Why are the scientist and sceptics is taking so much effort about global warming ?

Question

Why are they trying too much effort that human should be blamed about global warming. But till now thay cannot tell us a concrete evidence to prove their theory.

Answer 1

Well it's certainly an important issue and I believe it should be studied until it is fully understood.  If it turns out, man is not making a significant contribution to climate change, that will be great.  If we are though, don't you think we should know?

I do believe the issue is too highly politicized.  Because fossil fuels are not a renewable resource and do cause pollution, we can't and shouldn't continue to use so much oil.  And that is regardless of whether AGW is real.

Answer 2

Please see the link below for a summary of the evidence you seek.

Answer 3

There is currently no evidence that man has made any significant contribution to climate change.

Some interesting facts.

1. During most of the past 2,000 years, the temp has been about the same or higher. Currently, we are barely over the average for the last 2,000 years.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index....

2. During the medieval warm period (820 – 1040 AD), Greenland supported farming. Those areas previously farmed are now covered in glaciers. Obviously the melting and reformation of glaciers is a cyclical occurrence.

3. The earth experienced a little ice age which ended around the late 1860's or so. This is about the time man started recording temperatures. This would be like measuring a lake depth after a severe drought, then worrying about it flooding as it rose to normal levels.

4. The earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years, since the last major glacier time period. Also, for most of the last 1 billion years, the earth had NO glaciers or ice coverage.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/i...

5. The AGW theory states that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature. They arrived at this idea because they did not know of anything else which could cause it. But during the 70's and during the current decade, temperatures dropped while CO2 continued to rise. This means that natural occurrences are driving temp, not CO2.

6. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and sun spots provides a much better correlation to earths' temperature than CO2 levels ever have.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...

7. Polar Bears are experiencing a population boom. Coke sales in the arctics are through the roof. Polar Bears have been around for thousands of years, and remember, we are only at the average for the last 2,000 years. They lived through all the previously warmer climates.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/...

8. The glaciers have been melting now for over 10,000 years. the current rate of melting is similar to previous melting.

9. There is no consensus on AGW. This was a lie that has been propagated by the media.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...

10. Yes we emit CO2 into the atmosphere and it is a greenhouse gas, but, we only contribute about .28% of all the greenhouse effect. Water vapor makes up about 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases round out the greenhouse gases at about 5% for all of them. Of that 5%, only 3% is CO2, and most of that is natural. Again, our contribution to the greenhouse effect is a paltry .28%

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenh...

11. The spread of disease is not attributed mainly to temperature. If this were the case, Florida would be a giant festering disease ridden cesspool. Economic standing is the primary determining factor in the spread of disease. Poor cultures can not fight the disease or eradicate the pests like more successful nations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12077886...

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.h...

12. Natural climate disasters (hurricanes, cyclones, etc) have never been scientifically linked to global warming (whether natural or man made).

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?i...

Answer 4

There is a whole lot of money to be made in this scam, as in all scams.  But if this one works...a lot of people and companies are going to get really, really rich!!

It's all about politics and money, and forcing 'have' countries to give to 'have not' countries through carbon credits.  A lot of money has already changed hands, and it's only starting.  The leftist extremists are hard at work!

Answer 5

The policies to combat global warming  will have a major negative impact on our current political economic system.  

Its possible that concepts like carbon emission trade offs could be traded

However, so much of the way in which we make and buy commodities is associated with the use of fossil fuels the whole system  going to have to be altered

Thus facing up to the emergency of global warming is a major threat to global corporations.

This is called the 'cui bono' - or 'who benefits'  by opposing global warming - argument.

Interestingly enough the opposition to global warming points to the (very much lower) economic benefits that are supposed to accrue to the majority of scientists all around the world who are now urging us to address the issue. - and soon.

Answer 6

Science is used to find out more info about reality.  Testing hypothesises and stuff to obtain knowledge.

Answer 7

blame the Sun

Answer 8

Mate, open your eyes.I havent got time to give you your concrete evidence,but do a little research,youve got a computer. You might be surprised at what You'll find.

Answer 9

In my opinion, they already have some decent evidence.  Recently they have been taking big long samples of ice from Antarctica and analyzing the different layers in it.  They've been able to estimate atmospheric conditions dating back quite a long time using the gases that dissolved in the water that turned in to ice.  Layers that are around the time of the industrial revolution have much higher concentrations of pollutants than the previous years and have gone up and up since then.  One other neat thing, I think, is the lead concentrations in the atmosphere.  When cars were first introduced, they all used leaded gasoline.  This created a lot of lead in the atmosphere.  However, when we stopped using leaded gasoline (Sometime between the 1960s and 1980s, I don't really know because I wasn't alive then!) they found concentrations of lead to level off and decline.  But who knows, could all just be a fluke of nature!

Answer 10

Because they are the Apostles of the newest religion and Al Gore is the High Priest of the Church of Latter day Environmentalists. Who benefits monetarily the most from religion.... THE LEADERS!! And there's your answer!!