What's your opinion of global warming?

Question

i don't get how some people just say "not real".. how can you just make that claim with no evidence, and opposing those whos job it is to research things like this

Answer 1

Anybody who doubts global warming is a religious, republican bigot.

Answer 2

The Zealots of Renewable Energy & the Environmentalist attempt to create the illusion that the technology can directly compete with the energy that it wishes to replace if there was only the demand. My own Senators Boxer & Feistein are extremely proud that they pushed through the mandate that 20% of the energy distributed by the utilities come from renewable by 2020.

If it was directly economically viable it would be the normal new power plant after the energy debacle in California in 2000. The debacle origin was what that the cost of electricity was already higher in California than the rest of the nation. The utilities were going to be required to build more power plants, because they were getting close to their maximum capacity. By law they had to have a certain amount of head room above peak demand. Our legislature felt that if they separated the creation of electricity from the distribution they would encourage more producers to enter the scene. The utilities didn’t wish to lose their present return on investment so they locked in the selling price. This price became a ceiling rather than a floor. The utilities were going broke. Today the high price in California then is less than the lowest price for the minimal usage before the mandate.

Personally I don’t know if Man made Global Warming is true or we have surpassed peak oil. If either of them is a reality one has to think outside of the box to create sell-able spin off benefits that the masses are willing to adequately subsidize the cost of the infrastructure. Today we live in an entitlement society that expects either business or government to subsidize any perceived need.

My thoughts were started while watching “Cadillac Desert” a documentary on redistributing water in the southwest. Everyone credits William Mulholland as being the genius for bringing water to Los Angeles. The true genius, Frank Wiggins, the President of the Los Angele’s Chamber of Commerce, barely gets a footnote in history. His idea – sell Los Angeles worldwide.

If you are truly interested in my thoughts contact me at [e-mail]. My starting point is renewables will never be directly viable, line lose becomes a problem as one moves farther away from production to consumption, one can’t install collectors everywhere, energy has to be reliable 24/7/365, & cheap energy is require for the 1st World to survive. No new technology is being offered only rearranging the ingredients.

Answer 3

"Just so you know... the advocates of man-made Global Warming RULE on this site and they will quickly thumb-down this answer until it is hidden. They will do the same to any answer that questions their man-made Global Warming religion, so please be sure to look at all answers, even if they are hidden. Thanks!"



Look at the links you provide - you get thumbed down because not only do you continue to post the exact same links, many aren't from reputable scientific organizations (plus you keep bringing up Al Gore - a politician...That'd be like me constantly bringing up a host of republicans who deny climate change rather than any scientist who does); as I said while answering someone else's question, you can find links to people denying that the earth is round, etc., that doesn't make the "evidence" widely agreed upon in the scientific community.

I've had my answers hidden due to thumbs down before. Instead of assuming everyone was "against me" and that I was some sort of victim to a radical group, I looked at the evidence in the answers to the questions...not a brief glance, but actually read it through. Then I reviewed the evidence I submitted.



Climatologists have reached a consensus. Global warming is a result of a natural cycle and man is speeding it up. To deny this is to deny the fundamental nature CO2 and how it works when released; you are not only saying climatologists are wrong, but chemists and physicists are as well. These claims are so ridiculous that "deniers" (in some respects I dislike this word, makes it sound like a religious debate) have to search to find any sort of expert that agrees with them and end up repeating the same few names over and over. People who agree with the science do not need to search.

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/evidence-for-a-consensus-on-climate-change/

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

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

"In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004)."

Answer 4

My opinion on global warming, like the vast majority of people, is utterly meaningless. If you asked people what their opinion is on composite materials in aerospace applications, they'd look at you and say 'em, I'm not an expert'. If you asked people what their opinion is on the best compounds to stop metal diffusion in processor chip interconnects they'd say 'em, I'm not an expert'. Yet for some reason, when it comes to global warming, people somehow feel they are sufficiently qualified, educated, and knowledgable to voice an opinion.



So, my attitude is simple. I don't care what anyone's opinion on global warming is except people who have studied climatology and are conducting research. Most people voicing an opinion don't have sufficient experience to make an assessment of the science. I make a distinction - scientists tell us the science (which is what we've paid, trained, and educated them to do). It's up to the public to decide how to respond. It is not for the public to decide the science no matter how loud they shout or how many people hold a particular view.

Answer 5

It don´t care if a climate change has already happened millions years ago, nowadays there are 7 billions people on the world and we all have to pay attention on what could occur.



Why do people have to explain all what happens by a conspiracy? That don´t make sense. But we don´t have to forget the climate-gate

Answer 6

Every one who cares about himself and ultimately the existence of human being in this planet should care about global warming. Global warming is a global warning, not just for a single person or country!

Answer 7

I think it's a extremely real issue that we need to address. We are facing the effects of it right now.

Answer 8

Whether the climate has actually changed at all is currently under debate, whether change is harm full is also debatable, history says it isn't.

Most importantly remember that proof that climate changes is not proof that carbon 'did it'. Anyone who states otherwise has zero understanding of the scientific method and is just promoting political ideologies.

Answer 9

Man-made climate change resulting from the burning of millions of tons of fossil fuels for decade after decade. Burning that much crap can't be (and isn't) good for our health, or the health of the planet.



Small temperature changes here and there end up having drastic results through erratic weather, etc.

Answer 10

You are correct that there is no evidence against anthropogenic global warming. Every bit of information lends support to the theory. Let's look at it from a scientific perspective and disregard all the out-of-context quotes and the ignorance displayed above.



Anthropogenic global warming deals with humans taking fossil fuels out of the ground, using them for energy causing the emissions from the combustion of those sources of energy to enter the atmosphere. It therefor increase the naturally occurring greenhouse effect, made possible by various atmospheric gases, and increasing the heat retention capabilities of the planet. This has been measured to be occurring. A quick look at some of those measurements involved. First we look at temperature changes.



Surface - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Oceans - http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Lower atmosphere - ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/support/mears_and_wentz_jaot_2009_tlt.pdf (This paper was directly linked from the RSS main page located at link 1 below)



As you can see from the direct measurements all temperature data sets are increasing. To find the source of that temperature data we look at various causes and see where they are heading and if they provide enough control to account for the warming we have felt within the past few decades.



To see the effects the increasing amount of CO2 and other gases have on the energy balance of the planet we have to look at measurements of that energy. Looking at changes in outbound radiation over the course of a few decades, from 1970 to 2003 as measured by various instruments aboard satellites, we can see how much additional energy each gas can account for. CO2 absorbs at a small band centered at a frequency of about 15 microns or approximately 667 cycles/cm with shoulders stretching past 700 cycles/cm.



http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4204.1



Page 3987: Graphs depicting measurements of outbound radiation at specific wavelengths. The left side of the graph shows the measurements that are attributed to one half of the band associated with CO2 absorption.



Page 3990. Graphs depicting changes in outbound radiation between the three data sets and their statistical significance.



Next we can look at measurements of increasing atmospheric CO2, which is currently rising at an average rate of 2 parts per million (ppm) or 15.6 billion tonnes annually, and estimates of human emissions, which stands at over 33.5 billion tonnes annually.



http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_co2/monthly_mlo.csv

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

Answer 11

Science has known for many years, that there is gigantic pressure building up inside the bed rock of the earth, and creates heat,

So Global Warming is a natural Phenomena,

They are using global warming to shut down things that are needed to sustain life, especially in the U.S.

Answer 12

it's killing us softly. the proves are everywhere but still there are some people prefer to ignore it.

Answer 13

I believe we must make the tax code simpler and fairer. We must reduce tax rates for job creators to promote economic growth.

ok but seriously, even it is not true you should try your best to be green in daily life

Answer 14

Because "...those whose job it is to research things like this..." have failed, and continue to fail to make a proper scientific case.



<...how can you just make that claim with no evidence...>

This is an inversion of the burden of proof. In the scientific method, it is the proponents of a hypothesis that carry the burden of proof. That you attempt to shift the burden of proof in this way demonstrates that you either do not understand, or refuse to apply, the scientific method.



<...opposing those whos job it is to research things like this...>

Ad Verecundiam. (Appeal to authority). You imply that those who advocate for acceptance of CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) cannot be wrong. They can be wrong, and they have been so, on a number of occasions in the past. For example, up until then end of WW2, the NSF (National Science Foundation) was an aggressive and enthusiastic supporter of eugenics.



Also, since the mid-2000's, the NSF (and other, similarly 'authoritative' organizations) have maintained a position that CAGW is "incontrovertible". A hypothesis that is "incontrovertible" is not science; it is dogma.



“It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition.”

—Bertrand Russell



Post hoc, propter hoc (correlation is not causation). Most of the case for CAGW is based on this fallacy; that all the various 'effects' and 'catastrophes' are evidence of CAGW. The NSF not only accepts this fallacy, it promotes it. If you look at the video series "To What Degree", on the NSF website, you can see Dr. Alley and Dr. Schneider aggressively promoting various correlations (which they deceptively label 'fingerprints') as implying causation.



Ad Populum (Bandwagon, Appeal to Social Proof). Your question implies that all the scientists agree. They don't. Over and over the CAGW crowd tells us that this overwhelming consensus exists. Sarah (in her answer here) quotes, for example, Oreskes (2004), as did Al Gore in his movie (without attribution). That study was a fraud; when others repeated the methods, they obtained (massively) different results (only 2% of the papers found explicitly endorsed CAGW). The Doran et al (2009) study, from which the oft-claimed 97% statistic comes, was so much in violation of the scientific method it would not have made it into a 7th grade science fair. But, even if the 'consensus' did exist, it is irrelevant; science is not done by consensus.



“I want to ...talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.”

—Michael Crichton, “Aliens cause global warming.” Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003



If the CAGW hypothesis were valid, all of the datasets would agree. But, they do not. Most of the warming in the GISSTemp set is contained in the adjustments, not the raw data. That would be credible, if the adjusted data agreed with the other datasets, but it does not. The satellite temperature data agrees more closely with the raw data. The radiosonde data (contrary to Dr. Alley's claims in the NSF videos) do not show warming at low levels (in contrast to the adjusted surface temperature data), and the upper tropospheric 'hotspot', predicted by all the climate models, is nowhere to be found. The Argo buoy system shows no ocean warming since it started, in 2003. The discrepancy between the models and the actual ocean temperatures equates to more than 200,000 Hiroshima-class nuclear explosions, per day, *every* day, for nine years.



“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”

—Richard Feynman

Answer 15

i really dont care,

i care about my health

Answer 16

it is technically ike another ice age there is not such to worry about but all the other times it had happened human being were not around that is why its such a big deal we do not know what would happen to us

Answer 17

It is not real. Now read the evidence and you tell me where I am wrong. Remember, I have live a lot of this and know it first hand.



Just research the ‘hockey stick’. Just research East Anglia. The data from East Anglia was so corrupt it couldn’t withstand 24 hours of scrutiny. These are the figures that the alarmists clung to to get legislation through and reach in our pockets and now they have proven to be bogus. Now once their data has been proven to be bogus they suddenly come out with a new set of charts and expect us to believe them. If you watch and analyze these hucksters actions you can readily see that it is a thinly veiled attempt to grab money and power. If it were not so they would produce pure undefiled data to substantiate their claim.

For example: Back in the sixties and seventies these same ‘scientists’ predicted an impending ICE AGE and the cause was CO2. This was to make you feel guilty about emitting CO2 then they could tax carbon usage.

Life magazine of January 3, 1970, stated: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support . . . predictions” such as: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”

Then several honest scientists said, "Hold on! If anything there is a warming trend right now." And they had the hard data to prove it.

Well that didn’t stop these shysters. Remember, they were after your money. So they hunkered down for a year or two then came up with Global Warming using the honest scientist’s data for a base. But in order to get our money they had to sell these minute changes as a calamity not just normal weather conditions. So they came up with the hockey stick and, "the Earth has a fever."

In order to sell this to the US Congress they had the air conditioning turned off on that day in summer and shamelessly sold Congress on Global Warming. These charlatans even laugh about how they deceived Congress and Congress turned loose a lot of money for ‘research’.

Remember the culprit for the the Ice Age was CO2. And this was selected because everyone is involved with this and so it is easy to tax. Now the culprit for global warming is CO2 and in Al Gore’s "Inconvenient Truth" He showed you a graph that correlated the rise in CO2 with the rise in temperature. It was impressive, I will say that. However, it lied. Upon closer examination the data clearly showed that at times the temperature was before the rise in CO2 and at times the CO2 was before the rise in temperature. All true scientists know that the cause is always before the effect. This very fact, as simple a concept as it is, is one the alarmists ignore because it would take away their gravy train. It is as if I were to sneak up behind you and poke you with a pin. The poking would always come BEFORE your response which is probably a yell or scream. The scream would never come before the poke. Simple isn’t it? However, apparently that is too complex for the alarmists to comprehend because they would lose their gravy train.

Well Global Warming didn’t sell so good after all this propaganda was exposed so they all got together and raised yet another scheme. CLIMATE CHANGE! And the cause is, hold on to your hats, CO2!

These alarmists had a cash cow and they weren’t going to let go. In fact this cash cow policy is clearly spelled out in the IPCC’s Copenhagen Treaty.

Page 39, #32

"Funds will be under the control of the COP as the supreme authority of the Convention."

This is a lot clearer than their definition of Climate Change. The fact is that climates have been changing long before man walked this earth. Now all of a sudden it becomes a calamity? And it just happens that they need to research it to save the world? Also their definition of Climate Change is so ambiguous that a sneeze could be considered a change in climate. These same people have proposed to tax cow farts because they add to the ‘carbon footprint’.

There is plenty of data out there that will support what I have said but if you honestly research along those lines you will come up with a bullet proof research paper.

Of course your paper will not be well received.

One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”

This is only one example of covering up crappy data. You must remember, a lie has to be defended if it were to have any effect. The truth doesn’t.

Answer 18

Just so you know... the advocates of man-made Global Warming RULE on this site and they will quickly thumb-down this answer until it is hidden. They will do the same to any answer that questions their man-made Global Warming religion, so please be sure to look at all answers, even if they are hidden. Thanks!







Man-made Global Warming is a total SCAM.



We know this because it's advocates have no empirical science to back their claim. And their advocacy movement has been mired in scandal since its beginning. Here are some things you should know:



1) The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder in the distant past, long before the industrial age. Climate is indeed changing, but it has always changed and probably always will. These are obviously natural cycles that man does not and cannot control.



2) Global Warming alarmist have been caught in one lie after another. Huge scandals have been continuously revealed since the early 1980’s when the campaign began. Some of these are listed below:



3) Al Gore’s movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was full of bald faced lies. Like the Polar Bears were drowning, or the Ice Caps were melting, or the oceans were rising --- all lies. In fact a court of England ruled the movie was so flawed that it could not be shown to school children without a disclaimer.



4) The ClimateGate affair exposed the utter corruption of the Warmist community with their exposed emails speaking of how they intended to “hide the decline” and how to manipulate data and the peer-review process in their favor.



5) Then there is the fact that the globe isn’t even warming anymore and the small amount of warming experienced from the 1900’s to 2012 timeframe was negligible and well within the envelope of normal.



6) During this same period of marginal warming, scientists also noticed that other planets in our solar system were warming. What do these planets have in common ? --- the Sun.



7) Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, the Guru and High Priest of Global Warming himself admitted there has been no statistically significant warming. If anyone on the planet would have been aware of statistically significant warming it would have been Phil Jones and he admitted there has been none. (Game Over)



8) Warmist like Al Gore refuse to engage in any formal debate on the issue. That’s because on the few occasions Warmist have debated openly, they lose, and they lose big. Lord Monckton utterly destroys them time and time again.



9) Al Gore and other Warmists have stated clearly that they want to make CO2 the object of a global tax. CO2 is the perfect object for their revenue purposes because you literally cannot live without making CO2, after all, we exhale it. And current science has shown clearly that there is no correlation between the planet’s mean temperature and the concentration of CO2 in the air. Demonizing CO2 is all about the tax dollars, and that’s all its about.



See the scam for what it is and don’t believe any of it.



Polar Bears are doing fine:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190805/20110802/polar-bear-global-warming-extinction-climate-change-research-world-wide-fund-wwf-geological-survey-s.htm



Phil Jones admits NO statistically significant warming

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/



35 major errors in Al Gore’s movie

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html



Court rules Al Gore’s movie unfit without disclaimer (11 major errors reviewed)

http://creation.com/al-gores-inconvenient-errors



Graphs showing that CO2 does NOT drive Temperature

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/correlation_last_decade_and_this_century_between_co2_and_global_temperature/



Warming on Mars -- and Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6544



Lord Monckton destroys Warmist in debate (Video)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_wonder_the_warmists_hate_debate/





For the full story on the man-made Global Warming scam watch these:



The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE



Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&playnext=1&list=PLC012004CB098DE90&feature=results_main



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

Answer 19

it is definitely happening

Answer 20

ITS A CONSPIRACY!