Is Global Warming Junk Science?

Question

Is Global Warming Junk Science?

Answer 1

All science behind global warming isn't junk, it's just incomplete, because we have so little actual understanding of what effects climate and weather patterns. This makes the scientific information that we do have, easily twisted to fit certain agendas. The point is that no one actually knows for sure and this is why it is still being debated. Why people believe Al Gore is beyond me, because anyone that is the slightest bit charismatic, can tell a story and make it sound factual. What credentials does he have that qualify him to speak on the issue? He was a presidential candidate, so what? That doesn't mean he knows jack about the environment. Al Gore speaking on Global Warming would be like me giving a lecture on the medical procedures of heart transplants, when I am not a surgeon or have never had the slightest bit of medical training. I am glad people are starting to see his charade for the act it is.



EnragedParrot



Do you realize that the burden of proof is on the people making the claim? Man made Global Warming advocates are the ones making the claim that man is the main cause behind global warming, therefore, they are the ones required to provide the evidence. We skeptics are not saying that man is not the cause. We are only saying that we have not seen enough credible evidence that convinces us of your claim. You are doing the same thing that the religious do, when they say prove God doesn't exist. You are asking us to prove a negative, which is impossible. If you had said you would award someone money if they proved global warming was natural, then that would be a different story. In that case, someone would have to be making the claim, that global warming is natural cycle. Therefore they would be required to provide proof of their claim.

Answer 2

Liberals have no problem with lying. See the spotted owl. Lots of "scientists" claimed that they could only live in old growth trees and would become extinct if we cut down so much as one more tree. Then the picture of the reclusive spotted owl living in a Kmart sign showed up. OOOPPPS! Then there was the solitary caribou who couldn't ever co-exist with a pipeline which would prevent their mating and wipe them from the face of the earth. These highly respected scientists were brought to congress and testified to this. OOOOPPPS, I guess they made a mistake. The herd is bigger than ever. The caribou love the pipeline. Then there was global cooling... OOOPPS. Then there were these scientists who said we only had 10 years before it was all over, (in 1989). OOPS. There there were the German scientists who said global warming was taking a 10 year "break". Yep, real Einsteins...... OOOPs..... Now we find they are fudging data to further their religion. Gee, big surprise......

Answer 3

Yes, Global Warming is Junk Science.



Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.



Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

Answer 4

The global warming issue seems to have caught the attention of everybody. As I scan the numerous answers to your question I wonder why so many people are judging Al Gore and global warming and why they are not asking the much greater question that has been indirectly highlighted by his book and is evident without any scientific data. Open your eyes. We are creating huge volumes of wastes, nuclear and other, and have no idea where to put them. Every country wants to build hundreds of nuclear power plants but does not know or seem to care about where they will get the uranium or where they will put the wastes. Whether or not we are causing global warming, we are doing more harm to our planet and we may not have a lot of time left to stop it. Local issues such as melting of the ice at the poles may not be related to exhausts, but just take a moment to see the smog and smell the air in Los Angeles and many other cities. Al Gore doesn't have to be precise. I thank him for highlighting an issue that few other politicians had the courage to speak. Ask not what facts Al Gore correctly identified, ask what you can do for this Earth. Don't quote innuendos. Think for yourself. Study it and you'll probably answer your own question better than any of our answers.

Answer 5

No. It has been worked on by many hundred of eminent scientists from around the world over a number of years. There are still unanswered questions and loads more work to be done, and some good scientists disagree with some of the work. But the main thesis is still intact. - that Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring



Please don't personalise this issue - it is far too important for that. If you disagree with the science, say so and why. Those of us from outside the US really don't care about the pre-election posturing going on.

Nice try - David. Who is the judge? I didn't say it was a no-brainer. I just thought you might put your brain into gear and do some serious thinking.

Answer 6

I don't know, and I'm not sure I believe it. But I can't think of anyone who would really benefit from the science, since implementing most of the recommendations will make business much more difficult. Pretty much all business, it makes it much more expensive to run one. I can't really see any business that can immediately make money off of implementation of Global warming recommendations of these scientists.



Which makes me think it is probably real, though it could also mean I'm simply not informed enough to put together a possibility on profit off of this. I could see automobile companies (Ford, Toyota, etc.) eventually making money with hybrid cars, but not any time soon.



But whether it is real or not, whether we are affecting the climate or not, I think we should probably implement quite a few of those recommendations. Especially lowering the pollution levels in all countries. Even if it isn't raising the temperature, it can't be good for us. I believe pollution is the biggest reason for the rise in cancer rates (death from cancer levels are dropping heavily but getting cancer rates are rising exponentially).



It is probably also the reason for higher levels of heart and/or lung diseases and so much more. We also live in a symbiotic relationship with other species (plant and animal), and global warming and/or pollution may be doing much to destroy them as well. The environment can handle the losses for a while, but at some point too many species may be killed and it will be enough to completely throw our habitats into chaos. It could serve to destroy society and possibly humanity as a whole as well.



I don't know if it exists or not, but we should work to lower the problems blamed for it anyway.

Answer 7

Global warming is definitely not a farce{replying to the individual somewhere above..} There is legitimate proof that the over-admission of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a gradual but significant rise in climate. Glacial ice is melting, and species such as the polar that survive solely on the existence of ice {to rest, and return from the ocean} are becoming extinct. Asthma is being diagnosed more frequently, as well as skin cancer, lung disease, and cataracts ( affects of Air pollution...* air pollution is a direct cause of Global Warming* To even accuse scientists of deluding the actuality of Global warming is foolish- not to mention the fact that Global Warming has already been proven by thee disasters occurring around us. On the contrary, a number of scientists refuse to believe the evidence right in front of our eyes ;but that fact remains whether they admit their miscalculations or not. Global Warming is a direct affect of humanity's irresponsible actions. The affects of Global Warming will be catastrophic, and the process has already began because of our unwillingness to accept the fate we've brought upon ourselves.

Answer 8

This just gets trying. What's sad is that by looking at your "Added Details" it's obvious you've already decided what you think about Global Warming (and we need to stop calling this Global Warming...it's CLIMATE CHANGE).



It's far from a "junk science" as you asked. Take some time to read just the introduction and first parts of the IPCC report on climate change. Nearly 200 actual scientists contributed to this report -- providing extensive research or writing portions of the report itself. Following this the report was veted by over 500 scientists; those scientists focusing on the sections of the reports where they had expertise (i.e., tidal and current patterns; drought; polar weather patterns; etc.). Lastly nearly 1,000 additional scientists reviewed the report and submitted suggestions, revisions or additions before the report was presented in it's final form.



Over 1,500 scientists with links to studies affiliated directly or indirectly with Climate Change are backing the results of this study.



I think the opinion of just one of them says more than you, I or all of us here on Y!A combined brings to the table on this matter.



Addition: David G, how can we be sure YOUR 100 + "scientists" aren't the ones doing the "politically correct" option? It's easy to toss out a flippant answer like that without any proof. How about some documentation?

Answer 9

Yes, it is.



Just look at the science. How do we know this is not normal? Humans have only been on Earth for a blink of an eye in comparison to the age of the planet. How can we say the weather is not normal?



If Global warming is happening, then how do you explain the BLIZZARD we experienced BEFORE winter?



Read this:



http://www.cfactcampus.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=6&Itemid=61



And read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. I think he hit the nail on the head with that researched novel.

Answer 10

It's total junk science.





the imaginary myth of "global warming" is based on a single study that found the earth's average temperature increased approximately 0.6 degrees in 100 years.



first, 100 years ago, the low-tech thermometers used for recording temeperature were nowhere NEAR as accurate as today's electronic devices. The 0.6 degrees difference is much, much less than the measurement error between then and now.



second, on a planet that is estimated to be 4.5 Billion years old, 100 years is much, much less than a blink of an eye. If you wanted to gather enough data to establish a trend, let's say you wanted one-one hundredth of a percent, or 0.01 % of the earth's lifespan. that means gathering actual data for 450,000 years - WITH THE SAME INSTRUMENTS



global warming plays on your fears and pushes emotional buttons. it's NOT based on ANY legitimate scientific research, only on the UNPROVEN and UNPROVABLE theories of a few people who are more driven by a political agenda than they are interested in real science





Hey, "enraged" - you owe me 1000 bucks.

Answer 11

Yes. That is a pretty good description. It is pushed by a political agenda that uses some science to justify it. They pretend to know more than they do and they exaggerate the consequences. A child of 5 could come up with benefits of warming but those pushing a scare agenda focus on negative consequences and they dream up all sorts of associated catastrophes. This is enough to prove that it is junk science for me.

Answer 12

Yes, because people who are "experts" in pseudo-scientific nonsense such as dowsing are also prominent climate skeptics. People such as those, who know what real pseudo-science is, are not easily taken in by all the mathematical mumbo-jumbo, theories, and hard evidence produced by climate physicists and the like.



If you head is in the clouds of free-thought, you will not be distracted by the waves on the ocean of truth at your feet.

Answer 13

No, it isn't.



Because it is based upon sound physics and has mountains of observational and experimental evidence supporting it.



But seriously, about your contest. I personally will award 1000 dollars to the first person who can prove that anthropogenic global warming is not occurring. The only rule is that I am the sole judge of what constitutes proof. Come on, skeptics! If it's so easy to disprove the theory, here's a chance to make an easy 1000 bucks!



Do you see now, how inane JunkScience's (fitting name) contest is? I doubt it.

Answer 14

There is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

Answer 15

"Up to 8 inches of new snow was expected in Denver, which set a record for its snowiest Christmas with the nearly 8 inches that fell Tuesday". I don't think global warming causes record snowfall.

Answer 16

No, global warming is solid science. There are many basic scientific facts which can only be explained if the current global warming is being caused by an increased greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels.



https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20071214132604AA03azy



3) Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased 37% since the Industrial Revolution to levels greater than they've been in millions of years.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png



4) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so we know this will cause warming.



5) Solar output has decreased slightly over the past 30 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm



6) We're in a cooling portion of the Earth's natural cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycle#The_future

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



The only plausible explanation for these facts is an increased greenhouse effect due to humans burning fossil fuels. If you can offer an alternative explanation, I'd love to hear it.



It's not Al Gore's job to debate global warming. He's not a scientist, he's just a public figure who's made the science accessible to the public. It tells me more about the opposition that they're challenging Gore to debates instead of challenging climate scientists.



The JunkScience.com (funded by ExxonMobile and previously by Phillip Morris Tobacco Company, by the way) challenge is a ruse. They get to decide when the theory is "proven". All they have to do is say 'no, you didn't prove it' and nobody will ever win. It's a total joke, no more than a PR stunt.

Answer 17

No. It's the best scientists in the world, backed by a mountain of data. Al Gore is completely irrelevant to that.



The junkscience contest is a farce, since the answer is whatever HE says it is. No objective judging.



This is science and what counts 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



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



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

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf



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/412.php?lb=hmpg1&pnt=412&nid=&id=



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



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

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



"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... 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



Good websites for more info:



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

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

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



EDIT - Global warming is MORE accepted day by day, as the data continually gets stronger. The fact that deniers scrape up a few scientists, many of dubious credentials, isn't changing ANYTHING in the real world.

Answer 18

don't really know to be honest.don't really care either cos i'll be buying a gas-guzzling SUV as soon as i can afford one!

Answer 19

Its alot of junk and not alot of science

Answer 20

yes, it is mostly all politics and little kids being brainwashed at school.

Answer 21

NO!!!

Because there is true evidence that it is happening!

Answer 22

no, is there such a thing as "junk science"?