Is the science behind global warming settled?

Question

I believe it is not.

check out this link and tell me what you think.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37cd65f0-802a-23ad-4a69-5a1509a4a551

Answer 1

WOW!  Until we are officially underwater, this one can not be put to rest!  

First....... do you know what happens first?

Most people believe that the climates will begin to warm unseasonably........ that is false!  That is not a response of global warming, that is only an effect of climate tendencies.  This is a phenomenon that many newscasters are calling global warming because they have not lived long enough to have seen it happen in the past.  This is normal!  What we will see however, is a cooler issue......

If global warming continues........ the polar ice caps (glaciers) will continue to melt.  These glaciers are fresh water ice........ positioned in a salt water environment.  Due to their size and magnitude, their melting will result in a decrease in the salinity of the earth's ocean waters.  Without getting into physics, I will simply say that the salinity of the ocean is what allows the flow of the atmoshperic seasons.  Once the salinity is disrupted to a certain point, the ocean will lose its ability to bring in the "cold fronts" and "warm fronts" that allow us in the northern hemisphere to have summer and winter.  The first to be disrupted will be the warm fronts, and we (in the northern hemisphere) will see horribly harsh winters.  After several years, the atmosphere will begin to rejuvinate itself, and will overcompensate........ causing much warmer climates.  This will happen much more rapidly than the cold.  With the research that I have done, I have not found anything that is definite beyond this point.  However, I recommend everyone doing his own research.  I am only reproducing what I have read.  It does make sense......... national geographic has an excellent rendition, as does the discovery channel!

Answer 2

No, it will NEVER be settled simply because there are so many people that refuse to do anything.Either oil companies that will lose money, politicians that are paid off, or people that just don't care either way

Personally i think it's idiocy, when most of the scientific world has concrete evidence AND the predicted effects are now happening, there is just NO debate.

But people are STILL pulling every excuse they can. "well in 1710 there a flood that severe" and "oh the hottest day was 600 years ago. GW isn't real!"

Answer 3

senator inhofe is a fanatical global warming denier

frankly, the guy isn't very bright:

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

Answer 4

I think it is pretty self-explanatory, actually.  Scientists are saying that sea levels will rise in the next century, but they're not sure exactly when or how much and even if the warming has been influenced by mankind they say there is nothing we can do to prevent it.

Everything that I have read as the research has advanced has said essentially the same thing.  What I glean from all of this is that the science of global warming itself is pretty much settled-and the climate is indeed changing with worldwide temperatures increasing.  What effect it will have on mankind and whether our activities can and have influence(d) it to any large degree is not settled, but it is fairly certain that we have at least contributed to the problem.

Thing is, I'm not a scientist, so I follow the reports with some interest and am trying to be more environmentally concious in the course of it.  The guy that works up at the convenience store must BE a scientist, because he KNOWS that global warming is a big fraud.  I guess he's financing his basement research lab with a second job ringing up gasoline and cigarettes.

I don't think it's fear-mongering at all.  People are over-reacting to a public scientific debate.

Answer 5

Don't confuse issues here. You are citing an article which questions the severity of flooding caused by warming, not whether it is occuring or whether it is caused by man. This is similar to the brain f**t skeptics pull when they try to dismiss the entirety of Gore's movie by nitpicking particular contraversial estimates. Doesn't fly with smart people, but it will likely work on this forum.

Answer 6

No - nor can it be. You have to first understand the way science is done: an observation is made and after reviewing the facts and drawing a conclusion from them, a hypothesis drawn. Then tests are designed that could either prove or disprove the hypothesis. If the hypothesis appears to be verified by tests and evidence, it may become a theory. If new evidence is discovered the theory may have to be revised. A theory is about as close to "settled" that science ever gets because there is always the possibility of new evidence that would disprove it. Thus real science is never settled, and to say so is simply ignorance of these facts and this process.

Since you post this question in the global warming section, let me address the alleged "consensus" of scientists supporting AGW. First, science is not a matter of consensus - it is a matter of facts. If 95% of a group (a consensus by anyone's standard) say 2+2 = 5, they are still wrong. Second, the alleged consensus is actually only agreement among a very small group of politicized scientists who get paid nice sums to tailor their conclusions to best support the global governance agenda of the IPCC/UN.

There are plenty of scientists and PhDs who can assure you that global warming science is far from settled.

Answer 7

The science is settled on the following points.

Global warming is real, mostly caused by us, a serious problem, and capable of being solved by us.

The details are still being debated.  How fast?  What will be the effect on hurricanes?  Etc.

The link you cite is simply Senator Inhofe's political staff.  He's a denier (he practically defines the term) who is not taken seriously on this issue.  He has a reputation as one of the dumbest Senators, if not at the very top of the list.

Perhaps his most famous outrageous statement was after the Oklahoma City bombing.  He said (on National TV) there probably weren't very many casualties because federal employees wouldn't be at their desks at 9:00, instead they would be off having coffee somewhere.

Many people in Oklahoma consider him an embarrassment, but his money from the oil industry has bought him elections.  This year he has a serious opponent, and he may well lose.

Answer 8

Al Gore isn't a climateologist(patent pending) and he received a Nobel Prize. AGW proponents more fierce than Tom Cruise defending Scientology.

Answer 9

Is this the best that you can do?  Two dozen prominent scientists???

Swift Boater Marc Morano has updated this list on Senator Inhofe’s blog to include 400 prominent scientists:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

Of course most of these scientists are not climatologists, and only a handful has published anything on climate in peer-reviewed journals. The lists also includes people like Habibullo Abdusamatov

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

and Chris Allen. Allen’s reasoning is “My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on.”

http://www.wbko.com/unclassified/1270907...

Anyhow, even a list of 400 skeptics is just a drop in the bucket when considering the total number of scientists with a relevant knowledge of climate research. For example, the AGU is one organization that has over 50, 000 members[1], the majority of whom hold a Ph.D. in Earth science. I'm willing to bet that almost every of the 50,000 members acknowledge anthropogenic global warming. If they didn't then their names would have already found their way onto one of Senator Inhofe's lists.

Oh, and those two dozen scientists quoted in your link are not disputing manmade global warming, just that Jamestown VA, and NASA’s Johnson Space Center will soon be flooded by rising sea levels.

Answer 10

No.

In my opinion I think that world is getting warmer.  I think that the world has gotten warmer and colder for eons.  I do not think that we can change it or cause it.  

However, if we are causing it so is everybody else on the planet and I am not ready to become a third world country to change it.  While everyone else on the planet is still causing it!!!!!!   Also, I am getting tired of us giving money to everyone else.  We will do that until we are poor and a third world country!! then our enemies will come and kill us!!  They laugh at us a lot now and kill us too.

Answer 11

Of course it is not.

Definition of science::

"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena"

The word "theoretical"  pretty much explains why the science is not settled.

This is basic 9th grade science. But sadly this definition of science was lost in high school over a decade ago.