Who else has expertess in the subject of global warming?

Question

Recently I have been doing much experimentation on the subject. I have reached the conclusion that global warming really is not that big of a problem.

Answer 1

Oh yes and I suppose you also have done much experimentation and can convert base metals into gold or have a miraculous design (defying the laws of physics) for a perpetual motion machine or perhaps you are also the chief scientist for the flat earth society.  It seem that nothing would be too much of a big problem for you.

Answer 2

I think the word you're looking for is 'expertise', Speaker of the Truth a.k.a. Bob a.k.a. liar.

Seriously, what do you hope to gain from this sort of transparent lie?  Do you think you're going to convince anyone that 'global warming really is not that big of a problem' just because you claim to be a scientist 'doing much experimentation on the subject'?

If that were true, you would provide evidence to support your claims.  Where are your peer-reviewed papers?  Scientists don't just say 'trust me', they say 'here is the evidence on which I base my conclusions'.

Really, you're just making deniers look bad with this sort of charade.  If you're going to try and trick people into believing you, at least put some effort into it.

Answer 3

I wouldn't call Bob a liar, just slightly misguided.  He listens too much to others like Newt Gingrich and Pat Roberson.

Dana, she isn't a climatologist, however she likes to play one on Yahoo.

There are many good resources here.  In time you will be able to recognize who has ability, and who are paid posers..

Others have come to the conclusion that "global warming" isn't a problem, for even NASA states that it's the Sun that causes our warming.

Answer 4

I wouldn't say this is expertise but Leonardo DiCaprio was the "messenger" in The 11th Hour, another movie like An Inconvient Truth

Answer 5

What experimentation did you do? I would image from your previous incarnations that it was probably not in-depth science.

Anyway, why do you keep posting these ridiculous questions? Do you just enjoy being made to look like a fool on a web site with as many as 90 million users.

  Honestly, I don't mean to sound rude but you come across as a bit simple. If you had done experimentation you would  publish the results in a scientific paper and  not as some dumb comment on yahoo answers. And even if you did why have you not posted a link to your experiments so that we can all realise that it is not such a problem. Grow up mate, and stop messing everyone around and trying to appear smart when we and you know that this is not the case.

Answer 6

I drank a V8...and I slept in that hotel once.

Does that count?

Answer 7

"Statements by dissenting organizations

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate."[1]

Clearly, you know something nealy all the other Scientists don't then??  

I would love to be convinced and believe as you do (your research must be facinating!), because I too would prefer to think there are no problems, and we're not really capable of being destructive to the earth, life and environment.  Oh yes, let's all downplay this and get away with bolstering oil profits another year!  

Sorry - the fact of the matter is, the climate is warmer now than ever in recorded history and only showing signs of getting warmer.  You can rule out the human fingerprint if it helps you sleep better at night.

Answer 8

Not to brag but I had an expertess in the subject of global warming once.  She was terrific.  Is that what you mean?

Answer 9

Bob, or whoever you want to pretend to be: If you can't dialog openly and honestly with adults then you should probably go back to your X-box or comic books.  You're immaturity doesn't convince anyone of anything and it truly does demean the real people with actual doubts or questions about AGW.

Edit:

And then there's Jello (I'll let someone else classify him), who apparently only reads headlines when he occasionally visits a reputable site like NASA.  Because if he actually read the articles (like the one below) he'd see that NASA actually says: "Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more."

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news...