Why is it so difficult to get a clearer answer on climate change? How can it be that the answers differ so??

Question

One group says that it's beyond the point of return ... and now another says that we're actually moving into another 'ice' age. How sad for everyone, that it remains so confusing to the public, to the point that we don't know what to think, and especially - what to do to prepare in any sort of way.

Answer 1

Because no one really knows what the climate is going to do in the long run. Most predictions, doomsday or otherwise, are based on short term data and models, or political expediency. Climate trends occur over thousands of years. A couple of hot summers or cold winters indicate nothing in the long run.

Answer 2

It's not that difficult, if you look at what scientists say.  Don't go by what you see here.

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"

Answer 3

It is not as confusing as you think. There has been an intentional campaign led by special political interests to confuse the public and to distort the facts. Any reputable news source treats anthropogenic global warming as an established mainstream view. But listen to sketchy fake news sources like Fox and talk radio, and they will go out of their way to misrepresent the facts in ways intentionally designed to confuse you. Pay attention to where you are getting your news and you will see that this is true.

Answer 4

What I find so fascinating is that everyone seems so deadly certain of their 'belief' in their black and white view of the issue. As a result, any real discussion is close to impossible.

Answer 5

I think you should watch Al Gore's video relating to the global warning. As a resident in Hong Kong, I really am worried about the TV televised this morning from the scientists'prediction of there will be no winter in Hong Kong within 12 years. And about six years ago, a group of environment concerned spokespersons in Hong kong predicted that Hong Kong would become not suit for human beings to live after ten years. I feel they had said the right things six years ago. Hong kong is currently recognized as the most polluted city to live in this world. There were more than three thousand Hong Kong citizens had died last year caused by the foul air. The outbreak of SARS (severe acute respiatory syndrome) had killed about 1,500 Hong Kong citizens all together in the past outbreak period. If so, the polluted air killed more people than the SARS. It is recorded that there were 2.05 million Hong Kong citizens used the hospital emergency services in the year of 2006-2007. There are more than 1.5 million Hong Kong citizens are currently contracted with air pollution related of asthma, heart and lung diseases. These out patients are required for health check up periodically and taking medicine on a daily basis. Polluted air killed many as the great 1952 London fog is in history.Hong Kong air is currently rate 40% dirtier than your Amreican city of Los Angels (most polluted city in north America)with API (Air Pollution Index) from 60-100 on a daily basis. It has recently recorded with up to 150 in CausewayBay and Monkong within these two weeks. Gosh, the WHO (World Health Organization) set the standard of 30 is the acceptable API. I bet if you visit Hong Kong just one time, you never want to come back again.

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

http://www.google.com.hk/search?complete...

http://www.google.com.hk/search?complete...

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/ne...

Answer 6

There is no proof that man has anything to do with global warming.  Now some of the 'experts' who were saying global warming is going to doom us are now saying we face a threat of global cooling.   MY QUESTION IS...WHEN THE ICE AGE ENDED THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, WHAT CAUSED THE WARMER TEMPERATURES....IM PRETTY SURE IT WAS NOT CARBON DIOXIDE FROM CARS, PLANES, AND OTHER MAN MADE ITEMS.  Hmmmmm,,,i hope the libs dont think about that too much and get a headache!

Answer 7

You're just looking in the wrong place.  Go to any reputable scientific site and they'll all tell the same story.  The DENIER/skeptic movement George Bush started when he said "the jury is still out on global warming"  make these places spam buckets to create the illusion that they are numerous and that there is a significant debate about it.  They also like to report the posts by those who discredit them to get them deleted, similar to the way some people do in classified ads to limit their competition.  It's all delaying tactics on a very time-sensitive issue.  Bush reversed his stance on Global Warming last year after starting all that mess, which will dump the whole problem on the next President.  It's a classic political maneuver.

The DENIER/skeptics like to promote their urban legennds.  You pretty much have to be familiar with them to weed them out.  Urban legends never die.

Answer 8

it is difficult to get a clear answer because they are all predictions. nobody can really peek into the future, & you can't base them on the past because the world didn't have this much emissions in the past.

however, majority of the climate predictions done in the 80s and 90s really are coming true today

Answer 9

Urban legends????   Like the polar bears?   Like more hurricanes?    Like the MWP didn't really happen?

It's difficult because there's so much riding on it politically.  

There's a legitimate though unproven theory underneath the controversy.    

Anti-"materialist" activists see it as a pretext to justify an agenda they've long held, and the buyers and sellers of the things they seek to limit see it as a threat.

I'm a libertarian - thus in my book, the theory doesn't justify the limitations sought until it is proven.   And proven is not the same thing as commonly believed, or believed by a majority, etc....   Proven means proven - a matter of what, not who, and a matter of facts, not hyperbole, not exaggeration of the certainty or of the proportion of those who believe versus those who don't.

I would also also point out that a lot of the exaggeration, historical revisionism, hyperbole and lying on the one side creates skeptics on the other.    The fact that the polar bears aren't dying doesn't mean AGW can't be real - but it affects the credibility of those who say it is and also say that the polar bear populations are under grave threat.   The fact that it's been warmer when CO2 levels were lower, within human history, doesn't mean AGW can't be real or dangerous in the future - but affects the credibility of those who say it is and also say that the prior warm periods didn't happen.

The uncertainty is there - it isn't "created" by some "well-funded denialist machine" - - - governments spending tens of billions to fund people trying to prove a theory that justifies expanding the scope of government cannot legitimately claim to be the underdogs by pointing to private donations in the tens of thousands of dollars to non-profit research groups.

Answer 10

Knowing that ALL Heat dissipates - Think that once the Earth was a molten ball of magma and has been cooling for billions of years.  It now has a VERY THIN Crust with a tremendous amount of heat within.:

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/...

The Alarmists want you to ignore this fact and the fact the Sun has many other emissions.

http://spaceweather.com/

I believe the normal temperature of Earth at this time should be well Below Freezing if it weren't for variations in the Sun's emissions or venting of heat from within the Earth.  

Think - Why did the Earth go through several ICE ages!?!?

Answer 11

The reason the answers differ so much is because the science is hard.  Too hard, for instance, for Rob A to understand, which is why he has retreated into anecdotal fallacies rather than apply any actual thought.  

Interestingly, by defining climate change believers as "liberals" he has included in that camp George W Bush and Arnie.  

Nit, anybody?

Answer 12

That answer that Rob A gave made me LOL in my pants. I still don't see how anyone in their right mind can actually say that global warming isn't real, and that it isn't man made. I have actually never seen anything solid about the whole ice age coming thing, i usually hear a bunch of BS about it being cold for a day and people claiming that that's a sign Global Warming is a hoax. Its not gonna happen overnight, its not going to happen in a week, its going to be over a long period of time. And no, there were no cars or SUVs before, but that's why the cycle happened slower than it is now. By pumping all this pollution in the air we have sped up the process that the earth cycles normally take. Check out some graphs, there are noticeable spikes. For some reason it has turned into a Republican and Democrat thing, the repubs can't seem to understand simple science. And they are too worried about their pocketbook to want to try to make a difference.

Answer 13

AGW is unproven theory-that's why.