Question:

What makes you a skeptic of Global warming?

by Guest63050  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

What makes you a skeptic of Global Warming.

Why are you a skeptic of Global Warming.

even if you are conservative, why don't you appreciate what god gave us?

And please, don't use vulgar language, be ignorant or arrogant, or post videos or a long list of facts 'proving' global warming wrong. I have seen most of them.

 Tags:

   Report

28 ANSWERS


  1. Absolutely no scientific data to back up the theory.

    Also, in life, I find most people who immediately go on the offensive (like the rabid AGW crazies) are hiding something or out right lying. They are unwilling to debate the issue. No main stream media debate has ever been featured at prime time. They are afraid to debate the facts. Instead ,they rely on name calling and personal attacks. Guilty


  2. The fundamental answer is money.  People are skeptics because global warming doesn't suit their economic interests.

  3. Wrong if it were there would be continually breaking of our 100 year records. It is not there. There are also some using it to make billions. Look at the oil Co. they are charging u 3 prices and trying to make U walk.

  4. right you say-scientific reality.Now answer this question-take your time at research.

    IS THIS THE FIRST TIME HUMANS ARE to WITNESS GLOBAL WARMING?

  5. nothing, i believe in global warming

  6. The head meteorologist of the UN said there has been no increase in temperature in the last 10 years.  It is likely that feedback mechanisms exist since water is a much greater green house gas.  More carbon in the air means it will be removed faster so it isn't a long term threat.  Higher temperatures with longer growing seasons are greatly superior to cold snaps that cause famine.

  7. when the gov does nothing at the g8 meeting, gets on smaller countries to do more, and then raise taxes to over cover highly nonpossible solutions

  8. 1. 50 years of differing  theories coming from meteorologists about the global climate. The imprecision of the computer models. The unquantified error range. The inattention to harder causes like the earths precession and sun cycles.

    The small quantity of atmospheric pollution caused by mankind when compared with Forest Fires and Volcanic activity. It's not the warming, it's the whys?

    2. I am not conservative

    3. I do appreciate  creation.

    3. I do support the implementation of the Kyoto Accord in my country. It is a good objective even without Global Warming. I similarly support the conservation of rain forests and wild life generally. Also more controlled fishing etc. etc. etc.

    4. Finally don't accuse people who differ in their opinions from yours as being "ignorant or arrogant". because it shows no mutual respect and a closed mind. Which to me means "ignorance" and "arrogance".

  9. Very simple.. there's no credible reason to believe man caused it, or has a significant impact on it.

  10. what makes me a skeptic of MAN-MADE global warming is the same scientists that are spouting off right now.... are the same ones that in the late '70's were saying we're heading to an ice age... plus 20 years of change isn't enough time to make the predictions that they are. plus i believe it's more due to sun spots than anything else. and, the earth warming and cooling cycles are natural.... nothing we can do will stop the trends... I can't wait to see the reaction of all these people when we have to start paying for carbon credits like al gore wants..... boy, can wait for that tax.

  11. I'm not a skeptic of global warming, the globe warms just as it cools, i do not, however, believe in anthropogenic global warming, and i do not believe the globe is warming now, simply because, it isn't.

  12. because al gore likes it, no just joking.  If u look at the weather patterns of the past thousand years ull see that the earth warms and cools regularly, in the 1200s, it was really really warm, and in the 1600s, it was super super cold, so i think, its just a phase And have u seen all the c**p thats out there that u can buy, to help conserve energy and all that, so people are makin a lot of money off of this whole climate thing, so thers a motive to lie about it

  13. There's a lot of misinformation on this topic, just as there's a lot of misinformation in the general public.

    Even though I'm an aspiring scientist, I'm starting to lose trust in what im hearing from scientists. There's scientists funded by government, and those funded by the big oil companies (who have a LOT of power). Its getting to the point where you don't know which is drawing conclusions with confirmation bias, and which are actually trying to give an all-round picture. I'm even starting to grow unsure of the large scientific organisations.

    One question that's still burning a whole in my mind, solar and orbital cycles aside, is why there is opposition that CO2 and CH4 contribute to the greenhouse effect. The ice cores that show temperature before CO2 cannot be relied upon. The scientists once said it was 2,000 years out, now they've gone to 80. There's no certainty in the relationship.

    I've heard absolutely nothing disproving that the more greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, the more long-wave radiation will be trapped. Of course, there's the aerosol effect and increased cloud formation, but that doesn't directly disprove the greenhosue effect.

    Even though the planet is not currently warming, no one can deny that glaciers are still melting (at an alarmign rate) at the current termpature, and once they're gone there'll be some severe water shortages around the globe. This is just one of the many problems we will face in the future.

  14. The lack of a clear guantitiative relationship between the increase in atmospheric CO2 (which I agree exists) and global averagle temperatures (which I agree have increased over the past 10,000 years).

  15. You can't ask people what makes them a skeptic and then tell us we can't give facts.  The facts are what make me a skeptic.  Like, say, a global history of a climatological cycle that shows that the earth has normal warming and cooling cycles that existed long before SUV's and are primarily dependent on solar flares.

    It's not that I don't appreciate what God gave us.  I don't want the world to be one big trash heap.  I compost and put my groceries in reusable shopping bags.  But there really isn't any solid evidence for global warming - it's all political hype with shaky scientific backing.  And with the amount of time Al Gore spends in private jets, he doesn't seem particularly concerned either.

  16. How is it a scientific reality???  I have asked for direct evidence for days on this site and I have yet to get any explanation...

    First we got the Greenhouse allegation, yet as you increase in altitude, all gasses become less dense....  Except for CO2 which miraculously and covertly gathers at some level to block discharging heat... YEAH!

    Then we got this spectral (Ghost) light thing.  Again, YEAH!  Does it get cold every single night?  So, CO2 cannot hold heat for one day but miraculously has the thermal retention properties to 'store' heat for 10, 20 or 30 years...  AGAIN YEAH!

    There is absolutely no proof that CO2 is the cause and no proof that we are warming for no other reason than coming away from an ice age and the sun....  That's pretty much it.... You are the ones that want us to follow blindly with absolutely no evidence whatsoever...

  17. to believe that  global warming is caused by human action, you have to believe that the small portion of greenhouse gas's added by human activities is enough to cause excess warming, and that this will be enough to cause a catastrophic, runaway warming.  

         CO2 is 380 parts per million. this works out  to 2 feet per mile.

          water vapor content varies. at a median 2%, there would be 105.6 feet per mile of this very effective greenhouse gas. Water also conveys heat upward : it evaporates (absorbing heat), it rises , it condenses -releasing heat into the upper air &  When it's hot, it does more of it, and forms more clouds, which reflect light away.    

           when it's a clear night, the temperature drops rapidly as soon as the sun is down. I'm not very impressed by CO2s effectiveness at holding in heat.

          And the preffered solution - "cap & trade"  sounds like an orwellian nightmare, aimed at making "industry"  pay for their carbon excess. They have a way of passing the cost along, you know.

          Ithink we should limit our efforts to doing things that we should do anyway. We have a real problem with oil - lets tax oil, and reduce speed limits by 1/3rd. , not pretend that "business will

    pay". if electricity cost's a lot here, it's another reason that no sensible businessman would build a factory here. producers and manufacturers use a lot of energy. it's not like you can reduce the power consumption of an aluminum refiner much, by putting in low watt lights.

  18. for one thing if there was "Global warming" why am I so cold

  19. I've seen the truth and the actual science behind it, the earth is warming, but it is due to sun spots and not carbon dioxide and/or methane.

  20. As a skeptic, I look to scientifically verified and supported data and review it. Asking me to not post facts contradicts the entire point of asking this question. I fully appreciate "what god gave us" and I'm simply trying to show through analysis and data review that anthropogenic climate change is fallacy.

    I endorse the 1500 year cycle, which is a proven climate theory, after tracking thermal fluctuations over history, that documents that natural variations in temperature occur approximately every 1500 years.

    When mean temperature increase is caused by these fluctuations there is a release of CO2 from the oceans, which hold an estimated 95% of the sum CO2 on the planet. There is then a consequent increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, but CO2  increases do not seem to directly impact on temperature. In fact, to find the valid conclusion you must inverse this theory, i.e. temperature increases have a direct impact upon atmospheric CO2 levels.

    As for sea level rise due to icecap/berg melting, this theory can be disproved by an extremely simple scientific experiment. You simply place ice cubes in a glass, measure the water level, allow the ice cubes to melt, and stumble upon the following conclusion: the water level remains the same.

    The effect of thermosteric  heating upon the oceans would have effect, if the temperature were currently rising. The warmest decade on record over the past century was the 1930's, which also held 4 of the top 10 warmest years on record for the past century. Obviously, due to smaller population sizes and decreased technological innovation anthropogenic CO2 release was minimal in comparison to todays levels, from which it could be concluded that there is in fact no correlation  between CO2 increases and temperature increases.

    A final point, CO2 layering in the atmosphere is similar to the layering of black paint against a window, it has a diminishing effect. The first layer of paint will block sunlight to a total of 85%. The next layer might make the sum blockage 95%, the next 97% and so on. The effect is dramatically diminishing, and so will have less and less effect as time passes.

    But this fact is rendered irrelevant when you realize that CO2 increase has no effect upon mean temperature. One of my major concerns about this issue is its transformation from a scientific and an objective issue to a political and subjective, sentimental issue.

    When reviewing data scientifically it is essential to remain objective and stick to the facts. The inability of the general populace to differentiate fact from propaganda is a major concern for me. It is these reasons, amongst others that make me a skeptic of global warming.

  21. I am an Ecologist and was in Antarctica six years ago. The scientists down there told me that the Continent was getting colder, and that the only part that was loosing ice was the peninsular, and that was due to sea currents.

    At the same time the politicians and media were being hysterical about the ice caps melting, and how we are all going to drown.

    On another occasion, I was visiting the Arctic Research Institute in St Petersburg and was told that the Academicians there (Geologists, Meteorologists, paleontologists, Permafrost scientists, Oceanographers) do not consider the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis to be correct.

    Since then I have taken anything said by the AGW lobby with a very large pinch of salt.

    As requested, I have not provided any facts to back up my statements, but I do find you attitude very similar to the IPPC who also refuse to hear any facts that contradict their political agenda of man made global warming

  22. I believe that we should take care of the environment and not pollute, but I disagree that man is responsible for global warming. Mostly due to the fact that the Earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. What about the Vikings? Did they use Hummers?

  23. Let's see...the source of the warning is biased.  The data range is too small and too short to make the claims expressed.  The data collection method leaves too large a margin for error.  Too many variables affecting the Earth's climate are beyond man's current understanding, which the experts admit readily.  It doesn't prevent them from making predictions using models including these variables with assumed figures.  The emotionally charged cries to action smack of propaganda.  Those preaching "repent" the loudest are the biggest "sinners".  The proposals being presented in local and federal regulatory bodies don't address the problem, but use the problem as justification for additional revenue through taxation.  It has been warmer in the past.  It will be colder in the future.  I'll be dead before it's a real issue, if it ever becomes one.

    ....and that's the tip of the iceberg.

  24. global warming? like climate change is still a highly debatable issue among scientist around the globe. here's one argument: in all the ads, we always hear that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide traps UV rays thus, heating the earth's atmosphere. however, if we take a closer look of the earth's atmosphere, 90% is made up of nitrogen and carbon dioxide and other gases comprise only a small part of it. so how can we say and prove scientifically that CO2 really causes the heating of the earth while none of us even the scientists who only use simulation models made from their hypothesis do not also know how much co2 is actually present in the atmosphere and drastically affect our climate? anyone?

  25. Nature  gives back to us,if we mess with it

  26. Scientific consensus is a misnomer, consensus is a political term not a scientific one.

    Consensus means that most have an opinion that is similar, so yes it is just an opinion at this point that the theory is correct.

    A theory is what man made global warming is by scientific definition. Just trying to change the definition and the debate does not make it proven.

    People can voluntarily do whatever they want to personally address the problems they perceive but they shouldn't try to push their beliefs in a theory on everyone else. I think any knee jerk solutions that are forced into public policy before the results can be proven could possibly harm our ecosystem more than anyone can know.

    Be cautious, you may buy the dog now only to get the fleas later.

  27. A above average understanding of ecological balances. But it means nothing compared to the lack of government inaction. Old problem, with no real solutions, just higher tax's, prices, and more institutional committee's.

  28. there is no man made global warming. the earth naturally goes through warming and cooling periods. the has only been ice on the poles for the last 13,000 years. it's uncommon for there to be ice at the poles. and as for it melting, according to plate technotics the continents are shifting apart north America and Europe. this is allowing more room for the warm water near the equator to be circulated to the cold water at the poles. go look on a map and you can see that there isn't much room now for circulating water between north America and Asia and north America and Europe but as these passes expand more water gets circulated and causes ice to melt.  Seriously ask any physical geologist about global warming and they will tell you that there is no scientific evidence to prove it is being caused by man and our big S.U.V.'s

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 28 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.