Where do you stand on global warming>?

Question

do you think its all true,

or do you believe in the great global warming scandel and think the world is heating up due to a natural cycle?

opinions please!

Answer 1

I really don't know what to believe.  The temperature data that has been used for years to track the Earth's temperature trends has been found to be deficient.  

If the data used is flawed.....then so is the 'science'.

Answer 2

It's true.  People are killing the planet.  I do recycle & walk when I can instead of driving etc....

Answer 3

The temperature dropped from 1940 - 1975, and most scientists don't believe it's caused by us : Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth."  "Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact," Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)

Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. "There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried," Uriate wrote.  

Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number - entirely without merit," Tennekes wrote. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. "The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming.  The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming," Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.  

France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic.  Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming - Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology.  "Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts' and ‘sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"

Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."  

Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. "The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases," Winterhalter said.  

Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. "I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong," Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added:  "The earth will not die."  

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process."  

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.  

India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles."

USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: "Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem."  

Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: "The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."  

South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: "The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming."

Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels."  

Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation."  

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions."

China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated' - Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan's and Sun Xian's 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change."  

Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: "The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect climate."

Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute's Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it."

Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. "Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate."  

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this." Wojick added: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

# # #

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary  

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight time the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific "consensus" in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged "thousands" of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )

UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science."

The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that "solar changes significantly alter climate." (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 - 2002. (LINK)  Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period "0.3C warmer than 20th century" (LINK)

A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found "Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes." (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )

With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the "silent majority" of scientists."

So there you have it.

Answer 4

natural cycle. all reports of extreme heat or extreme cold are always followed by the last time the temps were so extreme, basically all have been within 100 years.

i do however believe its good to become more aware of what we're doing and to be less dependent on fossil fuels.

Answer 5

My soul has already left your planet.  I can look at the horizon at any time of the day and see the brown layer of car exhaust and since I've flown to Europe many times I know that it is all over the world.  Also I know that it used to not be here when I flew 35 years ago.  Also I am alarmed at the number of jack asses who write here that they are not believers in human caused atmosphere depletion/poisoning.  Temperature extremes result from a thinned out atmosphere, just look at Mars.  I also think that mankind is giving itself the shaft of death by agreeing to be bound by current government insistance on not allowing new technolgies to go forward quickly enough.  My antidote is the Jet Stream, all that is required is the tower to collect it and use it for transportation here on the planets surface. (Constant 150 mph winds available at elevations beginning at 3,000 feet)  This power is obviously a permanent and clean method of transportation, using large tubes and cannisters to transport items and people.  We could use the current unemployed (millions of people needed) to construct these devices that intercept the jet stream and send it down tubes to interchange receptacles on Earth.  etc.  etc.   But then again,  I'm the one who wants to use proven methods to eliminate the need for all water in the depositing of human waste process.

Answer 6

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...

A recent study concluded:

“the range of  [Northern Hemisphere]-temperature reconstructions and natural forcing histories…constrain the natural contribution to 20th century warming to be <0.2°C [less than one-third of the total warming].  Anthropogenic forcing must account for the difference between a small natural temperature signal and the observed warming in the late 20th century.”

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104...

You can see this in the third graph here, where the dotted lines are just from natural causes, and the full lines are natural + human causes:

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol104/issue...

If that’s not enough to convince you the Sun isn’t responsible, consider the fact that no scientific study has ever attributed more than one-third of the warming over the past 30 years to the Sun, and most attribute just 0-10% to the Sun.

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

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 7

I want some of whatever constapato just smoked, I think maybe he is sharing with Dana but holding out on the rest of us.

So lets see...Yeah we are hotter globally. Anthropogenic causes are adding to it. but the governments and media are hyping it up to make a buck. We have been accusing them of this for years, now this issue comes along and suddenly we believe everything they say??? How do you tell when a politician is lying: His lips are moving.

Answer 8

I think that global warming is a real issue that should be a concern to us all now and is only going to get worse, rapidly.

However, I think that people are getting confused by the expanding population, the planets inability to support us, the wiping out of the fish stock, the extinction of flora and fauna, coral bleaching, expanding desert, arctic ice melting, third world debt, poverty and starvation, illeagal logging, multi drug resistant TB, and all the other issues facing humanity and then pushing them all together and labeling it as "global warming". Some of these issues are a result of man made Global Warming and some are the result of 6.6 BILLION people destroying the environment.

And then they see the problem as to big to start fixing, so, therefore there is no point to do anything about it as no one else is, etc. However all these issues could be broken down and we ,collectively, could go someway to solving them. However, unfortunately, we are human and historically, when ever there has been a time to band together for the good of all, we have choose to bomb, kill, invade, and attack and take what ever we wanted from are neighbors. *Sigh*.

Check this out its really cool and puts things into perspective. click on the now button and it will all zero.

http://www.peterrussell.com/Odds/WorldCl...

and have you watched this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVz...

Answer 9

Everybody seems to have gobs of sites and information they like to quote, but generally these sites are biased by propaganda and junk science.

The Earth's cycles don't take billions of years.  The cycles can occur within the time frame of tens of thousands of years, with mini-warming and cooling phases in between.  

And when you consider that the energy that warms the Earth comes ENTIRELY from the Sun, how is it possible to say that the Sun contributes less than 10% of the causes of any warming that occurs on the Earth?  Ludicrous.

The Earth has been undergoing climate change since it developed an atmosphere in it's early formation, and after it's crust hardened and cooled enough for the oceans to form.  

When you look at the size and scale and complexity of the Earth and the tremendous heat exchange properties between the oceans and atmosphere and land masses, mankind's efforts are reduced to mere nuisances.

When one major volcanic eruption can emit more greenhouse and toxic gases than all the pollution released by mankind from the beginning of the industrial revolution to present, the contributions of mankind's living seem rather puny.  The one thing man could do to upset the Earth's balance would be a massive nuclear war, and we can only hope and pray that such a thing would never happen.

The warming period after that last major ice-age occurred long, long before there were any SUV's or industrial pollution.  What caused this to happen?  Massive Mastodon flatulation?  Mammoth methane?  I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say it was the Sun and possibly a minor change in the Earth's tilt and rotation.

Why worry about something that nobody has any control over?  And who can say that the climate we have right now is the optimum condition of the Earth?  I don't think anybody alive today has been around long enough to describe anything better.

But this is a matter you have to decide for yourself.  Are you going to be calm and accept things as they are or are you going to become one of the "chicken-littles" of the world, hanging onto Al Gore's coattails as he preaches doom and gloom and "why don't you buy some of my carbon credits to save the world?"

Now, you'll have to excuse me while I go out and fire up my charcoal burning grill and char some beef ...

Answer 10

there's been so many things happening around the world with floods snow high winds and lots more some thing is definitely changing

Answer 11

The world is heating up due to a natural cycle.  However, that shouldn't be taking place for another 3 to 4 billion years.  

I definitely believe that it has a lot to do with human beings and the burning of fossil fuels.

Answer 12

natural cycle...

ice age - theory/myth

no actual proof of ice ages

Answer 13

FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL!!!

FEAR FEAR FEAR

fear and money grease the hinges to the gates to heaven.

Fear is being funded by the governments of the world.

Scientists spreading fear are getting RICH!!!

Al Gore owns a carbon credit company while his own house uses more energy than a neighborhood.

He justifies it by buying carbon credits from himself.

Environmentalism is a religion and fear is the glue that binds all religions together.

Sacred Mother EARTH

Lets restore Human sacrifice to stop global warming!!!

Humans are a cancer on the earth and earth needs to be rid of this cancer

Answer 14

Global warming is a fact. Some debate whether it is man made or not, but the fact is based on science is that the world has more CO2 than at any other time in history for the past 650,000 years. Isn't it strange that it happens to be occurring at the hight of industrialization?

Before the 20th century we had around a Billion people, and it took tens of thousands of years to reach that number. Now in not much more than a 100 years we have exponential that number, close to a whopping 7 billion, most of which are getting on the fossil fuel train will cars, refrigerators, air travel, etc.

The worlds forests are being cut down at the rate of about an acer a second contributing to the global warming effecting more than all the vehicle use in the world combined.

It does not take a brain surgeon to figure out that an every expanding population and the non renewable way we use finite resources that something has to give.

Intuition alone should give the right answers but if you really need it the research is available like it never has been before.

If one does not believe in global warming is a reality it because they are attached to some other ethos and don't want to admit the hard facts which might actually shake themselves out of it.Changing ones world view is scary for many people because what we believe gives us a sense of mental security.

Fortunately much of what we still believe can be held and believe that global warming exists. To me this is like believing there is a God and the world must be flat are two beliefs that must go together. As we have found out they are not mutually exclusive and the wonder that we have woken up to through this knowledge makes God seem all the more incredible.