Many folk still believe GW is alarmist theory or not man made - what evidence are they holding out for?

Question

We've taken a short 2 centuries to release what nature took 100million year of more to remove from the atmosphere and yet we are prepared to say -"wasn't me, it was like that when I found it" I wonder what the easter islanders blammed for the loss of all their farms and mass starvation- nothing to do with cutting down all their trees?

If the nay-sayers could also answer by offering some measure of recompense they would give the rest of us trying to do something when the pain becomes obvious to them I'd much appreciate it.

sort of - you can leave me out of the bunker - or it's OK take my air-con away - or yup sure no need to give my kids any of that food aid as I helped cause all this by taking 3 international holidays a year.

Answer 1

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

Answer 2

Global Warming is no more then a theory. Yes, we inevitably contribute to it. If you look at the facts though, the eruption of Mount St Helets, a completely natural occurence caused more global warming in that short amount of time then humans could have done at the time in a year. The single fact that we breathe out CO2 could be enough to cause the effect in the long term. It was always bound to happen, even if this isn't the cause. Other planets are even warming up a lot more then average. But if the cause is CO2 gases and Chlorofluorocarbons, we can stop this effect, if not prevent the thing from starting.

Answer 3

It's called Societal Inertia. It's like the situation of the Ostrich and the Lion. The ostrich thinks that as long as it buries it's head in the sand the Lion doesn't exist because he can't see it. The Lion won't exist for the Ostrich until it starts to gnaw on it's skinny little neck. But tnen it's too late for the Ostrich.

It's the same way for the powers that be. They refuse to LOOK at the scientific literature, as long as they don't examine it, the problem doesn't exist. At least until New york starts flooding from the rising ocean levels but, by then it'll be too late to do anyuthing about it. The effects of GW that we're seeing now are the result of the greenhouse gases that were emmitted before most of you were even born. The current level of greenhouse gases in the atmoshpere will not be measureable with regards to climate for another 20 to 50 years.

Answer 4

Evidence of causation. It's been warmer, when CO2 levels were lower, for multi-century periods many times in the past, including twice since the last Ice Age. That's not including periods when it warmed but not quite to this level, as in Roman times.



The Alps have been ice free and forested within human history but long before the advent of the automobile.



Does that prove it's not us this time?



Of course not.



It DOES mean you can't just infer that it's us this time.



And that inference is all you have.



The next question is whose burden of proof is it?



In a free society it has to be borne by the side that wants to limit otherwise free activity.



That would be your side.



So come back when you can prove that the activities you seek to curtail cause the harm in question.

Answer 5

For many skeptics here it's clearly a matter of belief. An analogy.



It is impossible to convince a man who truly believes in a 6000 year old Earth as a matter of religious faith. Any scientific evidence will be dismissed as something created by a Higher Power to "test his faith". No getting around that one.



I do have some hope about those who are skeptical based on conservative principles. I mean the idea that if liberals, environmentalists, or, worse yet, Al Gore says something it must be wrong. And anything that requires an international solution must be denied. More and more conservatives with unchallenged credentials are coming to know that global warming is real.



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

Answer 6

You are incorrect. The most that humans could be responsible for of the almost 400 parts per million is maybe about 50 parts per million. Your problem is confusing cause and effect. The temperature warmed and resulted in increased CO2 in the atmosphere. I am not suggesting that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas or that it doesn't moderate the temperature. I am suggesting that it is not the most important factor. Of far greater importance is the sun, clouds, and water vapor. You can go wait in a bunker if you want to but don't expect the sane among us to join you or pay for it.

Answer 7

Oh Bob, what's wrong with you? Were you beaten as a child? Guess what, Einstein, Edison, the Wright Brothers; all Christians.



If the intelligence about Global Warming proves to be inaccurate, can we impeach Al Gore?

Answer 8

I think the skeptics just don't want to believe there is a problem. A BIG problem that they helped create (along with everybody else). I don't think they want to deal with the possibility that maybe something will happen to the planet that can alter our current way of living. Many people don't like change, and a possible change like a climate change scares people. But hopefully it happens and it'll help clear out all the idiots.

Answer 9

Explain to me how man caused global warming before man got here. Didn't happen, isn't happening now. I don't question that the earth's temperature may have risen on average .65 degrees in the last 100 years, but to say that man caused it only serves an agenda, not the truth. One other point: You (or anyone), could not prove in a court of law that global warming is caused by man because speculation would not be acceptable evidence. The court of public opinion is another matter. There, facts are not required.

Answer 10

Simple. The has been NO direct link to human activities established.



The temperature has risen 2 degrees in the last hundred years.



The earth has had heating/cooling cycles since it formed.



30 years ago, there was the same 'sky is falling' mentality when it was thought the earth was going in to an ice age.



Here are several reasons why many consider it alarmist theory.



Acid rain

Y2K catastrophe

Bird flu

Ebola Virus

Every year we get some new 'threat' to humanity



Al Gore is the figurehead for global warming. If HE was really concerned about it, wouldn't he take steps to reduce his $30,000 a year utility use?





Change is inevitable, and humans will always adapt.

Answer 11

The "they" with the most to lose are industries that would have to spend money on measures to restrict their emissions. If they admitted there was global warming they would lose money, and cut into all those executive salaries. So they spend less on fancy commercials showing us how "green" they are.

Answer 12

A recent paper bySolanki et. al (2005) says that the activities of the sun has been at its highest level in the past 10 000 years. There is a lot better correlation between sun spots and temperatures than co2 ans temperatures. For a better analysis read http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/The_Geologic_Record_and_Climate_Change.pdf

Answer 13

Some people are just stupid. Hell I have a 23 year old cousin who doesn't believe in dinosuars. Not for any religious reason, she just thinks they are made up. It doesn't matter what you tell her or how many fossils she sees she thinks someone faked them. No matter what some people just don't believe things.

Answer 14

Okay, you could end yourself right now, and you'd stop consuming energy. Yes, you. Stop, right now. Quit showering. Quit using electricity.





What I'm saying is:



You're contributing to it, too. People say, "It's not my fault" -- will you admit that you're part of the problem?



Smile. =)

Answer 15

They are waiting for Jesus to endorse Al Gore's documentary. Then, maybe then, they'll give it a little credit.

Answer 16

here's you're answer



watch it, before you dismiss it



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&hl=en



join the heresy

Answer 17

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.