global warming skeptic or supporter?

Question

global warming skeptic or supporter?

Answer 1

Skeptic:

-Tampered data from vital research organizations, proven through email correspondence amongst researchers.

-The temperature has changed .5 degrees over 150 years...that's not enough for a "global warming" scare

-Analyze the tactics Al Gore uses in his data charts, the big red zig zags represent microscopic occurences.

-Flash floods, massive earthquakes etc etc happen a lot more than we care to notice, we just have better publicity/it's actually been brought to our attention. (aka nothing new, we just know about it now)

-Redwood tree veins show the drops and rises and temperatures for centuries, it also proves that the earth has had heat waves and ice ages before, and look! we're still here :)

-There is a baffling amoung of evidence against this theory.



I agree with the whole "going green" revolution...I follow it and I've lived that way since before the global warming theory scare, what people have to understand is that this is just a theory, it's not 100% or even close. We need to be conservational and aware of our actions and it's consequences towards our planet. We should be doing this and be motivated to do so without an "end of the world" scare.



Hope this helps...

Answer 2

there is no man made global warming. the earth naturally goes through warming and cooling periods. the has only been ice on the poles for the last 13,000 years. it's uncommon for there to be ice at the poles. and as for it melting, according to plate technotics the continents are shifting apart north America and Europe. this is allowing more room for the warm water near the equator to be circulated to the cold water at the poles. go look on a map and you can see that there isn't much room now for circulating water between north America and Asia and north America and Europe but as these passes expand more water gets circulated and causes ice to melt. Seriously ask any physical geologist about global warming and they will tell you that there is no scientific evidence to prove it is being caused by man and our big S.U.V.'s

Answer 3

I am a skeptic about global warming. Is this summer being very hot make you believe that we are in a global warming trend?



What you are not being told is the sun is starting in an unusual intense magnetic pole change. The poles switch every eleven years on average. The solar flares this cycle are unusually intense, and will likely get stronger in 2011-2012. A couple of satellites already fried from them. The atmosphere of earth is being affected by the unusual warmth of the oceans this time of year. The upper atmosphere is warmed by the sun's flares and night time cooling of the earth cannot fully cool the earth, because of the 'warm blanket' in the upper atmosphere. The warmth of the earth cannot radiate into space to cool earth down sufficiently. This can last until 2013 when earth will 'normalize' once again.



Yes, we are in a global warming trend, but only for a couple of more years.

Answer 4

There's a lot of scientific evidence supporting AGW:



A. CO2 emissions are increasing (causing global warming). In 1870 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 290 ppm. As of 2010, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen to 390 ppm. As explained below, very carefully calibrated measurements have confirmed that humans activities are the primary cause of this increase.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html#global



Since the industrial revolution, we've been burning fossil fuels and clearing/burning forests at an unprecedented rate. Through the measurements of specific carbon isotopes, we know these activities are the primary cause of increasing atmospheric CO2.



There are 3 different carbon isotopes: 14C, 13C and 12C. CO2 produced from burring fossil fuels and clearing/burning forests has a unique isotopic composition. This is because plants prefer lighter isotopes, that is they prefer 12C vs. 13C. Thus, plants have lower 13C/12C ratios. Fossil fuels are derived form ancient plants; therefore, they also have a lower 13C/12C ratio. When fossil fuels are burned, CO2 from these ancient plants is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, thereby lowering the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. Scientists have documented lower 13C/12C ratios in tree rings, ice cores and ocean samples; a result of the decreasing atmospheric 13C/12C ratio:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/



B. CO2 is greenhouse gas. Increased CO2 will, in theory, lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect. Satellites have measured a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation and ground stations have measured an increase in downgoing longwave radiation, proving there has been an increase in the greenhouse effect. Studies have also shown a direct correlation between anthropogenic greenhouse gasses and the observed increase in the greenhouse effect.

http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1



D. In theory, an increase in the greenhouse effect would lead to stratospheric cooling. As the lower atmosphere warms due to an enhanced greenhouse effect, the upper atmosphere is expected to cool as a consequence. The simple way to think about this is that greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Since less heat is released into the upper atmosphere (starting with the stratosphere), it cools. Many studies show the stratosphere is cooling.

http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Articles/jones_et_al_attribution_3d_GRL_2003.pdf

http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/SPARC_revised.pdf



E. In theory, global warming would lead to an increase in the tropopause height. The tropopause is the atmospheric boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Because the troposphere has warmed and the stratosphere has cooled, the tropopause has risen several hundred meters over the past 3 decades.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;301/5632/479



F. Arctic sea ice is declining.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png



G. Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/sum08.html



H. Ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass:

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#keyIndicator_landIce



I. Sea level is rising. (Sea level rise is caused by the thermal expansion of sea water due to climate warming and widespread melting of land ice.)

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html



J. Ocean heat content is increasing.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/pdf/nature09043.pdf

Answer 5

Skeptic and denier... AKA a competent earth scientist.

Answer 6

Supporter, As mentioned above, most scientists agree that climate change exists and is the result of humans. Its really more of a political battle than scientific battles these days. I see the real debate, not as whether or not it exists, but what its consequences are and if the consequences warrant large scale human intervention. People such as economist Bjorn Lomberg acknowledge the existence of global warming, but argue the consequences as stated by activists such as Al Gore. He maintains that our resources are better used in different means than combating climate change.

Answer 7

stop calling these people skeptics because they aren't look up the word in the dictionary,skepticism is a good thing these deniers as what they are ,are not by any means skeptics,most if not all good scientists are skeptics they understand that new evidence can change theories and results etc ,but the deniers are definite in there disbelief and if it turns out that it isn't happenig then the research will show us .iam not putting scientists into a god like status they do make mistakes like us all but when the majority say its looking like this then swim with the current otherwise you will drown

Answer 8

Im a scientist, so consider myself skeptical in general, i dont accept something without seeing the evidence for myself.



With that in mind i completely accept AGW. I work in carbon sciences, specifically the cycling of carbon through various ecosystems using isotope chemistry. This is integrated closely with the theory of AGW as a large part of my colleagues work has been looking at the change in these systems during the recent, unprecedented warming.



I think when you are saying skeptic you are referring to denialist, which is a completely different matter. But you will find plenty on YA, trying to convince you they are genuine skeptics.

Answer 9

I believe in the actuality of global warming and that humans are affecting the global climate. But then, I’ve been studying it for 27 years so I have a good idea what’s happening and why.



As a scientist I am also skeptical, in that I don’t simply accept something without first questioning it, weighing up the evidence and considering other possibilities.

Answer 10

There must be something to it as scientists around the world agree. Yes, there are a few learned people who claim it's nothing to worry about, but research shows that they have ties to the major polluters. Most of the people who think it's a bunch of crap are the ones who would need to spend a few bucks to clean up their company's pollution habits.

Answer 11

Global warming realist. I'm not arrogant enough to believe I know more about climate science than climate scientists, over 97% of whom say global warming is real and caused by man.



http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

Answer 12

The average global temperature is rising. Whether its due to pollution or sun cycles or a combination of both, its still getting hotter.



Pollution is bad whether it heats up the earth or not. Its not like people should just dump pollution into the air, lands and water either way.



So, its getting hotter and pollution is bad.

Answer 13

I'm a global warming supporter. The science fully supports the fact that the greenhouse effect exists.

Answer 14

skeptic... I have read both sides and am not convinced that man is causing global warming.



http://nationscrier.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1:climate-change-natural-or-human-causes&catid=2:current-events&Itemid=1

Answer 15

Global warming.......natural earth cycle! the earth has been cooling at the core for decades!



I think the erath poles are shifting due to sucking so much oil out of one side and we will spin into the sun in about a billon years or two.

The greenhouse effect will actually cool the earth very fast! making more O2

Answer 16

Hmm Global Warming, Believer. i watched a documentary once, showed the graphs of temperature from 50,000 yars ago, to now. the results actually scare me.



Also a believer something major will happen 2012

Answer 17

I believe in it.The statistics is terrifying.Something must be done on that.

I wonder how can you be skeptic on that?

Answer 18

I'm a backpacker/hiker and I have personally seen local glaciers disappear, so I am a firm believer.

Answer 19

skeptic





https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20100808162906AAwBWAj

help ? (:

Answer 20

you mean, Idiot or Intelligent