Who here believes in Global Warming and who thinks it's the biggest hoax of the century?

Question

I say hoax--I've been reading up on climate change for a few years, and have found the 'hoax' side a lot more credible than the 'real' side, but I do like to see why--or why not--others approve of global warming.

Answer 1

no because back along time ago miners left there tools in the mine for winter and every spring when it thawed out until it turned into a block of ice and got bigger and bigger but last year they found those tool[from the time before cars] that means it was this hot before.

Answer 2

http://green.nationalgeographic.com/envi...

Here. Educate yourself and take this issue a little bit more seriously.

Answer 3

I have heard the hoax side several times but I honestly do not thing it is credible that 1000's of the worlds scientsts could be involved in a hoax of this size. It is just not possible. And to what end? What will they achieve? The fact that we have alternative forms of energy? That we conserve power and oil? How would "they" gain from that?

     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...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/...

Answer 4

Neither.

Answer 5

... I spoke to vintners in France who were 90 something 35 years ago who tend to agree with you ... or who would if they were still alive.

Answer 6

wooglet neds too wright a book

Answer 7

Hi! I don't think this one is all the way one way or the other! Unfortunately some of the symptoms are real! The cause is another matter. I believe a lot of this will just shake out, if we leave it alone. The Sun has a cycle, It's not really warming too much. The Earth also has a cycle, and this may be the cause. Right now their is less of an elliptical movement, meaning the Sun is beating on us more directly. These problems seem to occur every so often, and it won't be the first time we've had a mini-ice age! When it comes to the possible solutions the world is hatching, I say yes it is about to become the greatest hoax in history. The result may not be so pleasant to people accustomed to freedom as we know it! As to the claims that our world is doomed unless we do these things, I say hogwash! Our world is doomed alright, but not because of GW. Super volcanoes, asteroids, nuclear bombs. These are greater worries. Nobody lives forever, every hundred years it's all new people. The same can be said of our planet, sun, and universe. Except not the hundred year part!

Answer 8

Honestly, I find it impossible to believe that the majority of scientists are taking part in a hoax.

Regardless of whether it's real or not, no one can argue that the world can benefit from people trying to treat the world better.

Answer 9

Yes Global Warming is real but natural.

It occurs about every 800 years.  

Why do you think Greenland is now full of ice.

Eric the Red found it green.

There are more sunspots now, we can't do anything about that.

Mars is heating up too, are you going to blame that on George Bush.

Answer 10

Lots of people here citing various studies and claiming that the majority of scientists support the notion that humans are responsible for global climate change. But does anyone know how many scientists actually support the consensus view? We're told by mainstream media that there is a consensus and advocates cite the IPCC report. Did you know, though, that only 52 scientists participated in the IPCC report? The rest of the people in the report supporting the consensus were politicians, NOT scientists. This claim is supported here:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.p...

So where is the majority view?

There is another report issued by the government by 400 renowned climatologists which support an alternate view: that global warming is NOT caused by man. Here is that report:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.p...

  The media states that the majority of scientists support the consensus view, but I am hard pressed to find any actual evidence that that many SCIENTISTS support that viewpoint.

Answer 11

After every ice age oxygen has been depleted more, making organisms smaller and smaller. The biggest crippling environmental phenomenon was Gondwana splitting apart and moving into the regions it did, man has had little impact on the bigger scheme, we can slow the heating down even to the point of reversing the effects but the cost would be enormous to countries budgets, as mass growth of hard woods would be needed to irrevertible reverse the heating up process. Desert heat is a oven system that can not be stopped without the aid of a reducing agent, which is trees. Deserts are turning sodden land to sand at the rate of a metre per year, accumalation of deserts is a lot of heat generated. Civilisation did pay a minor role in this, but the existing deserts have a major role in the environment.

Answer 12

I think Y2K was the 1st hoax of the century.  Global warming is the current one.  When it fades, there will be another.

I was around the last half of the last century and concur that Communism/Socialism was the worst hoax.  That was done by consensus and restricting of free exchange of ideas, too.

HTH

Answer 13

Have you ever read anything not written by a reporter, or an answers member? This is the real deal. A peer reviewed journal.

THIS LITTLE PAPER HAD 550 AUTHORS. There are 36 scientists in the world that say they MAY be wrong.

Copyright Heldref Publications Oct 2007

The IPCC Working Group I Report: Climate Change 2007-The Physical Science Basis

Reviewed by Diana Liverman

With the publication of the Fourth Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this year marks some important shifts in our understanding of climate change and its impacts. Three working groups produced reports covering physical science (WGI); impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability (WGII); and mitigation (WGIII). The WGI report on physical science involved more than 550 authors and published a summary for policymakers in February, followed by the full report in May after a long process of review by experts and government departments around the world. The reports have been widely discussed in scientific meetings and will become a major reference source, especially since all the reports are freely available on the Internet.1 The WGI report was published first and attracted considerable media attention because of its apparently definitive conclusions about the rate and causes of climate change.

Perhaps the most emphatic conclusion of the WGI report is that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that much (50 percent) of this warming is very likely (more than 90 percent) due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations associated with human activity. These statements are much more confident than those in the 2001 IPCC report and may seem unsurprising to those who regularly read the scientific literature. But for many people who are not climate science experts, some of the important incremental shifts in the understanding of climate change are less obvious, especially as the issue has been confused by the sustained media and political attention to climate skeptics.

WGI reports strong evidence that our climate is already changing, including significant increases in global surface temperature of 0.74°C (+/-0.18) over the past century; more frequent heat waves and heavy rainfall events; warming of the ocean to a depth of 3,000 meters (m); increases in atmospheric water content; and declines in mountain glaciers, snow cover, and Arctic sea ice. IPCC also concludes that global average sea level has increased 1.8 millimeters (mm) (+/-0.5) per year since 1961 (and 3.1 mm per year since 1993), there has been an increase in the most intense tropical cyclone activity (but not the number of overall hurricanes) in the North Atlantic, and these changes are more likely than not (at least 50 percent) associated with human causes. The assessment of research on past climates concludes that it is likely that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any period in the last 1,300 years. Table 1 on page 29 provides a summary of these and other trends.

The report concludes that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are still growing despite 15 years of international negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The net effect on the Earth's energy balance (the radiative forcing) is clearly communicated in a graphic showing that although methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons have high global warming potentials, and aerosols have a cooling effect, the magnitude and long lifetime of carbon dioxide makes it by far the most significant anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure 1 on page 30). This makes it all the more worrying that overall carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels increased from 6.4 gigatons per year (+/-0.4) in the 1990s to more than 7.2 gigatons per year (+/-0.3) since 2000, and concentrations are now 379 parts per million (a 35 percent increase over preindustrial levels and higher than in, at the least, any of the previous 650,000 years).

This trend is toward the higher emission scenarios used in the simulation models of future changes in climate, where, for example, the fossil-intensive economic growth scenario (SRES A1F1) simulations project a best estimate of 4°C global average surface warming by 2090-2099 compared to the 1980-1999 average. The low end (B1) scenario has a best estimate of 1.8°C, and the report reminds us that even if we stabilized emissions at 2000 levels, the world would continue to warm because of the slow response of oceans and ice sheets. This insight, together with the conclusion that warming over the continents between now and 2030 is the same in distribution no matter which scenario is used, highlights the need for adaptation and for strategies to manage the carbon cycle over the much longer term.

The media reported some controversy over the sea-level rise projections, which appear at first glance to be lower than those in the 2001 report. Ranging from 0.18 m to 0.59 m by the 2090-2099 period, depending on the scenario, the range is narrower because the 2001 report projected for the end of the decade in 2100 and because the methodology of the Fourth Assessment gives uncertainties spanning the 5 to 95 percent probability rather than the +/-2 standard deviations used in the Third Assessment in 2001. Additionally, WGI decided not to include some key feedbacks because of uncertainty and a lack of published literature. (For example, it did not include the possibility of rapidly melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which would bring much higher sea levels.) The WGI report projects a new insight into ocean chemistry of major significance to ecosystems and policy: increased acidification of the oceans as a result of high CO2 concentrations, with reductions in ocean surface pH of between 0.14 and 0.35 units by the end of the twenty-first century. This may have adverse effects on calcifying species, such as corals, and on phytoplankton, and such chemical changes must be accounted for by mitigation technologies.

The Fourth Assessment was able to take advantage of a much larger number of climate models and simulations than previous assessments, including multiple runs (ensembles) that reflect a range of uncertainties about initial conditions, processes, and emissions or other forcings. While policymakers and the public hope that this increased modeling effort will provide more certain projections, it may in actuality increase uncertainty, but with much better understanding and quantification. The climate sensitivity (the equilibrium response to an equivalent doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations over preindustrial levels) is more confidently quantified than in previous assessments, in the range of 2°C to 4.5°C with a most likely value of 3°C, but the report states that values much higher than 4.5°C can not be excluded.

For most of the world's people and ecosystems, the real test of the IPCC is its ability to provide improved projections of how climate will change at the regional level, and here the Fourth Assessment provides less guidance than those concerned with impacts or adaptation might hope for. As noted in previous IPCC reports, the poles are projected to warm more than the equator, and the land more than the oceans. Snow cover and sea ice are projected to decrease and permafrost to thaw. Overall global precipitation is considered very likely to increase at high latitudes, especially in North America and Northern Asia (most models project a 10 percent increase), and likely to decrease in subtropical land regions such as southern Europe and southern Africa. However, over large areas of Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Australia, the climate models could not agree whether precipitation would increase or decrease.

The full report and its technical summary elaborates on the challenges of simulating regional climates, highlighting the difficulties of modeling interannual variability (such as El Niño), extreme weather, and topographical controls. Those interested in assessment for specific regions should turn to Chapter 11 of the full report, which provides a useful region-by-region discussion of key processes, model skill, and projections.

The WGI summary for policymakers is quite cautious in discussing the likelihood of rapid and nonlinear climate change, concluding, for example, that it is unlikely that the Atlantic Ocean circulation will change abruptly or that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will collapse before the end of the twenty-first century. There is also limited mention of other possible instabilities such as rapid shifts in the monsoon, drying of the Amazon, or release of methane from permafrost regions.2

The most extensive criticisms and evaluations of the WGI report have so far emerged on Web sites devoted to climate change research and policy and range from unsubstantiated allegations of bias to carefully referenced examinations of key assumptions and results. Some suggest that the report is too cautious, especially in terms of sea-level rise or the likelihood of rapid warming and positive feedbacks such as those associated with the release of methane from thawing permafrost. Others have criticized the process as politicized because of the involvement of governments.3 A whole host of scientific papers have emerged that already date the report,4 a handicap of the IPCC that required all research cited in the Fourth Assessment to be published by the end of 2005.

By almost any measure, the IPCC Fourth Assessment WGI report is a tremendous achievement, analyzing hundreds of research papers in crisp, readable language with excellent graphics in the summary as well as the full report. In addition, each chapter of the full report includes a group of frequently asked questions (all brought together in an annex), which are especially useful in highlighting key points and uncertainties.

At one level, the environmental science and policy implications are clear-if we do not manage the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet will continue to warm, bringing significant changes to climates and oceans. But many details are still uncertain, most notably the likely changes in regional climate and the probabilities of climate discontinuities and carbon cycle feedbacks. The report provides little guidance on the climatic effects of different mitigation scenarios and associated emissions trajectories, making no assessment, for example, of the viability of the European Union's 2°C stabilization target.5

Thus two key uncertainties that lie at the heart of the international response to climate change-what level of mitigation and emissions are needed to avoid dangerous climate change and what are the likely regional climates to which we need to adapt-are not resolved in this Fourth Assessment report. At the same time, the higher levels of confidence and certainty about the links between emissions and observed changes and the projections of significant changes in temperature, precipitation, and extreme events have been a wake-up call to many governments and communities that are now prepared to act on climate change. In the United States, opinion is shifting toward more action on climate change, especially in states such as California, which has promised to reduce its emissions by 80 percent by 2050. The increasing role of scientists from China and other key developing countries within the IPCC is also contributing to greater acceptance of the physical science by policymakers in those countries. China has committed to a 25 percent reduction in energy intensity; notably, the co-chairs of WGI are Susan Solomon (from the United States) and Dahe Qin (from China).

In the United Kingdom, the government has made commitments to cut greenhouse gases by 60 percent and to invest in adaptation for U.K. regions as well as developing regions receiving foreign assistance.6 Yet some claim that avoiding dangerous climate change requires a 90 percent cut in emissions, and there are high levels of uncertainty in terms of how precipitation will change in the United Kingdom and across much of the tropics. When local authorities or development charities ask how climate will change in their regions, especially whether they should plan for more or less rainfall, it is still very hard to provide an answer. Of course, as WGII argues, one response is to focus on reducing vulnerabilities and increasing resilience to changes in either direction, but it remains an unsatisfactory response to those who believe that the science of climate change is now clear.

At the IPCC WGI report launch in London in March 2007, a government minister and a former energy company CEO were both overheard saying that the debate over the science of climate change was over and that the momentum now needed to move to research and action on mitigation and adaptation. Yet the Fourth Assessment report still has many unanswered questions and uncertainties, and although there is less debate about whether climate change is occurring, the arguments are now moving to when, where, and how the changes are going to occur. Exhausted authors can barely imagine going through the process again in five years, but in fact discussions about the Fifth Assessment have already begun. The IPCC assessment is a Herculean process, and authors deserve a global vote of thanks for the most grueling literature review one can imagine.

[Sidebar]

The environmental science and policy implications are clear-if we do not manage the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet will continue to warm, bringing significant changes to climates and oceans.

[Footnote]

NOTES

1.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge, U.K., and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007), http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/ wg1-report.html.

2. See H. J. Schellnhuber, W. Cramer, N. Nakícenovíc, T. Wigley, and G. Yohe, eds., Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Cambridge, U.K., and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

3. See, for example, Prometheus: The Science Policy Weblog, http://sciencepolicy .colorado.edu/prometheus; and RealClimate: Climate Science from Climate Scientists, http://www.realclimate.org.

4. Some examples include S. Rahmstorf, "A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise," Science 315, no. 5810 (19 January 2007): 368-70 (higher sea-level rise); F. J. Wentz, L. Ricciardulli, K. Hilburn, and C. Mears, "How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?" Science 317, no. 5835 (13 July 2007): 233-35 (revised precipitation change estimates); C. Le Quéré et al., "Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change," Science 316, no. 5832 (22 June 2007): 1735 (revised ocean carbon uptake); and E. Pennisi, J. Smith, and R. Stone, "Momentous Changes at the Poles," Science 315, no. 5818 (16 March 2007): 1513 (accelerated polar ice sheet melting).

5. A brief section at the end of Chapter 10 of The Physical Basis of Climate Change (IPCC, note 1 above, page 827) discusses an idealized stabilization scenario for 2150 and summarizes a small number of studies, including work that estimates the risk of overshooting 2°C as 68-99 percent for 500 parts per million stabilization (M. Meinshausen, "What Does a 2°C Target Mean for Greenhouse Gas Concentrations? A Brief Analysis Based on Multi-Gas Emission Pathways and Several Climate Sensitivity Uncertainty Estimates," in Schellnhuber, Cramer, Nakícenovíc, Wigley, and Yohe, note 2 above, pages 265-79).

6. For the U.K. commitment to cut greenhouse gases by 60 percent, see U.K. Government, Draft Climate Change Bill, http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/ document/cm70/7040/7040.asp. For a description of actions on adaptation, see the U.K. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Action in the UK-Adapting to Climate Change, http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ climatechange/uk/adapt/index.htm.

[Author Affiliation]

Diana Liverman is the director of the Environmental Change Institute and university chair of Environmental Science in the Oxford University Centre for the Environment. She is a program leader for research on post-2012 climate policy for the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. She can be reached via e-mail at [e-mail].

Answer 14

If you think it's a hoax it's either because that's what you want to believe or because you've been reading propaganda instead of science.

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...

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 15

We're only in the 8th year of this century, so it might be premature to call Global Warming the hoax of the century, but it certainly is to this point.

Communism and it's only slightly less malevolent cousin, socialism, were the biggest hoaxes of the 20th century.

Answer 16

global warming is reallllll!

During these past few years, our Earth has been unequivocal. Data observations have recorded that the Earth has starting warming up, causing ocean temperatures to rise and Glaciers to melt. The normal Arctic temperatures have increased at approximately two times the international average speed in the past 100 years. Carbon dioxide, a main greenhouse gas,  has increased approximately 30 percent. The warming of the Earths climate that we are experiencing today is called Global warming. Global Warming has become a problem today because the average Earths temperature has started to increase, all the Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse gases are starting to collect up with the air pollution from the humans and thickening the atmosphere, trapping all of the suns heat and warming up our planet(nrdc). Scientists today argue about whether the fact that there really is cause for a serious concern. As I watch the news and read articles about what has already started to happen to the Earths climate and how Global warming is already causing damage in many parts of the U.S., I believe that Global warming is defiantly starting to make an impact on the World.

Global warming is a multifaceted occurrence. Its full impacts to the planet are hard to predict far in advance, but scientists are starting to discover how Global Warming is slowly starting to impact the planet. If current issues like Pollution and Greenhouse gases keep increasing, certain consequences will start to occur like: Melting glaciers would have early snowmelt and  there will be severe droughts that will cause water shortages in the American West, the sea levels will rise that would direct the Eastern seaboard to coastal flooding. Other effects that they say would happen would be that warmer sea surface temperatures will increase more forceful hurricanes in the southeastern Atlantic coasts, and disturbance of habitats such as coral reefs and alpine meadows could force many plant and animal species to annihilation(nrdc).

In another article taken from Sun news inc, it talks about how, "Global warming is 'unequivocal' and carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere commits the world to an eventual rise in sea levels of up to 4.6 feet, the world's top climate experts warned Saturday [November 17, 2007] in their most authoritative report to date....The panel portrays the Earth hurtling toward a warmer climate at a quickening pace and warns of inevitable human suffering. It says emissions of carbon, mainly from fossil fuels, must stabilize by 2015 and go down after that." (Sun-News). This article highlights a report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, showing that the panel is against global warming and wants to create a way to prevent it.

Also, in same article it talks about as early as 2020, we will be seeing bad climate changes start to take place on each continent. “As early as 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, and residents of Asia's large cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding, according to the report.”(Sun News).  Scientists today agree that Global warming is starting to happen and that we should do as much as we can to try and stop this catastrophe.

open ur eyes people and by a hybrid ...do something recycle

save natural resources!

Answer 17

It is generally accepted that a higher concentration of Carbon Dioxide (mainly) and other Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will cause the average temperature to rise. It is also generally accepted that burning oil and other fossil fuels as fast as we can pump them out of the ground (about 70-80 million barrels A DAY) creates a significant amount of Carbon Dioxide, especially with our inefficient engines.

The debate, mainly waged by corporate and oil interests, is whether this is a natural or a man made anomaly (the increase in greenhouse gases, that is). To me, it seems obvious that 70 million barrels of oil a day (about 25 million in the USA alone) being burned will generate a lot of CO2, but I have no financial stake in making you believe otherwise.

The gist of the debate is "who is to blame", not whether the planet is warming.

If you have been reading up using mainstream college textbooks, you should read further, preferably on the Internet where there is less censorship. Please understand that most textbooks are all written by a few publishers, which are owned by the same big corporations that continue to endanger our environment. They have a vested financial interest in playing down environmental issues, as they gain from the exploitation of these resources.

Realize, too, that just a few degrees increase in average planetary temperature will not "feel" a lot warmer to us, but it WILL cause drastic changes in our weather in the form of more severe storms, longer droughts resulting in wildfires, and more flooding. I am 43, and I have never seen weather as severe as Hurricane Katrina, or as much extended flooding as we have seen in recent years.

Answer 18

You are right - common sense and logic is on the side of skeptics.

Lots of common sense on these web pages:

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

http://www.nov55.com/str.html

Couple this with the fact CO2 sinks to the earth and will not remain in high atmospheres very long.  Science refuses to prove enough CO2 exists in high atmospheres to accomplish their 'reflectivity theory'.

I believe they will not look at the power of sun spots - it refutes their 'Theory'.  They don't consider that position & size  of sun spots in relation to earth will considerably amplify the magnetic and solar winds powers.

http://www.spaceweather.com/

I have yet to see any pseudo intellectual here intelligently explain this heat anomaly around Australia found on this web page"

http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite...

Do you realize a 6 degree C difference in temperatures on the same lattitude is HUGE!!  2 - 4 degree differences will usually drive El Ninos. And they are worried about 1-2 degree increase in air temperatures?!?!?

Answer 19

Global Warming is the least of our problems.

I would recommend you seek out the "Zeitgeist" video.

Answer 20

Yeah, if we get enough people together to deny it, we can all make each other feel good about sharing that opinion!

Here's how the chief scientist of the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Science Program sees it:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NationalPost...

Stephen Schwartz knows as much about the effects of aerosols on climate change as anyone in the world, and he's worried. He believes climate change is so massive an economic issue that we face costs "in the trillions if not quadrillions of dollars." He thinks a Herculean effort and great sacrifice is required to get the world down to zero net increase in carbon dioxide concentrations, an effort he compares to that which the Allies undertook in their all-out war against n**i Germany and Japan.

"Recall World War II, where everyone was making a sacrifice: gas rationing, tire rationing, no new car production, food rationing," he explains. "I don't think the people of the world are ready or prepared to make such a level of personal sacrifice. Perhaps when the consequences of climate change become more apparent that will change. But by that time, there will be irreversible changes in climate."

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSu...

"I'm very concerned about the world my grandchildren will live in," said Mr. Schwartz, who is currently studying climate change. "There could be an increase of four to eight degrees in the next century, and that's huge. The last time there was a five-degree Celsius decrease was the last ice age. An increase of eight degrees Fahrenheit would bring change unprecedented in the last half-million years."

Scientists aren't sure exactly what such a change in temperature could bring, but one of the "big possible consequences" is an increase in sea level, Mr. Schwartz said.

"It's not out of the question that the ice sheet on Greenland could melt, and the consequence of that is the sea level would rise," he said. "The shoreline on Long Island would move inland by two to three miles."

By the way, Dr. Schwartz is one of the scientists offered by the propaganda artists to clam that they're "disproving" global warming.

If you "read up" at sources like JunkScience.com (or ever watch Fox News, which accepts segments from them), here's how Dr. Schwartz's position is misrepresented:

http://www.junkscience.com/nov07.html

Says astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing a new study: “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz: “Anthropogenic [man-made] global warming bites the dust.” Another scientist said the study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the United Nations and former Vice President Al Gore.

“Effectively, this [new study] means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of [about] 1 kelvin by 2100 A.D.” Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee in August.

Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore , was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.

If the global warming fanatics have their way, you'll be paying a lot to finance a hoax, a scam, and a covert scheme to impose socialism on the U.S. and the rest of the world." (Phil Brennan, NewsMax)

----

So based on blatant misrepresentation such as this, skeptics think they know more than one of the foremost researchers in the field, and more than the hundreds of thousands of scientists in these scientific organizations which warn us that global warming real and a serious threat:

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

American Institute of Physics (AIP)

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)

Royal Society of Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Academié des Sciences (France)

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

Indian National Science Academy

Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

Science Council of Japan

Russian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society (United Kingdom)

National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

So what evidence is there contradicting the science, or for a hoax?