Why is newscientist magazine so sure about GW being man made, do they have a hidden agenda?

Question

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Answer 1

Maybe it's because, after 50+ years of extensive climate research the evidence (to those that have actually studied it) is quite clear.  Or maybe we didn't really go to the moon and NASA is involved in some huge conspiracy and newscientist has a "hidden" agenda to poison everyones mind with false data so they can rule the world.

Answer 2

it could be that, along with midgets and garden gnomes they are attempting world domination and also do other bad things.

or there writers have looked at the evidence and come up with that conclusion.

--------------

edit i found this quote from the new scientist its self that might be helpful.

"Journalists do have an interest in promoting themselves (and their books), while their employers want to boost their audience and sell advertising. Publicity helps with all these aims, but you get far more publicity by challenging the mainstream view than by promoting it. Which helps explain why so many sections of the media continue to publish or broadcast the claims of deniers, regardless of their merit."

Answer 3

Playing on global warming fears sells more mags than saying everything is on par with history.

Answer 4

Which side of the issue do you think would sell the most mags?  They're a for-profit business who's main goal is increasing circulation in their niche.  As another contributor often states...follow the money.

Answer 5

I give one reason why GW being man made...

If you say human is major culprit in devastation that is true. Did you know that rainforests covers 7% of the earth's surface yet they contain only of the animal species in the world?

Today’s population (approx)

--------------------------------------...

Human : 6.7 billion

***LIVESTOCK : 30 billion***

Rainforest : 7%

2050’s population (approx)

--------------------------------------...

Human : 9 billion

***LIVESTOCK : 40 billion*** (a man to 4 livestock ratio)

Rainforest : 0%

Therefore being a typical end-user it awful to believe that livestock invaded major segment of oxygen, land, wealth and resources than human; Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, while inhabit larger land space than human. Of course human are the culprit in propagating the livestock and ruin the world for his desire. The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth's increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.

Most people assume that global warming is caused by burning oil and gas. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year -- 1.6 billion tonnes -- is caused by deforestation. ... the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure. If the present rate of increase continues, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will increase to about 700 parts per million by 2100. So simple is that!

It’s d**n lie if someone troll that human CAUSE NO AFFECT ON GLOBAL WARMING therefore no consent in saving the LAST TREE. Assume the world reached acute shortage for oxygen, land space and resources, we have no other choice than giving up livestock; while human eat each others for survival. A win-win situation! Unless everyone turned to be VEGETARIANS – an impossible thing to happen by today.

Answer 6

There is no alternative scientific theory for what else might be causing the majority of current warming other than greenhouse gases.  The "it's the sun" argument has been thoroughly debunked.  So what's left?  Where are these imaginary skeptical scientists?  What exactly is their alternate theory?  Where is the alleged "debate" we keep hearing reference to?  Links to papers please... or does it NOT EXIST?

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

"There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/...

"blaming the sun for recent global warming is no science-backed position anymore – it is deliberate disinformation. "

Quirin Schiermeier

German Correspondent

Nature

As far as any source that seems sure about GW being man made, in many cases the "hidden agenda" just could be that they want to inform ignorant people of the science.

Answer 7

This idea is just silly.  It's right up there with people who say NASA faked the moon landings.

The problem with the idea that global warming scientists are in this for the money is that you have to assume there's some kind of vast conspiracy among thousands of climatologists all over the world.  And most all scientists too.

EVERY scientific organization says global warming is real and mostly caused by us.

And then there's most every world leader too.  Are they ignorant, stupid, or part of the conspiracy?

Then there's these guys, who are surely not ignorant or stupid, and very unlikely conspirators.

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air.  We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

"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

This idea is silly.

Answer 8

Yes, but the agenda is secret so they can't tell you what it is.  While that may make you mad, it is likely that their agenda is so complicated that you wouldn't understand it even if they did tell you so really you should just relax and let them get about their business.  Honestly, nobody believes them except people who took like lots of science courses and stuff so it's not like they are going to conquer the planet or anything.  Think of what New Scientist does as occupational therapy for smart people.  You should feel fortunate you don't need that.

Answer 9

Does Soros own that one too?

Answer 10

I think it's because it's called New *Scientist* magazine, and that's what almost all climate scientists have concluded:

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

Or maybe because that's what all the scientific evidence indicates.  Or both.

Yes, they have an agenda to present science.  The b******s!