Is there not enough evidence of global warming?

Question

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/baldwin-park-ca/TNREVDF0724D7NR1H

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_re_us/severe_weather

http://livelovetravel.com/blog/2008/05/23/fire-then-rain-brings-mud-flood-to-sierra-madre/

what more do you need?

Answer 1

The problem is that for the past two years temperatures have cooled dramatically due to a strong La Nina.

"A cool-water anomaly known as La Niña occupied the tropical Pacific Ocean throughout 2007 and early 2008. In April 2008, scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that while the La Niña was weakening, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation—a larger-scale, slower-cycling ocean pattern—had shifted to its cool phase.

Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns."

Full story here:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroo...

In summary, that effects that we are seeing is due to GLOBAL COOLING, not warming.

Answer 2

Wait, what is this "evidence" supposed to prove? That the Earth has warmed? Yeah, we knew that.

If that was meant to be evidence of anthropogenic global warming, then I need more evidence.

Answer 3

There is enough evidence already

Answer 4

To some the world is still flat.

You can't win them all.

Answer 5

global warming. think carefully about who is championing its cause. remember the peace loving flower power children of the sixties. now sitting on board of multinational corporations. eating up all the resources pushing for globalization, thru the 60,70,80 and 90's. they took as much as they could get, always consuming. "love your work', were did this term come from. does it sound Orwellian. cell phones,laptops and blackberries are the new shackles for the brave new enslaved. we call it productivity and the advancement of technology. some say its the decline of (civil)ization.

now the flower children are feeling the pangs of remorse and maybe some guilt. since they kept taking and consuming. it is time to conserve and bring in the religion of environmentalism. of course it is the next generation ask to pick up the pieces. 40 years of suv's, jets, cottages, atv's, air conditioning,ski-doos, jet ski's. children it is time to start bicycling and taking your lunch in a paper bag, clothes lines.

stop eating anything because it is all bad for you. look at the lifestyle of Al Gore.

china and India are entering the industrial revolution. stop building your coal fired electrical plants. but keep sending us gap, calvins, D&G, R.L.,..... think very carefully.

Answer 6

Get some Prozac for your panic attacks.  The government would love you to do so.

My 2 cents.

Answer 7

There is plenty of evidence that it is a farce. Open your mind! Stop listening to your liberal professors and polititions, they just want more ways to controll you and take your money.

Answer 8

We've had storms forever. What I find curious is that Gore and company said we would have so many hurricanes and we've had very few. If they can't predict the weather for one season they sure can't tell the future.

Answer 9

None of the links you provided are convincing.  One, the YouTube link, shows a supposedly National Geographic video (a fake?) preaching about an already happening global warming and melting ice etc.

Well, where on earth is the temperature warmer now due to global warming?  Nowhere.

What about all this polar ice melting?

Read your history, it's nothing new.

Tornadoes, fires, storms etc. are not evidence of g/w.  The earth has always had them in great abundance.

So...with not a shred of evidence to support the 'theory' of g/w, it's very difficult to swallow.  The way this is being handled by the alarmists (they REFUSE to debate, because they know they can be made fools of) is certainly a circus at best, or 'science' at it's worst.  Junk science and lies.  

Global warming is one sad theory that ought to have died years ago.

Answer 10

THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THE ICE AGE HAS BEGAN

Answer 11

Global warming is a natural process of nature whether mankind was here or not. Plus you cannot ignore the sun and the cycles its going through.

Ask yourself, why was there global warming on a massive scale here on earth during the dinosaur period. What was happening to the earth's climate in between ice ages? Why is the Sun's energy output never the same? Why did Greenland have forest in the past and today it is under ice and snow? Why have the receding glaciers in Canada exposed ancient forest that use to exist where the glaciers are now?

Answer 12

it's not a matter of evidence. God himself could come down here and tell these people that they're destroying earth and they'd just call him a liberal.

these kind of people simply don't give two sh**s about this planet and they never will. and with all the resistance to even OTHER people changing and conserving more you'd think they were actually conspiring to destroy earth intentionally

Answer 13

If that is your evidence you really need to rethink your argument.

Answer 14

ya of course .... u dont know

Answer 15

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND 31,000 SCIENTISTS HAVE FILLED OUT A SURVEY TO SHOW PROOF THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS'NT CAUSED BY MAN AND http://www.inventube.com/ooojay/blog/ will show you how to delete global warming safely.

Answer 16

So you think that there were never any storms prior to the last decade?

Are you kidding me?

Do some research and you'll see some pretty terrifying natural disasters in our past that occurred during cool periods.  I'll even make it easy for ya and get you started, mmmm k?

EDIT: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseac...

Answer 17

No, there is not enough evidence of AGW.  If you are a thinking person and look deep enough at most of the support references given here, you will see time and again there is an abundance of reasons to cast doubt.

Here a few excerpts taken from website references given by AGW supporters here in YA.  I will number them and then follow with my comments using the same numbering.

Once again every one of these has been taken from material cited by those who support AGW.  Several of the people using these citations have basically said it’s a closed case.  I think this information from references they cited shows otherwise:

1.  A dramatic global warming, at least partly associated with the record El Niño, took place in 1998.  

2.  Sea ice in the Antarctic has shown very little trend over 1973 to 2007 time period, or even a slight increase since 1979.

3.  Scientists still debate the cause of climate changes. Glaciers expand and contract in natural 20,000-year cycles. Spots on the sun occur in 11-year cycles. Both affect Earth's climate.

4.  However, some scientists argue that the global warming we are experiencing now is a natural phenomenon, and is part of Earth's natural cycle.  Presently, nobody can prove if either theory is correct, but one thing is certain; the world has been emitting greenhouse gases at extremely high rates and has shown only small signs of reducing emissions until the last few years.

Now my comments:

1.  AGW proponents commonly cite a period that includes El Niño but many do not cite that as a cause for at least part of the temperature increase in that time period.

2.  Many AGW believers put such emphasis on Arctic Ice but they find it much less interesting to discuss Antarctic Ice.  I wonder why?

3.  Ah, yes, a citation from their references that says scientists still debate … many of the people on YA like to deny this, even though people they cite say it is still open to debate and other causes may be responsible for GW.

4.  I love this one.  Yes some scientists argue that global warming is a natural phenomenon, but we see these greenhouse gases.  This is my favorite.  This would be like a lawyer arguing to convict someone of murder using the following argument:  Well you may debate who stabbed the victim to death, but one thing is certain no one can argue that the accused does not have the largest collection of knives in the area.