Why do you support or deny global climate change?

Question

Is it the politics? The facts? The doom and gloom projections?

Keep the rimshots to a minimum please? And remember, one way or the other, Gore is a four-letter word. So let's not use it here.

Answer 1

ok, first, the vikings came to minnisoda 1000 years ago because it was hotter then it was now! ale Gores movie was a fake made by computers! and the polar icecaps are fine! Global warming means the earth, well what about the south pole, ale gore even addmits it is only the north pole! and the north pole is fine, u guys think its like melting at this great speed, well ,  yeah its melting VERY LITTLE!!!!!!!! and it melts EVERY SINGLE YEAR !  and FREEZES BACK EVERY YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 2

I'm not denying that the planet is changing, but to say humans are the cause of all this is pretty ridiculous. Also, articles like these come out, but you will never hear the mainstream media report it.

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/2008...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/article...

Answer 3

Because I 'm a scientist, and it's scientific fact.  The following is just a sample of the scientific proof I've read.  No one here will read anything longer.

What counts is the data, not people's intuition.

"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...

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

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 support global warming/climate change because of the overwhelming evidence  backing it up. Much like the theory of evolution, mostly uninformed, misinformed as well as some downright stupid people still dont agree.

Answer 5

To Bob's answer that it's a simple scientific fact, I would add because it's a symptom of a larger problem.  

For the first time in modern history we are confronted with a truly global problem that can't be solved unless we all work together and make major changes.  Now is the time to get involved, to get political structures in place that can deal with these problems.  

More problems are coming, and might even be more intractable than this one.  If we succeed here we have a chance at stopping the domino's.

Answer 6

I will give you credit on asking questions. I also have a Science Degree in Biology and Environmental studies if I said where from most people would freak out.. But this doesn't mean I know the complete processes that dictates climate. I've tried way beyond most human fallacies to explain the connection between man and nature. So far nature seems to have the upper hand. No proof has been offered that couldn't be regressed to a simplistic explanation.

Answer 7

Who denies that the climate can change???

You might want to re-word your question.

Answer 8

Well, when polar bears drown when hunting for food because they have to swim 60 miles out to sea to find food because the "ice floes are melting" instead of staying close to shore which they normally do, then I'd say we have a problem.

Answer 9

You would have to be an imbecile to ignore mankind's impact on the world we live in. There are umpteen mzillion people buggering up the face of the Earth. Imagine the slight temperature shift if everybody all so much as farted at the same time. Notwithstanding, all the cars, buildings, powerplants, refineries and republicans out there.

Answer 10

It is all politics, and a bunch of environmentalists getting their rocks off. "the debate is over." This is not science. Meteorology and climate change are not the same, I will concede that. A little analogy though. Meteorologists have trouble making predictions just a few days out. I think it's safe to say climatology, a field still in it's infancy, is probably a little more complicated than meteorology. Yet we have all these scientists and politicians claiming they have this vast understanding of what drives earth's climate. Can't you see something just isn't right here when you have all these folks with a variety of agendas flocking to ride the wagon. Sadly, it appears science isn't even trustworthy anymore. AGW is writing a lot of paychecks.

Answer 11

I proudly support global climate change.  It is one thing we on which we can be certain.  The climate will change.

Now as to whether it is going to get cooler or warmer.  My money is on cooler.  I'm expecting most of the global warming scientist to jump on my band wagon.  Because it is clear natural variations can cause global temperatures to fall but only human activity can cause global temperatures to rise.

A cooler earth mean more fuel consumption, and less food.  We'd all be better off if the earth was getting warmer but the evidence is that its getting cooler.

Answer 12

Facts support the idea that the planet's climate changes.

We've had past ice ages.  Glaciers that were built up during the last ice age are currently melting, hence that time is coming to an end.

We have temporary yearly seasons, spring, summer, fall, and winter.  We have large scale climate changes that also seem to run in cycles.

The continents have moved, as the tectonic plates have moved, and mountains far above sea level, offer up fossils of sea life.  

Evidence suggest the polar caps are melting, the pressure they exert on the flattened poles is lessening, the plates are moving more frequently and violently, and a sudden change in increased volcanic activity could alter the atmosphere, and in turn the climate.  Altered shape of the planet, might affect its orbit.  We may not be sure yet how everything fits together, but a preponderance of data suggests there's reason to believe that we're in for a few unpleasant changes.

Answer 13

I don't believe in man-made global warming because of facts.

Answer 14

GLOBAL WARMING IS CHANGEING THE PLANNET the oceans are all warming up and if you do research bad things will happen to mess up the eco system if you live in a cold regioin then you might not notice it because you think it is still cold but in total look at avrage tempratures, global warming is part of humans and part of natural but we can do something to hlep GO GREEN AND SAVE THE EARTH :D hope this helped

Answer 15

The best available conclusions we have from scientists is that the current global warming is primarily due to CO2 and soot.

No response on either primary factor can be effective until China and India are on board, so at the moment we should not be wasting our financial resources on a pointless new tax, particularly while basic living costs such as food, heating and transportation are skyrocketing.

Disproving greenhouse gas warming would be easy, if it were not happening.  SImply disprove Joseph Fourier's calculations from the 1820s that a bare rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.  Or disprove John Tyndall's laboratory work from 1859 that showed that CO2 traps radiated heat.  Denying CO2's contribution to global warming requires violating some very basic properties of physics, not the most plausible explanation.

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

Denying mankind's role in global warming entirely requires dismissing soot as well, but the most recent research indicates that soot's influence is 4X what was previously believed.  The best estimate is that it's about 60% as strong as CO2's influence.  

So even if CO2 were proved inconsequential (as unlikely as that may be), we'd still need to minimize coal-fired power plants and the emissions from our transportation (cars, trucks, airplanes ships, trains, etc.).  Let's not play make believe and pretend that we can do that without China and India.

Answer 16

There are facts...ozone layer depletion, greenhouse gases, warmer climates in the north, icebergs melting faster, hot zones more arid, cyclones and bad storms more numerous.  However, we haven't been around long enough keeping records to know for sure if it is totally man-made or if it is cyclical.  We can only "guess" at the future at any rate.  It only makes sense, however, to practice "green" anyway, so it's a win-win situation.

Answer 17

It is not that I "deny" climate change--the climate always changes. It isn't even that I doubt that man has some influence on climate--surely we do. What I doubt is whether man's activities are the main driver of this warming and whether or not a catastrophe is looming.

The explanation that I here most often for how we "know" that CO2 is the main driver is that it is "basic physics" or that "radiative transfer is well understood". The frightening about that is that a majority of the people that use those excuses are those who don't even really understand the physics.

And "basic physics" don't mean diddly if there is no real world evidence that directly links CO2 to the recent warming. However, CO2 should obviously have some influence, but the extent is not well understood.

There are so many uncertainties: You,  Amy L, mentioned on another thread that black carbon's role may have been underestimated severely.

Cosmic rays may play a large role:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0409123

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content...

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/prlresup2.pdf

http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/s...

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs...

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content...

https://utd.edu/nsm/physics/pdf/Atmos_06...

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/4/2273/20...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/20...

http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/tin_...

http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-...

These two studies came out at roughly the same time as the S&W paper:

http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/08...

http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/08...

http://www.gsajournals.org/pdf/online_fo...

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Clima...

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/%7Eshaviv/Cli...

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2007...

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

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0407005

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/6...

Dr. Pielke (not a skeptic) has been arguing for years that land use changes may be playing a larger role than currently thought:

Nuñez, Mario N., H. H. Ciapessoni, A. Rolla, E. Kalnay, and M. Cai, 2008: Impact of land use and precipitation changes on surface temperature trends in Argentina. J. Geophys. Res. – Atmos., 113, D06111, doi:10.1029/2007JD008638, March 29, 2008

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2001: Influence of the spatial distribution of vegetation and soils on the prediction of cumulus convective rainfall. Rev. Geophys., 39, 151-177.

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2005: Land use and climate change. Science, 310, 1625-1626.

Pielke, R.A. Sr., J. Adegoke, A. Beltran-Przekurat, C.A. Hiemstra, J. Lin, U.S. Nair, D. Niyogi, and T.E. Nobis, 2007: An overview of regional land use and land cover impacts on rainfall. Tellus B, 59, 587-601.

Wichansky, P. S., L. T. Steyaert, R. Walko, and C. P. Weaver (2008), Evaluating the Effects of Historical Land Cover Change on Summertime Weather and Climate in New Jersey: Part I: Land Cover and Surface Energy Budget Changes, J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2007JD008514, in press

You can find many more studies on his website climatesci.org

The uncertainties with clouds:

Spencer, R.W., W. D. Braswell, J. R. Christy, and J. Hnilo, 2007: Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007GL029698.

Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2008: Potential biases in cloud feedback diagnosis: A simple model demonstration. J. Climate, in press.

Stephens, G. L., 2005: Clouds feedbacks in the climate system: A critical review. J. Climate, 18, 237-273.

Wielicki, B. A., B. R. Barkstrom, E. F. Harrison, R. B. Lee III, G. L. Smith, and J. E. Cooper, 1996: Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES): an Earth Observing System experiment, Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc., 77, 853-868.

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/dezheng.s...

You can find a nice summary of this study here: http://climatesci.org/2008/05/13/tropica...

Ocean currents may be playing a larger role:

Tsonis. A.A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov, 2007: A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L13705, doi:10.129/2007GL030288.

Dr. Roy Spencer has also been researching this forcing and is finding that it is more powerful than previously thought.

And of course, all of the models used by the IPCC AR4 have a large bias against solar. That bias averages out to over 4 times the global energy imbalance, and perhaps 40 times what is needed to attribute the cause of the recent warming to various climate forcing factors. The paper with evidence for that bias:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/20...

Of course, none of these papers conclusively prove anything, but why would we give one potential forcing more weight than another? I don't doubt that CO2 emissions have had some role in this warming, but I do not believe that it is the major driving force.

Edit:

Bob said--

"Because I 'm a scientist, and it's scientific fact."

Theories can never become fact. If you were a real scientist you would know that-- or if you were even the slightest bit objective. Sadly, it looks like politics have gotten the best of you, Bob.

And who cares about what Admiral Truly said?

Answer 18

Is that a trick question Amy

I do not support global Warming or climate change ,I try to work against it .

I do not deny global climate change ,I know there are many changed Climates all over the Globe

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

And my motives are initially selfish ,I like Nature and Animals

So one could say I do it for Nature and for Me.

Politically speaking because this needs support from the guys in charge

I say

it is for Humanity ,because we all need a healthy Environment to be Healthy ourselves.

The doom and gloom are superimposed projections of reality,that help convince people that it is necessary to be more responsible with our bio resources ,and to be less harmful to nature and more kind to Animals

And professionally Speaking i advocate sustainable living on all levels ,because we cannot divorce Humanity from the Environment and the solutions have to include both,

and Humans can pay money

Answer 19

As much as Bob and others like to proclaim AGW as scientific fact, the truth of the matter is there has never been a single study to substantiate our causing any measurable climate change.

CO2 has never been shown to drive climate nor has the recent data substantiated this. During the 60's and 70's, the temperature dropped while CO2 continued to rise. For the last 10 years, the climate has stabilized even though CO2 continues to go up. The only real predictor of weather is the sun and the sun spots. That correlation is around 95%. As far as the ice bergs and polar bears, those are irrelavant to the discussion.  Unless these are the special icebergs which only melt during man made warming but not in natural warming.

Looking at historic data, we can also discern the  fact that the climate has been much warmer than today and colder. Obviously, the world did not end during the medieval warm period, even though it was a couple of degrees warmer around the globe. By studying the cycles of climate, it is easy to see the natural cycles which have taken place through out the earth's history. AGW has become a political issue. The pro AGW side is controlled by the old socialist of yesterday. They have used AGW as a means to redistribute wealth. Their disgust of the capitalist markets are easy to see if you listen to what they say.

Answer 20

If global warming is real reducing our emissions may just save the earth and all of our lives. If it is not real but the threat is still taken seriously, we will invent better practices and become more efficient in using resources. While everything remains unclear how about we act responsibly to the environment anyway? Just trying to plant seeds here.... (excuse the pun!)

Answer 21

Okay, even if global warming is a "myth", there is definatly something happening to our earth. Our air quality is terrible, and the worst in the city our Olympics will be in, our land fills are filling up too quickly and will be done in a matter of years, and it's suddenly there are more storms, and gas is going to be gone if we don't use it wisely.

Answer 22

I don't like the politics of it, and I am not big on doom and gloom projections.  I don't deny climate change, however I have communicated with a climatologist who has studied the data more thoroughly then myself.  He has  PHD, and said the data does not lead to the affect that some have concluded. I trust his ability to read and judge data.

Answer 23

Heck with politics, I believe mankind is the main cause in the global climate change which will effect our descendants. In the case of Al Gore it is evident that Evil has prevailed which  led to 9/11, the Iraqi war and the deaths of so many innocent people. It is too late to reverse the tragedies but not too late to prevent future tragedies which will require joint global efforts to prevent further green house emissions.

Answer 24

"Global Warming" is a hoax first of all. i have read the facts and have realized the TRUTH. Do you really think that 150 years of humans cuold change the climate of a 4.6 billion year old planet?? The climate has changed on it's own and will to do so whether humans are here or not.

Answer 25

It's climate change, but on earth's terms, not man's.  I definitely deny that man is causing the Earth's climate to change.  On the other hand it is entirely unrealistic to expect nice and even temperatures and good weather just because we expect it.  The Earth does what it wants.  Storms and heat are just as normal-- or what we think of as normal, as a cold day in the middle of summer.  Unusual perhaps, but nothing to get excited about and go about buying emergency supplies and ammo just because the temperature changes here and there.  

Too much gloom and doom.  Too much politics.  And isn't it interesting that the way to solve it is through heavy taxation that will only amount to a few people getting fabulously wealthy at the expense of industry and commerce.