Why do people accept human induced global warming as fact?

Question

Why do people accept human induced global warming as fact?

Answer 1

I agree..the earth does its cycle. But we still should do our part to take care of this planet... it would be a good thing seeing as how we only have one.

Answer 2

1. When coming out of an ice age, the earth typically warms by 4° to 7° C in a period of about 5000 years. That's a warming rate of 0.14° per century, or less.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_FAQs.pdf (page 21).

In the last century, earth has warmed by 0.7°, a rate at least five times faster than any natural warming.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt



2. This unprecedented rate of warmth exactly coinicides with an unprecedented rise in the level of CO2 in earth's atmosphere. The level of background CO2 (taken far from cities) was stable for centuries prior to the industrial revolution at about 280 ppm. It currently stands at 383 ppm, a 37% increase -- and is increasing exponentially with no end in sight.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law.html



3. The current rise in CO2 is due entirely to human burning of fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the air. Furthermore, the isotopic signatures in atmospheric CO2 prove that it is indeed coming from the burning of fossil fuels.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87



4. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, responsible for between 9% and 26% of the total greenhouse effect on earth.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/



5. By increasing the level of CO2, we therefore must be increasing the greenhouse effect of CO2 as well. The amount of "forcing" (energy increase) caused by increasing CO2 can be measured in the lab is therefore known. The increase in anthropogenic CO2 has caused an increase of about 1.7 Watts per square meter of longwave (infrared, i.e. heat) radiation trapped at the earth's surface.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm#635



6. This increase of 1.7 W/m² should cause an increased average world temperature of 0.8° ±0.4° C in that same time – which is what we have actually observed (see point 1).

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/216.htm



7. Ice ages and interglacial periods are caused by "orbital forcing", small changes in earth's orbit caused by pertubations of other planets and the Moon. Since planetary positions can be computed for thousands of years into the past and future, we also know that orbital forcing caused a temperature peak about 6000 years ago (the Holocene Maximum) and has been cooling the planet since then.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/207/4434/943



8. Solar activity has been overall stable over the last three 11-year cycles, and is actually down from the mid-20th century peak in 1957.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpsolarirradiance.html#composite



9. Since natural causes can be ruled out and anthropogenic causes exactly account for the increase, the scientific case is extremely solid. When the IPCC wrote that there was a 90% chance that humans were causing global warming, many -- perhaps most -- of IPCC's climate scientists objected. But they objected because they thought the 90% confidence UNDERSTATED the amount of evidence available.

Answer 3

Watch Inconvient Truth! There are plenty of facts if you want facts. If you don't believe in what the movie states research yourself. I am sure you can find a lot of the same deductions. Yes, the earth has always fluctuated weather patterns but not as drastic as they are now.



"Global Cooling" is caused by the polor ice caps melting at faster rate than normal. Global warming is not the Earth warming it is the atmosphere that is heating up because of CO2 emitions are blocking the release of sun rays. Ice caps melt sending cold air into our jet stream pattern creating havoc. I am not a scientist but is it very logical to me. Again, watch The Inconvenient Truth. You can rent it from anywhere now.

Answer 4

I don't and I don't have an intelligent answer either. I've lived for over 60 years and I think recent years have been cooler/colder and we've had snow every winter for at least 10 years. I remember in the 1970s it never snowed where I live. It just seems like history speaks for itself--like the dust bowl days.

Answer 5

My question exactly... There are charts that show how the Earth's CO2 percent is inclining and declining repeatedly.

Answer 6

Those climatologists are trying very hard not to let the news get out that the world has in fact not warmed for the past 10 years. It has gotten warmer than it was 50 years ago, so what. The temperature on Mars has also gone up. Two thousand years ago the Romans were growing wine grapes in Britain, not possible today. A thousand years ago Viking settlers were growing food crops in Greenland and how did it get the name Greenland to begin with. The temperature has been changing up and down since the year one. All without any help from people.

Answer 7

The theory of man-made global warming is false. Anyone who believes otherwise has not investigated the evidence or is purposely remaining ignorant to the legitimate opposition to global warming. I have given up one and a half hours to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” so I ask you to do the same and watch the movie detailing the opposition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=great+global+warming+swindle.

The video is controversial, I know but I consider An Inconvenient Truth to be just as controversial and so do these sources:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef&k=99551&p=1

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html

And another video for those of you short on time: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

And another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

Some more general resources:

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

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4

http://www.john-daly.com/

http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend

http://www.trac.org.au/cgi-bin/test?page=/myths/top10.htm

http://www.bkdesign.ca/blog/reports/global-warming-myth.php

http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/TimBallJan2607handouts.pdf

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/ScienceIsntSettled.pdf

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Carter/laying_ten_global_warming_myths.html

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

This scientist says global warming will be a joke in 5 years:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

Probably the best general resource:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e

note- it takes a while to load because it is so long



CO2 is not causing the globe to warm the opposite is true, the warming is increasing the atmospheric CO2. When the world heats it gradually increases the temperature of the oceans which serve as the largest CO2 sink. As the oceans heat up they release CO2 which is stored in them. The information comes from the same data Al Gore uses, the temperature always goes up before the concentration of CO2 goes up.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/ninelieslaunch.pdf#search=%22vostok%20figure%20125%22

This is the entire record of temperature verses CO2 record. This is the same data used by Al Gore but anyone with a fifth grade education can see that temperature rises before CO2:

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/atmosphere/IceCores1.gif

The global warming crowd tends to hind this graph, they will only show graphs of the last 20 or so years in which CO2 appears to cause a temperature increase. However when you look at the full data set you see that the current warming trend is not the result of CO2, CO2 rises after temperature. The global warming crowd uses the zoomed in graph to mislead you also they tend to use thick lines on the graph so you can’t make out what rises first. As you can see the temperature rises first and then CO2 starts to skyrocket, that’s why graphs of only 20 years seem to show CO2 leading temperature.



CO2 makes up only .03% of our atmosphere. Water vapor, another greenhouse gas, makes up 1-4% of our atmosphere, this gas is acknowledged to be the main greenhouse gas. All human activities combined contribute only 6 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. Animals, through respiration, decomposition, etc contribute 150 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere. So humans contribute only a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere which is already in very small concentrations in the atmosphere.

http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.html This is where my data came from, it is an interesting site, it displays the same graphics as Al Gore in his movie but it tells how low the human contribution is. So Al Gore is using the same data but coming to a different conclusion, who do you want to believe a politician with no scientific training or the NASA CO2 laboratory, a group of scientists who spend their entire careers studying CO2.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-05/teia-csh051107.php

Also the belief that our current levels of CO2 is unusual are untrue:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm



We know the greenhouse effect is real it is a necessary effect to keep our planet at a habitable temperature. However if our current warming is due to greenhouse gasses it would cause warming in the troposphere , but the troposphere is actually getting cooler.

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/. That points to other explanations to our current warming.



So what is causing our current warming, it is the sun.

http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/642-2.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060926_solar_activity.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040803093903.htm

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solcon.htm

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=900

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/The_Geologic_Record_and_Climate_Change.pdf



The fact that only the earth’s surface is warming points to direct heating from the sun rather than heating due to greenhouse gasses. Also other planets in our solar system are warming pointing to a common cause of warming, that common cause being the sun.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mgs-092005.html

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mgs-092005-images.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1660

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming030207.htm

Another theory is that ocean currents play a role

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-03/UoCS-Nrol-1903100.php



The global warming crowd says our glaciers are melting and animals will suffer this is another false claim.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N46/EDIT.jsp

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=192

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2005/03/growing_glacier.html

http://juneaualaska.com/visit/stories/herbertglacier.shtml

They claim that recent years are have been the hottest on record, not true:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-329es.html





The global warming crowd also insists our seas are rising due to global warming, however this is not entirely correct. Seas in certain areas are rising, there is no global sea rise. The seas have been rising ever since the last ice age: http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Sea_Level_png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

These two sources show that sea level increase now has actually leveled off from a very steep rise for the past 20 thousand years. For proof of this look here:

http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/markhotd.htm

A mark left by Sir James Clark Ross, an Antarctic explorer, in 1841 is still visible. Not only that but the mark was placed in 1841 to show how high the sea was, not only is the mark visible it is 30cm above current sea levels. Now it is possible that the mark was placed at high tide and the picture taken at low, but even then the mark would still be above current sea levels. The seas have risen dramatically over the past thousand years not due in any part to us. If you want proof of that take a look at one of the dozens of ancient underwater cities that spot the globe. When these cities were built they were on land now they are deep underwater: http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2004/s1107203.htm

This shows a dramatic increase in sea level during human time but long before the world became industrialized.



The global warming crowd also claims a scientific consensus on the issue, this is wrong in two ways. One, there is no consensus, this is a false claim to make you believe in global warming by suppressing the opposition. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Also stating new research many prominent scientists have reversed their opinions on the legitimacy of man-made global warming.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42

Second, even if there was a consensus it would mean nothing, science is not politics, you don’t vote on theories to determine their legitimacy.

Here’s 21 pages of websites that disagree with global warming.

http://www.climatechangedebate.org/documents/CCD_read.pdf

The thought that the only scientists who disagree with global warming are paid by oil companies is simply a stupid statement with no reality. This is the most illogical argument by people in support of global warming. Aside from being completely false it begs another question: Who pays global warming supporters? The answer is big environmental agencies that make millions off of global warming each year by teaching, publishing books, and selling environmentally clean products.

http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=B82EAA82-802A-23AD-49E8-30B49D1BC8F5



The IPCC is the main supporter of global warming, their statements are defended blindly by people who don’t want to admit that global warming is not real. People will claim that they took into account natural sources of CO2, they didn’t. Take a look for yourself:

http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index.htm. That is the latest IPCC report, read the entire report, do a search of the documents, there is absolutely no mention of natural sources of CO2. The natural sources have been completely ignored. Also people will claim that the IPCC took the sun into account in their report, this is not entirely correct, while the sun is mentioned the report it’s effects have not been accurately represented.

http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm. The IPCC did not take into account the Svensmark factor. This would greatly reduce the effect of solar radiation on the earth. Look back up to the solar resources to see the effect of the sun correctly represented.

Also allegations have been by IPCC scientists who disagreed with the IPCC statements. They say that their research was censored or taken out of the IPCC report. This is not the first time the IPCC has lied, they forged the famous “hockey stick” graph, which later resulted in a reissuing of the IPCC report.

Here’s another source that disagrees with the IPCC: http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Sept1004GlobalWarmingPG.pdf

And another: http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/ipccreview.htm

And another: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm

And another: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html



Quotes form politicians, CEO’s, and others are not proof of global warming, they issue these statements to get votes and customers. Scientists are able to get published and get time on the media by supporting global warming. The IPCC continually lies and misrepresents data so they keep their jobs.



In regards to the precautionary principle that says we can only help if we switch over to alternative energy, this idea is not correct. While this may seem legitimate it only helps the first world, third world countries can not afford to switch to the more expensive energy options. Also the US currently spends 4 billion dollars a year on global warming research which could be better spent on research for disease or to fight poverty. For an excellent example of how the precautionary principle is harmful you do not need to look further than DDT. This pesticide was cheap and incredibly effective but it was banned because of it harmful effects on egg shells. Now thousands of people die every year in third world countries because of malaria, a disease that could be easily controlled with DDT.



I hope anyone who believes in global warming they will take a look at the resources I provided. These resources should convince you that global warming is not man-made, it is caused by cycles in the earths climate. If you are not convinced I hope you at least take a new look at global warming as an unproven idea. Remember that global warming is big business for anyone who aligns themselves with it.



I could not go this entire post without mentioning global cooling.

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

http://www.michaelkubacki.com/cooling.htm

In the 1970’s it was claimed that there was a consensus on the fact that the world was headed into an ice age. Some people will just claim that the science wasn’t as advanced; this is an ignorant claim since even our most current science shows a dramatic drop in temperature which also leads to the question why did temperatures drop as CO2 increased the fastest. Most of the global warming crowd does not want you to know about this scare because it is so similar to the scare today. Government panels were formed and claimed the world was headed to an ice age, evidence poured in supporting the claim, a consensus was claimed, then the whole issue just faded away. That is what will happen with the false scare of global warming.

Answer 8

No amount of scientific data will convince some people, they are in denial. If a international group of 2000+ scientists study this for years, reach a consensus, then MAYBE some ppl will be swayed... oh wait a sec, that already happened.

Answer 9

Propaganda.



People believe anything as long as it is spoon fed to them in such a manner that is appetizing. Also, politics. If a Liberal, lets say Al Gore, writes a book about Global Warming, then more likely that other Liberals will believe this due to their political affiliation.

Answer 10

Three things. Hard peer reviewed data (you need to look at the links and the references given here). A strong scientific consensus, including virtually every major scientific organization. Intelligent people not liberal or environmentalists.



This is science and what counts most 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 and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command



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



http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png



http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf



It's (mostly) not the sun:



http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html



And the first graph aboves shows that the sun is responsible for about 10% of it. When someone says it's the sun they're saying that thousands of climatologists are stupid and don't look at the solar data. That's ridiculous.



Science is quite good about exposing bad science or hoaxes:



http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater.html



There's a large number of people who agree that it is real and mostly caused by us, who are not liberals, environmentalists, stupid, or conceivably part of a "conspiracy". Just four examples of many:



"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."



Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart



"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."



Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona



“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."



Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont



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



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



http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/329.php?nid=&id=&pnt=329&lb=hmpg1



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



http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 and:



"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics. 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



The temperature rise did not remotely cease in 1998, although it was an unusually warm year. You can't go by any one year, you need to look at the trend. This graph stops in 2004, 2005 and 2006 were both warmer than 1998.



http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png



Global cooling theory did not bat in the same league. It was simply a theory held by a few guys, with little data, and no backing from any scientific organization. The global cooling theorists most resemble the skeptics of today. More detail here:



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94



Honestly, at this point being a global warming skeptic is much like believing in a 6000 year old Earth. You have to ignore vast amounts of science to do so.



Compare the intelligence and the references of the answers here from skeptics and proponents. And see this site, which clearly answers most all of the skeptics arguments:



http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics



Good websites for more info:



http://profend.com/global-warming/



http://www.realclimate.org



"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 11

When I was doing research on global warming, I came upon an article that began with a brilliantly insightful quote by 19th century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. He said that “There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally accepted.” I want you to keep this quote in mind as you read my post, and think about whether it applies to you.

When people ask if global warming is fact or fiction, I say that global warming is actually both fact and fiction. The average temperature of the earth has risen by about 1°F in the last century, and we can expect significantly greater temperature increases in the next hundred years. Those are facts. But the concept of man-made global warming and the idea that climate change is going to bring about some sort of catastrophic end of the world, those are completely fictitious.

I’m going to start with fiction number one, which says that the main cause of global warming is greenhouse gases released by human activity. This is simply untrue. The earth’s temperatures have always fluctuated between hot and cold and that is a scientifically proven fact. Indeed, after studying of the growth rings of ancient trees, scientist Keith Briffa of the University of East Anglia has concluded that the earth’s climate has, in the past, shifted from hot to cold in as little as 30 years. Our current climate is not changing nearly that quickly, and there is every reason to believe that the change is being caused by natural factors outside of our control, such as the magnetic field of the sun, which has more than doubled in strength in the 20th century. This increased magnetic field has been trapping more and more cosmic rays, and therefore fewer of these rays have been reaching the earth’s atmosphere. This is important because experiments performed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark have conclusively proven that these cosmic rays are one of the main ingredients necessary for low-altitude clouds to form. Since fewer cosmic rays have been reaching the earth, there have been fewer clouds to reflect sunlight, and so more and more of the sunlight has remained in the atmosphere, heating the planet and causing our current global warming trend.

But despite this evidence, most people still readily embrace the myth of man-made global warming. After all, the recently released fourth IPCC Assessment Report claims to represent an unequivocal scientific consensus on the matter. Yet when one looks at the facts, one sees that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political group with a political agenda, and their results arise from a shocking mix of bad science and flagrant dishonesty.

The IPCC says it bases much of its research on statistical techniques, yet does not employ any credible statisticians. When a pro-bono committee of statisticians, led by Dr. Edward Wegman, was asked to review the IPCC’s third assessment report, they found numerous statistical errors that drastically altered the results. When these errors were corrected, all evidence indicating that this is the hottest century in the last thousand years, ceased to exist. The IPCC’s only response to these findings was to assert that although their methods may have been flawed, their results were still correct. But, ladies and gentlemen, facts based on fictions are not facts at all.

Furthermore, the IPCC is so determined to lay blame on the United States and others that they are actually willing to mislead to the public about their findings. Dr. Chris Landsea, one of the world’s preeminent experts on hurricanes, resigned from the IPCC because it would not stop making press releases completely contrary to his findings. Landsea had found no conclusive links between hurricanes and global warming and yet the IPCC refused to stop announcing that global warming caused hurricanes. Dr. Landsea wrote an open letter stating that “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

The only reason that you have not heard more criticisms directed towards the IPCC is that those who do speak out are shunned and silenced. They are equated to fiction fanatics, UFO buffs, and holocaust deniers, when in fact they are some of the most brilliant and accomplished scientists in the world. But they are afraid to voice their concerns, and very reasonably so. When Henk Tennekes, one of the pioneers of meteorology, began calling the IPCC’s mathematical models unreliable, he was quickly ousted from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. Since then, most dissenting scientists have chosen to keep their heads down and their mouths closed where global warming is concerned.

Now let’s talk about another school of fiction spun regarding the consequences of global warming. I’m sure you’ve been alarmed by the various Chicken Little scientists and politicians who scurry around screaming “the sky is falling, the sky is falling.” Or rather “the ice is melting, the ice is melting.” People like Al Gore, whose documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, demonstrates very little besides a passion for theatrics and a complete ignorance of basic chemistry. Al Gore promotes the inconvenient fiction that since increased carbon dioxide levels have historically accompanied increased temperatures, the carbon dioxide must be causing the increased heat. In fact, it is the other way around, because a great deal of the earth’s carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are stored in the oceans. When temperatures increase, more carbon dioxide is released from the sea into the atmosphere, because warmer water cannot hold as much gas. So increased greenhouse gas levels have historically been a result of global warming, not a cause. And for Al Gore, this is a very inconvenient truth indeed.

And while we’re on the subject of fiction-spreading alarmists, we should talk about Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, and one of the leading proponents of the “The Sky is Falling” theory. Dr. Schneider jumped on the global warming bandwagon in the 1980s, and has since then demonstrated his impartiality and sound scientific method by actually admitting, and I quote," I don't set very much store by looking at the direct evidence." He then all but admitted his role in fabricating fiction when he said that "[We] have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

It’s scary to think that kids are being “educated” with the fictions of people like Dr. Stephen Schneider, including the numerous tales of the so-called catastrophic effects of global warming. But let’s forget those myths for a moment and talk fact. If the earth’s average temperature rises 4 or 5 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century, as is currently projected, we can expect a return to a climate similar to that of the Medieval Warm Period of 800-1300A.D., when it was so warm that the Norse were able to pasture animals and grow hay in Greenland. During the Medieval Warm Period, which is also known as the LITTLE CLIMATE OPTIMUM, crops (and plants in general) grew far better and people around the world were much better fed than in the cooler centuries afterwards.

Now that it’s been established that plants would continue to thrive in warmer environments, you might be wondering about animals. Well, most animals on this planet evolved thousands of years ago, and those unable to adapt to slightly warmer climates died out during the Medieval Warm Period or during previous natural periods of warming, so the animals of earth, including us, would really have nothing to worry about.

The final fiction I want to address is the much loved fable that the polar ice caps will melt, the oceans will rise, and coastal cities will be drowned. None of those things happened during the Medieval Warm Period, so there is no reason to expect them now. We especially don’t have to worry about the South Pole, since parts of Antarctica have actually cooled by over 1˚F in the last decade or so. As for the Arctic, Dr. Vera Alexander has stated that while some parts might indeed melt in future summers, the vast majority of the ice would refreeze in the winter. In addition, any melting ice will probably be replaced by the increased snow fall caused by warmer climates. Also, Dwight Billings and Kim Moreau Peterson predict that such a warming would have no major species impact in the arctic. Remember, all of the arctic species have survived warm periods before. There is no reason to readily embrace the fiction that this time will be any different.

In the end, what we hear about global warming is mostly fiction. The ideas of climate change being unnatural, of it being caused by humans, of wildlife dying and the seas rising, are all incontrovertibly fictional. They’re legend, lore, lunacy. But, as Schopenhauer said: “There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally accepted.” The quote certainly applies to the Al Gores and Stephen Schneiders out there, but it doesn’t have to apply to you, not if you understand the fact that global warming is a natural, benign force that we need not fear.

There is, however, one fact that the global warming fantasy writers have right. We are indeed on the brink of a self-induced catastrophe, for we are quickly approaching a day when the Al Gores and Stephen Schneiders get exactly what they want. We are quickly approaching a day when brutally regressive measures are put into place to combat a fictional threat, a day when industry and transportation become hobbled, a day when farms lie fallow to slow nitrous oxide emissions. And the saddest fact of all is that these measures will not slow global warming. If society continues on its current trend, if it continues to embrace the fiction and disregard the facts of global warming, then homes will go unheated, industries will go undeveloped, and the world economy will be irreparably damaged, and for nothing but a fictional solution to a fictional problem.

Answer 12

We'll go one by one here.



1.Why do people accept human induced global warming as fact?



Because there is a preponderance of scientific observation and data supporting the premise world wide. Thousands of climatologists all over the world agree withe a very high probability that the current warming trend is due to anthropogenic causes.



http://www.ipcc.ch/



2. There is no scientific data concluding that CO2 emitions are having any effect on the atmosphere whatsoever.



Nonsense. The Manau Kea observatory has been tracking CO2 emission increases for a while now. The observations match the CO2 output of human related activities. And that's just one observation post.



http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/



3. Also, the earth's temperature rise ceased in 1998 and earth has been cooling ever since.



Again, not correct. The El Nino of that year was partiularly strong, which contributed to the overall warmth that was felt ON TOP of the nominal increased temperature.



The current warmest year on record is 2005, which will most likely be surpassed by 2007 unless we get some really cold weather in the later half of this year. But note, The top five warmest years have all occured within the last ten years.



http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html



4. Besides, it has only been a few years since people abandoned the "Global Cooling" scare.



This happened back in the '70s, so it was more than a few years ago.



The global cooling scenario was never put forth by the scientific community. The press got ahold of this and sensationalized the hell out of it.



The scientists of the time had come to the conclusion the sulfate based aerosols were helping "cool" the temps, but the cooling had already hit bottom by that point. Instead, they were starting to focus on what role CO2 played in temperature regulation.



5. Earth's global temperature naturally fluxuates, what evidence is there to say this isn't the case now?



You won't find a single climatologist that will argue against temperature fluctuations. It's a well established theory with loads of data to back it up that the climate on Earth does shift.



The issue at hand here is human induced change, and there is a large amount of data showing that we are. But let's skip the data for moment and take a look at some basic thermodynamics.



The earth's atmosphere is a thin shell of gas wrapped around the planet. You could think of it as a ballon. Now the properties of these gases determine how much energy is transmitted to the surface, and how much energy is transmitted back out of the surface, and even what kinds of radiation can even reach the surface.



Different gases react to different wavelengths of light. Gases like wtaer vapor, CO2, and methane react in the infrared (heat) by absorbing it. In doing so, it prevents this radiation from being re-emitted back into space. This means the Earth acts more like a heat sink.



The more heat absorbing gases there are in our thin bubble of an atmosphere, the more heat is trapped, which means warmer temperatures.



That's the simple version. It's actually a fairly complex feedback system that also relies on snow pack, ocean gas soluability, salinity, carbon-cycles, etc. . But to make a long story short, warming temperatures help make warmer temperatures by reducing the planet's ability to shed heat.



Human activities are currently contributing 150 times more CO2 than natuaral causes (volcanoes being the second largest contributor). Basic physics. The more heat trapping gas you add, the more heat will be trapped. Current rate of increase is around 2-3 parts-per-billion-per year and increasing.



Wikipedia actually has a decent article on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming



NOAA, NASA, a numerous other organizations have data to back this up, including daily SST anomaly maps, ice core samples, etc.



NASA even has a climate model you can download and play with to see the effects of various forcings are on the climate.



The people who do this work are very intelligent and are at the tops of their fields of study. Some have multiple post-docs in various topics such as atmospheric dynamics.



Unless you have a Ph.D in a related field and a good solid background in such things a computational fluid dynamics, multi-variate calculus, and climatological forcings, I'd suggest listening to the experts. They just might know what they're talking about.



~X~

Answer 13

An intelligent person would get ALL the facts, as some of us have done, and there by know the research is out there and the conclusions are very real as is global warming.

Even our own government knows the facts are real but refuses to inact measures to cut down on the CO2 emmisions because it will hurt the oil industry (amoung others). Check out Pact 8.

You also might want to research why they call it global warming-it's a real eye opener for the intelligent.

Answer 14

The levels. In the past the roller coaster of CO2 level have never gone past level 6 now it is in level 12. Simple 12 is higher than 6.

Answer 15

You want scientific facts? Simply Google global warming and the number of scientific studies pointing to factual global warming should be enough to convince the most opinionated skeptic. If one should take the time to actually read any of these studies, one would be further convinced there is conclusive evidence of global warming that is a threat to all mankind and that much of the acceleration of this problem can be attributed to humans. After all, who else could be to blame?



Those who sit around saying that it "just ain't so" remind me of an ostrich with their head in the sand.

Answer 16

i have been following this issue for 5 years,here are my opinions, water pollution, landfills, gas emission,sea temp rising, glaciers melting, marine life dying,over population, cutting down forests, to much construction, pesticides ect.I watch all the shows regarding this problem, and it isn't a pretty picture, i say" Walk softly on Mother Earth"..something has to give

Answer 17

Does lots of dead people .animals and plants dying,rivers disappearing ,desserts getting bigger not count as an indication





WHO OR WHAT IS TO BLAME



Irresponsible Agriculture , expanding populations and its effects are the planets biggest enemies.



This text only covers some aspects of Climate change ,i.e.effects of deforestation and subsequent man made desertification ,because of irresponsible farming using chemicals ,over pumping carbon aquifers,over grazing ,wild fires (because of slash and burn gone out of control).



Water and air polution ,such as caused by

industrial contamination ,the contaminating effects of the cities(the internal combustion engine) ,are other stories.



All of these are also man made ,such as the high industrial chimneys pumping contamination into the clouds and the burning of tires,some of this polution has been found in the ice in the polar regions.



There are natural cycles in the planets life

but a lot is influenced by mans existance ,this is increasing with overpopulation,putting strains on Natural resources and increasing contaminations .



The thinner ozone layer helps to speed this up. This is caused mainly by air polution ,also as a result of mans actions.



In North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss , desertification and some have died as a result.



Now many animals are becoming sick because of changes in temperature .

Vital links in the food chains are disapearing affecting other species further along in the chain .



We are witness to a mass exstinction ,for the first time since the dinosaurs.

Of the earth's estimated 10 million species, 300,000 have vanished in the past 50 years.

Each year, 3,000 to 30,000 species become extinct.



Everything is happening so fast it is not possible to monitor things any more.



The Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year.

Most of the desserts are as a results of mans actions.And they are increasing .In the dinosaurs days ,there were few desserts.



Collectively this planet is drying up .



Each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss



There is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate Agriculture.



Arable lands and their farms are lost all over the globe. Many farmers sons abandon farming and head for the cities.



Northern China is drying up, what once were millions of food producing people, are now hungry refugees ,running for their lives from the all consuming dust storms.



This will have a great effect on world food prices when they start buying at what ever cost, to feed their people.



The farmers that are left have to feed some 70 million more people than the year before but with less topsoil(because of desertification and irreverible erosion)



Over the last half century,

Population growth & rising incomes have tripled world grain demand from 640 million tons to 1,855 million



In the near future the global farming community will not be able to feed every body ,food prices will continue to rise. .



RISING SEAS

The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.

This does not affect the sea level ,because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,and the Glaziers is potable water lost forever and rises the sea levels.



Are We responsible ?

Is it the Sun?

Is it God who wants to punish us?

Is it Gaia who wants to clean some parasitic infestation?

Is it a Natural cycle?



Who cares ? that is not important any more

WHAT IS important -is that we are gonna be in trouble



WHAT CAN WE DO????????????????



The best we can do as individuals is be more responsible ,in our own neck of the woods



Organise well publicized clean up parties ,talk on the radio,hold citizan meetings, get the shools involved to plant trees and listen to environmental awareness talks.



If you do any cleaning up ,leave signs behind saying who cleaned,why and ask people not to start dumping rubbish again ,leave a hole or bins ,in case people come back with trash ,and they always do.



We have done a lot of comunity cleaning and if you dont leave alternatives or try to work on peoples guilt feelings (some people actually have those ,but not many) ,than your efforts are a waste of time.



That is what we do in Mexico.



POSITIVE ACTIONS

Print Tshirts with slogans ,hang posters all over the place (with recycled paper if possible).



Classify trash, take out all the organic waste and make compost with it ,the worst you can do is throw it with the trash,or burn it .



70% of contamination is due to organic waste that is mixed in with the garbage .

and it is just as bad in the sewer where it helps to breed rats and in the landfill it poisons the ground .



This is the easiest to take care of .



First of all we have to clasify trash ,at least keep the organic to one side ,like in a plastic bin with a lid .



If you got a few meters of ground ,you only need 1 or 2 square meters in a shallow hole ,(in the shade) ,that you can wet now and again .



Where you dump everything that is organic .

Toilet paper,bones vegetable cuttings ,eggshells,

deadbodies ,excrement ,cardboard,leaves,

shredded paper,old clothes (if they are organic),



Cover regularly with leaves or a piece of plastic,

to keep humid and to hide any smell .

REGULARLY spray some water over it ,but do not saturate it or the worms will die or leave.

The worms will decompose the wastes, turning it into beautifull black soil for the garden of flower pots .



If you are in a apartment ,if you have a balcony get a big plastic bin drill some holes in the side and lid ,



and add a few buckets of sand now and again to put over the trash ,you should realy stir or move the stuff at times to airate it ,and ensure that the decomposition is even ,keep moist



this rubbish does not get big very fast and the thing works for a long time with out getting full



----------------------Some more Positive thoughts

Global warming cannot be stopped but being friendlier to our Environment cannot be bad and maybe we buy some time.



If you want to help the planet ,plant a tree every week ,if everyone on the planet did we we would be able to slowdown the destructive processes.



Reduce carbon emisions,and they are already working on that ,by alternative forms of energy We need more regulations on carbon production.

Dont use aerosol cans,

Dont burn trash

Limit water use

Recicling wastes.



AGRICULTURE must invest in

Waterharvesting projects ,(such as thousands of small dams).to redirect over ground waterflows from the rains into the ground to supply subteranian water supplies.



Assist the capture of carbon and the production of water by promoting Reforestation.



The world bank pays large subsidies for reforrestation to capture carbon and the best tree for this is the Pawlonia .



Agricultural education and improvements to follow the principals of sustainability and soil management



GOVERNMENT

The protection of existing forrests.

Stop building more highways,

Urban planning to include vegetation

Stop building cities encourage people to return to the land to conduct their business from there ,which now has become possible thanks to the internet.



More environmental or land ,design to prevent bush fires,such as--fire breaks .

More dams,regulations and control for public behaviour.

Alternative effeciant public transport to discourage the use of the internal conbustion engine.



SCHOOL SYSTEMS

Education to motivate people to auto sufficiency by building more home food gardens.

Education on environmental awareness.

Education on family planning ,to curb overpopulation.



Here are a 100 more ways

http://www.eco-gaia.net/forum-pt/index.p... Source(s) Lester E Brown is the director and founder of the global institute of Environment in the United states .he has compiled a report based on all the satalite information available from NASA,and all the information that has

come from Universities and American embassies WORLD WIDE ,

his little book--a planet under stress , Plan B has been trans lated into many languages and won the best book award in 2003