Is anthropological global warming a lie?

Question

The key word is 'anthropological'.

I am in no way doubting that there is a global change in climate.

Answer 1

Absolutely. As of now, there is NO study which suggests it to be true.

Answer 2

No, it's true.  We ARE adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

The predictions of the future and the people that say it's ALL our fault are the lie.

Honestly - there isn't enough oil in the world to destroy the world.  All that oil and all that coal are just preserved garbage dumps from organisms that came before us.  I hope our garbage is this useful to somebody someday.

Answer 3

there will always be a change in global climate....remember back in your history classes about the ice age????

the earhth has been warming up ever since then.....

and eventually it will cool back off and freeze again....it is a cycle the earth goes through.....

but all the leftists want you to believe that this is a crisis, but it all reality it is nothing, and there is nothing we can do about it....remember back in the late 80's, there was all this talk anout the ozone layer and how we needed to stop using hair pray cans and styuff like that?

that whole debate eventually sizzled off the map, and so will global warming, because it all is a farse and a figment os someones imagination.......PERIOD!!!!!!

Answer 4

Yes there are, and have been natural cycles, going on for millions of years, the problem, for people that keep post this as an answer, we have not been around in any of those cycles, what we have been doing for the last 150 years is entirely new. The Co2 we are releasing is also new and hasn't been in the atmosphere since the last full warm period when there was no ice at the poles and the oceans were 200 ft higher and for all the Co2 we are releasing, we are only going to have 1% of that effect 2 ft in the next 90 years.

Answer 5

Anthropogenic global warming is not so much a lie as an unsubstantiated scientific hypothesis.

One possible test of its merits is, "Can anyone using the theory to predict what global climate will do in future?"

So far the answer is "No" (at least from climate models over multi-decadal timescales [1]).

Although you could argue that the complexity of the climate system is inherently unpredictable, so maybe that is too stiff a test.

However, that almost gives the game away: with current knowledge/understanding available to climate scientists, uncertainty about what the future holds in terms of global climate is very much the order of the day, from which you can conclude that anyone who tells you "The Science is in" lies.

But then you knew that: the Science is never in.

Fact: January 2008 was the coldest month on record since (according to one measure) 1994!

Answer 6

Al Gore is full of horse puckey.  Natural cycles have and will continue to occur.

Answer 7

dude its true. whta dont you get.

Answer 8

Do humans use fossil fuels? YES!

Can scientists measure the increases of CO2 from fossil fuels? YES!

Is there a consensus among the world's leading scientists? YES!

Is there a well financed 'denial' of science,meant to mislead the public? YES!

Does religious dogma play right into the oil company's 'denial' conspiracy? YES!

Did the White House censor climate data to help the oil co.in their 'denial' conspiracy? YES!

Have the arguments presented by the 'deniers' been totally disproved? YES!

Answer 9

No, the scientific evidence supports the anthropogenic global warming theory.

There are many basic scientific facts which can only be explained if the current global warming is being caused by an increased greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels.

For example, the planet is warming as much or more during the night than day.  If the warming were due to the Sun, the planet should warm a lot more during the day when the Sun has influence.  Greenhouse gases trap heat all the time, so they warm the planet regardless of time of day.  Another example is that the upper atmosphere is cooling because the greenhouse gases trap the heat in the lower atmosphere.  If warming were due to the Sun, it would be warming all layers of the atmosphere.

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

We know it's warming, and we've measured how much:

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

Scientists have a good idea how the Sun and the Earth's natural cycles and volcanoes and all those natural effects change the global climate, so they've gone back and checked to see if they could be responsible for the current global warming.  What they found is:

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...

So the Sun certainly isn't a large factor in the current warming.  They've also looked at natural cycles, and found that we should be in the middle of a cooling period right now.

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"

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

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

So it's definitely not the Earth's natural cycles.  They looked at volcanoes, and found that

a) volcanoes cause more global cooling than warming, because the particles they emit block sunlight

b) humans emit over 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes annually

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man....

So it's certainly not due to volcanoes.  Then they looked at human greenhouse gas emissions.  We know how much atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased over the past 50 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna...

And we know from isotope ratios that this increase is due entirely to human emissions from burning fossil fuels.  We know how much of a greenhouse effect these gases like carbon dioxide have, and the increase we've seen is enough to have caused almost all of the warming we've seen over the past 30 years (about 80-90%).  You can see a model of the various factors over the past century here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clima...

This is enough evidence to convince almost all climate scientists that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming.

Answer 10

yes

Answer 11

From real climate.org

"According to ExxonSecrets.org, the Heartland Institute describes itself as “the marketing arm of the free-market movement” and has received $791,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The Heartland Institute is in no way a scientific organization. It is a propaganda mill. "

"The success of the fossil fuel industry’s multi-million dollar, years long campaign of propaganda to disinform the American public about the reality of global warming cannot be underestimated. They successfully delayed serious action to reduce emissions (and the consumption of their products) by ten or twenty years at least. With ExxonMobil alone reaping annual profit approaching 40 billion dollars, the payoff for the paltry millions they’ve paid outfits like Heartland has been huge."

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_peti...   dispells the myth about 17,000 scientists who are skeptics on AGW

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics    

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfact...

http://www.wor ldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_p...

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

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

These will answer your question. Of course we are causing global warming.

Answer 12

It is not so much a lie but a mistake in the science. I have been doing much research about the climate and temperature and what can affect what and I have reached the conclusion that global warming is caused naturally.

Answer 13

A lot of people gave you the benefit of doubt and assumed you meant anthropogenic but since you are quite specific that you mean anthropological I will take you at your word.  If the key word is anthropological then the subject of anthropological global warming is not so much a lie as it is without meaning.  Anthropological means scientific study of the origin, the behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of humans.  How you think that relates to global warming is a mystery to me.  

It is reassuring that you are in no way doubting there is global change in climate.

Answer 14

It isn't a lie, but rather the incorrect interpretation of the data.

The Earth was warming slightly, but the cause wasn't man.  It was the Sun.

Man has added just a scant 100ppm (parts per million) over the last 100 years.  That's just one molecule of co2 per million per year.  

Clearly the Sun has more input to the climate than just one molecule of co2.  However the myth of AGW is a big money maker, and greed of a few and the greed of the media keep this myth going.

Answer 15

The problem, and it's a huge one, with the "Movie" An Inconvenient Truth. Is that is only takes into account the time period that records have been kept. The REAL truth is that we need to look at the data as far back as we can see (Antarctic Ice, Ocean Mud and other data like fossil remains). They show that Alaska was a "Rain Forest" up until the last Ice Age. The Earth has been slowly warming since the last Ice Age and still has not reached the temperatures of pre Ice Age.

The other thing to consider is "life thrives in a green house type environment". Very few animals live in the cold climates

Answer 16

If they got to use a word that big,it's gotta be a lie.

Answer 17

OK OK, humans account for .115 of the global warming causing gases in the air.  Global warming exists but.. the human race, to Global Warming is like 10 cents in $100.  You figure the rest.

Answer 18

It's not a lie. Basically it is one of N iNCONVENIENT truth. hAVE A NICE DAY.

Answer 19

Not so much a lie as a poorly supported hypothesis.