Whether the earths warming is caused by humans or natural process is an open question in science?

Question

I`m simply asking if this is an open question in the scientific community. Is it fair to assume that scientists have not come to a broad consensus?

Answer 1

All questions in science are open and subject to change as new data comes in. If you're looking for absolutes, go to church.

Having said that, there is a very strong consensus among climate scientists that human beings are causing the current warmth through the burning of fossil fuels.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

Answer 2

Most of the scientists that want funding to research global warming says that is mainly man-made.  According to actual data, only about 1% of all green house gases including water vapor is man-made.  This does not mean that we could be better, but it makes you wonder about the ethics of some of our scientists.  In large metro areas, the percent that is man-made is higher.

Answer 3

I have noticed that people who believe in Global Warming seldom help people with science questions in other sections of Yahoo Answers. Seems contradictory to me, if they really know science and care about other people.

Answer 4

I think most people would be surprised to hear that the answer is BOTH! There is scientific proof that the earth and sun go through warming and cooling trends. (ever heard of an ice age?) Also, there can be no doubt that humans can affect the earths climate.

Answer 5

Yes, it is an open question, but so is the cause of gravity. Scientific organizations statement (Joint science academies’ statement 2005) from the G8 nations.

"It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate."

Furthermore...

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now

sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It

is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they

can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term

reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."

Signatories shown below...

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil

Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

Royal Society of Canada, Canada

Académie des Sciences, France

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Leopoldina, Germany

Indian National Science Academy, India

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei,Italy

Science Council of Japan, Japan

Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia

National Academy of Sciences, United States of America

Royal Society, United Kingdom

The Joint science academies’ statement 2007 is also linked below.

Answer 6

Global warming is a process caused by abrupt human activities which are against Mother nature. This is due to recent developments which is causing a major threat to natural processes of nature.

Scientists all over the world are requesting people to stop or reduce some luxuries and acts in order to stop or curb global warming.

Answer 7

Even the supposedly skeptical scientists won't put their money where their mouth is:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

In 2005, Annan offered to take Lindzen, the MIT meteorologist, up on his bet that global temperatures in 20 years will be cooler than they are now. However, no wager was ever settled on because Lindzen wanted odds of 50-to-1 in his favor. This meant that for a $10,000 bet, Annan would have to pay Lindzen the entire sum if temperatures dropped, but receive only $200 if they rose.

“Richard Lindzen’s words say that there is about a 50 percent chance of [global] cooling,” Annan wrote about the bet. “His wallet thinks it is a 2 percent shot. Which do you believe?”

Here's where the false appearance of controversy comes from:

Exxposing ExxonMobil's Agenda: Manipulating Politics and the Public

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/dailyf...

Here's an explanation why the U.S. media uniquely susceptible to passing on the false appearance of controversy:

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/05...

Other countries are in awe of Americans' collective stupidity.  Thank you Fox News.

At Fox News, a Pundit for Hire

http://www.freepress.net/news/print.php?...

"Objective viewers long ago realized that Fox News has a political agenda. But, when a pundit promotes this agenda while on the take from corporations that benefit from it, then Fox News has gone one disturbing step further"

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

Answer 8

Of course the debate is over, Al Gore said so. I know I can trust him, he is a politician. Yes it is still a theory and open for debate. There is a major agency that tells us it is happening (IPCC) and we know governmental bureaucratic agencies have no interest in self preservation. Also we have the press and they would never over-dramatize anything to sell a story (let’s face it bad news sells.) So the AGW theory may be true, but it is still a theory up for debate. There are more scientists that dispute it than the Warmers would have you believe. Yes many of them are honest scientists stating their findings. No not many of them are paid off by oil. I even know of one that left the IPCC over this issue. There are also honest scientists that find in favor of AGW and of course some that are on the purse strings of the IPCC or hooked on the need to prove it is true. So it is not a closed debate as the press, inter-governmental agencies, AGW zealots or certain politicians would have you believe. Oh and as a side note, any statistic that has 99% is a made up statistic. I am I bureaucrat and I do this all the time. 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Answer 9

What harm could cleaning up the earth do? It's all about Americans wanting to remain lazy and set in their ways. Change can be good.

No it's probably not a broad consensus. I live in LA  and the earth didn't make it hard to breathe here.

Answer 10

99,99% by human beings

Beef a shocker for carbon emissions

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,221...

There are many simple things you can do in your daily life — what you eat, what you drive, how you build your home — that can have an effect on your immediate surrounding, and on places as far away as Antactica. Here is a list of few things that you can do to make a difference.

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_act...

Lifestyle changes can curb climate change

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080115/sc_...

Answer 11

Not only is there a debate, but there is also a debate about whether or not there is a debate.  In fact some believers (like Bob) claim that the lack of a debate is proof of the existinance of AGW.  

Some people point to the list of scientific organisations that have issued a statement regarding AGW as proof that there is no debate.  

I would say that there is a debate.

Many of the organisations hadn't polled their members prior to issuing a statement so the statements reflect the opinions of the executive of those organisations, not necessarily the members.

Some organisations acknowledge that there is a possibility or risk of significant AGW and others simply aknowledge that the IPCC has determined that it is likely that human activity has some effect (which is obviously true, the IPCC did say that).  Very few scientific organisations have stated they both believe AGW is real (or probable) and significant.

Answer 12

No.

On one side you have most all of the scientists and EVERY major scientific organization.  Proof:

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

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

(the wikipedia entry is not opinion, it's solid, easily checkable facts)

On the other there are a few skeptics who not only disagree with the mainstream view, their theories are contradictory and they can't even convince each other one is right.

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

Ben O -  If people ask about the consensus, I talk about the consensus.  If people ask about the facts, I talk about the facts.

Answer 13

I think that if you turn off Fox News, ignore that latest sensational blog from some fringe wacko, and pick up respected, peer-reviewed journals such as Nature or the Journal of Climate, then you will find out where the consensus on anthropogenic (manmade) global warming really lies.

Answer 14

The consensus is changing.  Even the Washington Post admits that the number of skeptical scientists is growing.  We have more data now than we did in 1998, still the warmest year in recent history.  

Scientists and statisticians are starting to do forecast verifications on early predictions about global warming from 1988 and 1990.  They have found that global warming was severely overpredicted.  This post links to several of these discussions.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2602

Also, in 2007, several peer-reviewed papers were published showing that the climate is not as sensitive to rising atmospheric CO2 as we once thought.  The most important of these papers are the ones by Petr Chylek and Stephen Schwartz.

Answer 15

Scientist are still trying to figure out the 'Theory of Gravity",and you're not floating away are you? And ,yes ,there is a consensus on AGW,among leading scientists and scientific organizations! The only 'dissenting' opinions ,are just that,opinions!  Assumptions and opinions are not science!

Answer 16

It is caused 99% by human beings and 1% naturally. However we can't stop the warming of earth.

But we can do some measures in order to save earth to some percentages like planting trees.