Why do people only look at one side of global warming?

Question

After I looked at the other side of global warming I realized that they are right and that many alarmist have no clue what they are talking about. It turns out that global warming is in no way caused by man. I encourage all of you to do researach and maybe you too will realize that global warming is not casued by man.

Answer 1

So you looked at the other side and now you know?  You must be kidding.   Here's who you are saying has no clue what they are talking about.

Regarding the IPCC report on climate change.

"The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ..."

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

"In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

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)

  

I suppose you expect us to believe that all these scientists are somehow part of a hoax or conspiracy or some other delusional conspiracy theory.

  

"This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices."   William James

And here is what an actual oceanograpy scientists has to say.  But of course you probably know better.

  

I think based on the following, you can give up calling these scientists alarmist.  

"The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact."

"One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term "consensus" in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists."

"So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly "prominent scientists" who supposedly "recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming."

"As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus."

"But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does "think global warming is real"). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea."

"What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm

Is Sen Inhofe and his phony list of skeptics the other side you are referring to?

   http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...    

Skeptic argument:  The earth has been cooling since 1998.   Not a valid argument.



http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

"According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data."

"But any scientist in pretty much any field knows that you cannot extract meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points. It's hard to hear a scientist make this argument and still believe they speak with integrity in this debate -- seems more like an abuse of the trust placed in them as scientists."

or is this who you mean.

Like the oil company propaganda outlets the  Heartland Institute, The Heritage Foundation and many more. That is where you will find political prostitution. The Heartland Institute is paying people to write papers or make speaches against AGW. $1000 a speach and $10,000 a paper.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfact...

  Skeptic argument:  Polar ice caps are thicker?

Nah!

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

"This is simply not true, rumors on "the internets" aside. The National Snow and Ice Data Centre and their State of the Cryosphere division, on their Glacial Balance page, report an overall accelerating rate of glacial mass loss. The World Glacier Monitoring Service has similar findings, the most recent data coming from 2004.

"While there surely are some growing glaciers, studies like these are designed to determine a global trend by ensuring glaciers from all regions of the globe are assessed. There are 67,000 glaciers in the World Glacier Inventory. Not all, or even most, have quality data for many decades, but there are enough with adequate data, located in enough regions of the globe, to know the average trend."

The rest of the skeptic arguments, both absurd and reasonable are covered at the following sources.

Answer 2

what research have you done. blogs are not factual. if you had one source you would post it.

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

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years -- Crowley 289 (5477): 270 -- Science

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

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

Answer 3

There is no "other side".  This is science and what counts is the data.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

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

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

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

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

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

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

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know...  Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point.  You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.a...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Answer 4

I guess you made a confusing question, the people are not looking at one side of global warming, it is the first stage of research and besides there are a lot of intelligent people are on this issue who dedicated their time in this research. good luck in your research.

Answer 5

Global Warming alarmist use fear and try scareing people to believe in their cause. All enviromentalist groups are milking this system of doom and gloom and cause more problem than do good. your side makes no sence, sorry

Answer 6

Personal research is always a good thing.  Listening to an anonymous poster who frequently tries to cloak their identity isn't.

Here's some good places for anyone to start their research:

***** Demonstrating the strength of the consensus *****

The Consensus on Global Warming

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

Scientific Opinion on Climate Change

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



***** Good overviews *******

The Scientific Basis for Anthropogenic Climate Change

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12...

The 2008 National Academy of Sciences Summary Brochure on Climate Change

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...



***** Good Global Warming FAQs *****

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Global Warming FAQs

http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climat...

Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale Global Warming FAQ

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/...

NOAA Global Warming FAQ

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...



**** Good misc. sites ****

EPA Climate Change

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/



The Discovery of Global Warming (great history site)

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/



**** Good sites dealing with skeptics errors ****

Skeptical Science - Examining Global Warming Skepticism

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Anti-global heating claims - a reasonably thorough debunking

http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2...

NewScientist Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Answer 7

I don't know.  

The alarmists seem to be followers and see no need to look at the other side, I guess.

Watch out Bob.  The first answerer is trying to steal your identity.  What a scoundrel!!

Answer 8

There is something which is a scam which has the name of warfare. The issue of The Human Right to Peace could be one to tackle then if no agreement is to be found on Global Warming. The addition of this to The Bill Of Rights in The U.S.  as well as equivalents world wide could then adress an issue other than than this.

Answer 9

NO!

please anser my question: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

Answer 10

Global warming is a mob mentality.

I'll bet that if these scientist who say they believe were to cast their opinion by secret ballot we would have an entire different percentage.

Answer 11

i agree with most of what you say.  most of global warming is just the earths cycle  [an ice age and then global warming]  but there are things that we do contribute to hastening the process.   and the alarmists [i personally think]  a lot of their way of making people believe how they do is making them scared that theres some sort of dooms day and all of a sudden all of the oceans are going to rise 60 feet and thats not true.   all the ice in the world isnt just going to collapse into the ocean at once.   also  on topics like these people get really worked up about it [for what reason? --i dont know] and they dont want to look at the other side. they think their right and they are so hysterical about their side, most wont even take a second to say "wow does what i think even make sense?"  so yeah thats my oppinion on the whole thing.

Answer 12

Well, if that is the case, it should be simple for you to provide us with evidence "that global warming is in no way caused by man"...

I'm waiting....

Answer 13

Most people I know look at both sides. Most think the theory for Man made GW is logical, but far from proof. Most of my friends also think many of the skeptics questions are also logical and valid.

In time we will learn more. It is still very early in the debate. There are thousands of good people out there studying this. In the mean time, just try to conserve some energy and do something good for our earth. Enjoy your life as much as you can.

If it is just natural global warming, and it doesn't stop, remember that Nature has no conscience and no remorse. Nature kills without regard to age, position, race, etc. Many thousands of species have come and gone long before man was even here.