When will global warming doubters have enough information to make up their minds?

Question

The vast majority of scientists in the world agree that humans are having an impact on the warming of the world's environment. Doubters say there's not enough information to determine if global warming really exists.

At what point will enough information be in for you to be convinced either way? Since nothing is 100% CERTAIN but actually BELIEVED based on available information, I don't see that you have the capacity to be convinced.

Answer 1

I have no doubt about it, its a total sham.

Did you ever get your $19.99 back from .......

Answer 2

My own personal, largely uneducated opinion is that peopel will be people. People all the time ignore stuff because ti makes life easier for them to accept. They can deny whatever they want whether you present them with proof or not. And it works in reverse as well. Some people accept concepts that they don't really understand them, but because they accept them it makes life easier. The US government would frankly rather spend their 560 billion dollar military budget on attacking Iraq then sending it to a noble cause like helping our envirnment. But just because they refuse to accept the concept of Global Warming doesn't make them bad. What makes them bad is that they don't spend it bettering the environment in which we live. Which is what you are proposing by saying Global Warming exsists, either way, from my standpoint, the environment needs help. We need to quickly start the hybrid movement, then quickly move towards a solar or other energy source for cars. The huge budgets that the US has makes them a large working force, but I am not saying they are bettert han any country. All countries should be working together to better the world. The governments are being stupid, and the people they rule over are being lazy and headstrong, which frankly is a horrible combination.

Answer 3

WOW!  So science is a popularity contest?  Such a sad state science has gone to these days.  Science is knowledge, not the opinion of scientist.

At one time the consensus of scientist thought the Earth was at the center of the solar system.  The had the working models to prove it.  It was a few skeptics who had the math, who knew not by opinion, or a vote of selected scientist, but by the math where the planets would be positioned.

No one knows if the climate will be warmer or colder any time in the future let alone show the math to back up their work.  Any prediction is just that, a guess.  Guesses aren't science.

Belief is for mystics, soothsayers, and fortune tellers.  This is the realm of religion, not science.

Answer 4

The Earth's climate has never been stable. Never. THAT is what all scientists agree upon. There are only a very miniscule number that believes that the Earth's climate is static.

There have been thousands of warming and cooling periods. Some have been dramatic, such as in the Ice Ages of 20-12,000 years ago that saw massive glaciation cover much of the Northern hemisphere. Others have been more subtle, such as the brief warming period in Europe that was helped bring about the Great Potato Famine and caused the massive immigration to the America's.

The language of this natural process was hijacked over the last 20 years. In the mid-70's "climatologists" were predicting that man's contributions to CO2 levels was creating and would create a dramatic global cooling effect. Models were created, ice core samples were taken and the "man-made global cooling" supporters demanded the US stop or slow its economy to prevent global tragedy.  These "scientists" were predicting that New York City would be facing glaciers by 2000.

In the 1980's the "scientists" changed their tune. This time the CO2 levels were causing global warming. Models were created, ice core samples were taken and the "man-made global warming" supporters demanded the US stop or slow its economy to prevent global tragedy.

The "man-made global warming" crowd were regarded as a bunch of kooks or alarmists. Democratic president Bill Clinton and his Vice-President Al Gore recognized that there was very little serious science to back the claims.

The movement grew stronger after Gore lost his election bid and the "man-made global warming" argument was turned to a direct attack against George Bush. The new attack seized upon Hurricane Katrina as an example of the coming Apocalypse. Remember that there were to be even more and worse hurricanes to follow Katrina. All those models predicted it. Science. Hmph.

The mainstream media has followed lock-step by skipping the lack of strong, accurate science and simply describing all climactic change as "global warming." The "science" has been further obscured by the political motives of those who wish to de-power American capitalism.

Since the thrust of the attacks have often been levelled at  the Bush administration and American "Big Business" it becomes fairly obvious that the entire topic is political and not scientific.  The lack of attempts to force or coerce China, India, Brazil and the Soviet Union to shrink their economies shows that the movement is aimed at the American economic machine. Europe is already recognizing the inherent flaws in the entire "Carbon footprint" message.

And that is why there are so many people who remain unconvinced.

Answer 5

Here is a link to a interesting contrary documentary. (Warning it is 75 minutes)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

If you have not seen it, it is called “The Great Global Warming Swindle.”  The title may sound propagandist, and the beginning of it a bit unpolished, but the “movie” plains off with some good content and commentary, and I believe worth the watch.

Answer 6

I'm waiting on proponents of Global Warmingism to propose some serious remedy instead of c**p like buying Priuses and turning rainforests into biofuel croplands.

Answer 7

When I see verifiable, quantitative evidence indicating that:

1) The current warming trend is something other than that expected by the normal climate cycles that have been going on for at least 500,000 years.

2) There is a strong link to the 0.0001 volume fraction increase in CO2 that can be attributed to human activity to the demonstrated temperature deviations shown in 1).

Answer 8

Some news is just too awful to believe.  Your parents are getting divorced.  Your sister has cancer.  An entire city is besieged by flood-waters and help doesn't come or not soon and not enough (oh wait, that one happened ...)

The skeptics are treading on melting permafrost, so to speak.  The reality is that the science is there and verified many times over, hundreds of governments are addressing the situation, some well, some not -- our country acknowledged the situation several Presidents ago, but this administration bogged us/the world down with its reticence -- and there are dozens of universities in this country alone with respected programs studying the problems involved and attempting to find viable solutions.

I'm no longer worried about the die-hard skeptics.  I'm learning about global climate change, I'm trying to reduce my ecological footprint.  I'm trying to help forge a resolution that will enable my children and grandchild to lead quality lives, without cursing the generations that lived before for befouling the nest so badly.

There are some here on Yahoo who resolutely refuse to admit the truth and who turn their anger towards people like Gore and the members of the IPCC.  It's sad, really.  Then there are students at the universities below following career paths that allow them to effect change and be part of the solution, part of a path that allows us to make better choices.  That's wonderful.

Answer 9

I don't think that will happen.

I want to hear what Alarmists will say when temperatures drop and cooling oceans begin to reabsorb CO2. ? ?

Will they claim they prevented AWG by stopping CO2 emissions in the USA all the while China continues to Grow and increase CO2 emissions.?

Answer 10

Sorry but I don't think humans have that much power. There is not a consensus of scientists that agree we are facing a crisis. Things are cyclical.  BTW, the earths temps have actually COOLED a couple of degrees the past several years.

Remember the scare in the mid 1970s. Scientists were certain we were about to have an "ice age." Sorry, didn't happen!

In addition, even IF there is a crisis, what are we going to do about it? No one is going to give up their cars and every study I've seen shows that even if this was done, the affect would be so tiny that it wouldn't make a difference.

Answer 11

Doesn't the weather/temperature have a sort of cycle? If this is the case, couldn't so-called 'global warming' be a part of that cycle?

Answer 12

First of all, I doubt that I could be convinced that CO2 is responsible for warming our planet, because there is not nearly enough of it to worry about. CO2 is at present  0.038% of Earth’s atmosphere, and even if the total increase by three fold, it will only be at 1% .

Lastly, man’s contribution to this measly percentage is much less than natures. Even if we could equal the amount of CO2 that a volcano belches out, the total amount of it would be insignificant.

Answer 13

Show me how CO2 levels on Earth affect solar cycles and I'll buy AGW.

Answer 14

Well, having at least one scientific study support the pro AGW theory would be a start.

Also, there is no "vast" majority which believes in  AGW. There are hundreds of scientist who disagree with the theory. This is part of the Pro AGW loonies trying to divert the scientific debate.

As for the 100% certainty, a theory needs to be supported by scientific research. Man causing the majority of the warming has no data to back it up.