevant. water vapor concentrations aren't increasing... carbon dioxide concentrations are. if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is coming from the oceans, the concentration in the ocean should be going down... it isn't. the sun isn't providing nearly enough extra heat to account for the trend in carbon dioxide in any case. the trend makes sense only by accounting for fossil fuel burning and other anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide. your interpretation is nonsense... saying that it is 'true science' doesn't make it so.

Answer 2

Well, some of us went to school and studied real science.  That would be step one.  Then, as we matured, we developed the ability to distinguish between opinion pieces, intentionally misleading personal blogs, and actual scientific reports.  Finally, we developed the ability to see through nonsensical statements about CO2 making up only 5% of the greenhouse gases (not all molecules are created equal - ask your Chemistry teacher if you ever study that).

Here's some links to help you get started educating yourself.

***** Demonstrating the strength of the consensus *****

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

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



***** Good overviews *******

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

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...



***** Good Global Warming FAQs *****

http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climat...

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/...

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



**** Good misc. sites ****

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

http://www.philipclarkson.blogspot.com/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/





**************************************...

Here's some good sites than address the questions frequently raised by skeptics

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2...

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

Answer 3

Because the scientific data clearly shows it's real, and mostly caused by us.

Most all of your arguments are answered here:

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

The swindle video is utter nonsense.  Proof.

It is simply a political statement which distorts science.  The director has a history of putting out misleading stuff.  In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with n***s. Channel 4 had to apologise for the misleading stuff in that one.  The present movie is also a distortion of the science. More here:

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

http://news.independent.co.uk/environmen...

"Pure Propaganda"

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313p...

Explanations of why the science is wrong, point by point.

http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMIS...

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way.  If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information.  They also have a way to "Ask the Expert" about global warming.  The questions go to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.

So, why did Channel 4 broadcast it?

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."  

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climat...

Answer 4

Worldemp  You have no idea of the powerful forces that are feeding you this nonsense.  

How can you believe the hoax of the deniers when the mountain of evidence is against them?

You're arguments have been debunked by thousands of actual climate scientists who don't take these arguments lightly, as long as they are reasonably scientific.  They have gone over and over all this and have conclusively found that they are just not true.

And your sources are worth nothing, as others have pointed out.  

  It is you who are stuck in pure belief. And denial that you might be wrong.  

Skeptic myth   There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12...

"There is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics.  In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in."

"In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate's behavior over the last century."

  And why is it that "Actual Scientist" is spouting right wing stuff about liberalism being a disease?

Is that his scientific objectiveness showing through?  Is he really a scientist, and what kind?

I guess to him, freedom and rights are diseases, because every right and freedom we enjoy in the USA is a liberal idea, by definition.  Women's rights, civil rights, women's suffrage- all were championed by liberals and fought against tooth and nail by conservatives.  I'm not referring to party affiliation.  Lincoln was a Republican, and obviously was liberal on the issue of slavery.

  Then the conservatives claim to protect those liberties, wave the flag, redbait the liberals and call them unpatriotic.

Answer 5

YES say the good scientific sources. Please note that you were only able to provide:

a tech blog

a single russian scientist

a conservative think-tank

Answer 6

Your numbers might be off a little - this site claims humans are responsible for 3%.:

http://www.nov55.com/crunch.html

Interesting observation = "Nowadays there is a good indication that very little radiation is given of by the earth's surface or the atmosphere, and it is night vision equipment. At 80°F, or 27°C, (typical temperatures) there is very little radiation picked up by night vision equipment."

Another point AGW Fans overlook - The sources of CO2 coming from Beneath the Oceans under the thin Lithosphere:

'Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves'

http://environment.newscientist.com/arti...

"The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes,"

Now that's a lot of VENTS that could pump CO2 into the oceans and increase CO2 in the atmosphere!!!

Answer 7

Im sorry, this is probably the most unintelligent question I've heard, and there are some good ones. I couldn't even get through the first paragraph without laughing. Your so called oceans are heating up BECAUSE of global warming, dumbass. You are correct in saying the sun is whats heating up the Earth's atmosphere, and if you would kindly go figure out what the greenhouse effect is, you might understand that greenhouse gasses, ie carbon dioxide, are whats trapping the sun's radiation into our atmosphere, thus increasing it's temperature. I don't feel the neeed to go into more detail, as I have a life. I am 16 so I don't this concept is that hard to understand. Thankyou but your theory is a peice of garbage.

PS On a further note, the earth has indeed warmed as 2007 was the seventh hottest year on record. And you might want to rethink your polar bear idea, seeing as it is predicted they will go extinct by the end of the century, aswell as seals who need the receding ice caps to birth, nurse, feed and rest to live. Hopefully, you can read this and grow up.

Answer 8

I don't.

Answer 9

If you look at the scientific facts, then you can not believe in AGW. There is no data to back up this theory. And yet, the governments will spend billions (of course they will impose CO2 Credit taxes to recoup the money).

Answer 10

I understand how people would point out what c**p global warming is, but people are saying the goverments making up, which is completely illogical, since how much of your utilities you use has no effect on them, and surely they'd want them to carry on driving, so they can rob some tax from them..

Answer 11

It is because people have a disease called liberalism.

Answer 12

"The true science" = the nonexistent science?

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;...

Your arguments are all the same amateurish junk that have been debunked here dozens of times.  If you can't understand the basic science of the greenhouse effect or even the difference between weather and climate, and your sources of information are right-wing blogs and propaganda films, you're in no position to be forming conclusions about the causes of global warming.

The reason I believe AGW is that I understand the science.  Maybe the problem is that I'm not wearing my tinfoil hat.  Can I borrow one of yours?