Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? (1 Viewer)

[The General]

I've heard recently that 30 of the world's leading scientists have banded together to denounce the theory of Global Warming claiming it has as much credibilty as the Millennium Bug.

I mean the "experts" used to tell us that the Earth was flat.

Up until recently we were told that there were nine planets in our solar system. Now they're saying, "Whoops sorry but Pluto isn't a planet after all."

I just don't know how much credibility scientists have. After all, so much of it is based on unproven theories.

Your thoughts?

 

[Louis Badolato]

All my experiences living in the New York City area tell me its true -- our climate has gotten a ton warmer over the last 40 years, and we get a lot less snow. When I was a kid we played ice hockey on frozen ponds every winter, and I haven't seen anyone skate outside on a pond in 15 years.

However, I am undecided, because I saw an overlay of average world temperatures since 1900 on solar activity over the same time, and they matched almost perfectly. So things may be getting warmer, but it may have little or nothing to do with green house gases, and everything to do with increased solar activity.

That being said, I do not rule out the greenhouse gases and destruction of the ozone layer as causing or substantially adding to the problem. Maybe temperatures always reflect solar activity, but they have uniformly increased because of polution.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Odd that NY appears warmer, NE has had several cycles in that time frame, with one of its coldest winters 2 years ago, and record snowfall last year. This summer was also one of the coolest and wettest of record. That said the observations of general temperature changes are likely correct. As for most things, scientific theories included, correlation and causation are quite different things. I remain skeptical of the alledged "human" causes, much less the proffered cures.

 

[Saber]

I'm pretty sure there were no cars around during the last Ice Age or the subsequent Global Warming that ended it. It's obvious that the Earth goes through climate change, often times dramatic and severe throughout it's long eons of existence what's less clear is the exact causes. What I've read on the matter is that there seems to be many things that effect the Earths climate and they can interact differently producing varying results over time. When I see money involved (Carbon Credit Companies) in any endeavor to convince someone of an impending disaster I'm naturally skeptical. That being said I'm no fan of pollution. What really worries me is that all the mass hype about global warming could backfire. As stated earlier on this thread the times "scientist" assure us of some "Truth" and turn out to eat crow are to numerous to recount. Just because global warning may not be man made does not mean it doesn't happen or we shouldn't worry about the effects of pollution. What concerns me is that knee jerk reactions to one problem often produce a problem even worse. Take incandescent light bulbs, we've been told they contribute to man made global warming so stop using them and get fluorescent bulbs... but wait now there are reports they have mercury in them and while a few don't present a problem thousands going into city landfills everyday might effect the groundwater we drink. Having millionaires like Al Gore or some dope smoking Hollywood bozo flying around in their private jet and living in 20,000 square foot mansions tell me what I should cut back on is absurd! They waste more gas driving up to their stupid self congratulation ceremonies(the oscars) in limos than I do in a year. When these idiots start bicycling to these stupid events maybe I'll listen to what they have to say.

Cheers, Saber

 

[marco55]

Saber,
I couldn't have said it any better.The earth is gonna do what it wants to do.
Mark

 

[bearybones]

It is absolutely an indisputable fact that the earth is going through a warming period recently and that the polar caps and the ice sheet of Greenland are melting, parts of the oceans are slightly warmer, hurricanes are becoming more frequent and severe, etc. That is not is dispute, because all you have to do is look with your own eyes, or read the statistics on the charts. Glacier National Park will soon be completely glacier free. None of this easily documented information is in dispute. The cause of this current warming trend is what is being disputed. Is it a normal cycle, or has it been caused by man - that is what is in dispute.

 

[Spitfrnd]

...None of this easily documented information is in dispute. The cause of this current warming trend is what is being disputed. Is it a normal cycle, or has it been caused by man - that is what is in dispute.

Well I think that is what everone so far has said.

 

[1879fanatic]

Then if everyone is in agreement, why the undecided and fiction votes?

 

[Col. Hesler]

I think its real, but thats just me.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Then if everyone is in agreement, why the undecided and fiction votes?

Well speaking for myself I chose undecided because I am not convinced of a human cause; the notion popularly suggested by the term GW by Goreites and the silly media. I could have chosen fiction for that purpose but I remain open to real evidence. However, for my observation, I was actually referring to the statements made to date in the thread, which is what I meant by the term "said".

 

[L Flowers]

Man made global warming is fact or fiction should be the question. I chose fiction because this belief that we have the power to change mother nature is ridiculous. Maybe locally like damming a river or installing a breakwater or moving into new areas. But using my car or some other similar activity is not going to affect the warming of the Earth.

Most of us here love history and I would recommend some of you read the history of weather cycles or about how Greenland got its name or the wineries that were in northern England in the middle ages, etc.

Just 35 years ago there was talk of global cooling and how something had to be done about. One of the champions of man-made global warming was a co-author on a piece from the early 70s that said the Earth was cooling and it was a threat to mankind. His name escapes me but he is chicken little #1 for man-made global warming after Gore.

Lastly, man made global warming advocates can't give you data that can be tested by others doing their own experiments with that data to verify or deny your hypothesis because it is all based on junk science. To me this is a political movement to gain control and tell you how to live your life.

enough ranting for now

Watch this video with real scientists in it...and others and decide for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s

 

[1879fanatic]

Man made global warming is fact or fiction should be the question. I chose fiction because this belief that we have the power to change mother nature is ridiculous. Maybe locally like damming a river or installing a breakwater or moving into new areas. But using my car or some other similar activity is not going to affect the warming of the Earth.

Most of us here love history and I would recommend some of you read the history of weather cycles or about how Greenland got its name or the wineries that were in northern England in the middle ages, etc.

Just 35 years ago there was talk of global cooling and how something had to be done about. One of the champions of man-made global warming was a co-author on a piece from the early 70s that said the Earth was cooling and it was a threat to mankind. His name escapes me but he is chicken little #1 for man-made global warming after Gore.

Lastly, man made global warming advocates can't give you data that can be tested by others doing their own experiments with that data to verify or deny your hypothesis because it is all based on junk science. To me this is a political movement to gain control and tell you how to live your life.

enough ranting for now

Watch this video with real scientists in it...and others and decide for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s

Hey 5-O,
I agree completely with you. The question as posed is if there IS or IS'nt global warming, not who/what caused it. for all I know it could be the Coppertone we had on as kids. There are more polar bears today then there were 30 and 100 years ago. That's the big thing now... they'll all float away on an icecube if you and I don't stop mowing our lawns with gas mowers
Mike

 

[L Flowers]

Polar bears alone and stranded on icebergs?? Forgot about that image touted as proof we are destroying the planet. Funny thing is that polar bears swim and have been known to swim 100 miles.

 

[L Flowers]

ARTICLE RE: COOLING TO WARMING

On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.
The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.
Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."
Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.
So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren't they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?
"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.
Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.
This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times' John McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory "court jesters." We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who were skeptical of the ice age theory in 1971?
People can change their positions based on new information or by taking a closer or more open-minded look at what is already known. There's nothing wrong with a reversal or modification of views as long as it is arrived at honestly.
But what about political hypocrisy? It's clear that Hansen is as much a political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from one approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence?
If Hansen wants to change positions again, the time is now. With NASA having recently revised historical temperature data that Hansen himself compiled, the door has been opened for him to embrace the ice age projections of the early 1970s.
Could be he's feeling a little chill in the air again.

 

[L Flowers]

SOME MORE REFERENCE

Viscount Monckton gives a presentation during the 2007 Conference on Climate Change"Considerable presence" of skeptics The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible." In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate. Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors" In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method." According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low." Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

 

[theBaron]

I agree with the other posters who've said that the poll might better have been stated as "Man-made global warming-fact or fiction?"

I don't think anyone would deny that the Earth's climate is cyclical in nature. The real debate is over whether Man has caused the recent warming cycle; whether the effects the recent warming cycle will be as catastropic as some maintain it will be; whether the recent cycle is actually over and we are entering a cooler period; and whether the "solution" to any of this is more government intervention in our daily lives.

As has been said elsewhere, "Green is the new Red".

Prost!
Brad

 

[Spitfrnd]

Hey 5-O,
....The question as posed is if there IS or IS'nt global warming, not who/what caused it. for all I know it could be the Coppertone we had on as kids. There are more polar bears today then there were 30 and 100 years ago. That's the big thing now... they'll all float away on an icecube if you and I don't stop mowing our lawns with gas mowers
Mike

Again, the question of how it was caused IS the only germane question today regarding the use of the term global warming. Polar bears and gas mowers; it is indeed the new red.

 

[Gideon]

I opted in for "Fact". What ever is going on, something is up. COuld be global shifts, could be us belching stuff up into the ozone, could be sheep farts - I don't know but something is happening.

If we rally behind "Go Green!", reducing gases and overall air pollution but it has no effect on warming then we're breathing better air and our technology advances a bit further.

It's really hard to hide ice sheets which don't seem to be present anymore.

There is so much political interest and economic bullcrap going on within the scientific community that it's honestly hard to tell who's getting to gether to debunk what, for what reason and why...

 

[theBaron]

I've found it interesting to read historical accounts, like diaries, and see the writers describing weather that we would recognize, especially those regarding the weather here in the eastern seaboard of North America. For example, I have a book at home that contains the diaries of Brunswick and Hessian Jäger officers who served in the New York and New Jersey campaigns during the War for Independence, and they describe the same kind of weather that I've seen here in my lifetime-storms in January and February that can change from snow and ice to rain or vice versa, with sudden spring-like warming, juxtaposed with freezing temperatures, and the strong, sometimes violent thunderstorms that we experience in the summers. Not very scientific, I know, with no precise recording of temperatures, for example, but indicative of broader scales and patterns, that some today ignore or have overlooked.

Prost!
Brad

 

[L Flowers]

Another reason I am a skeptic of man-made global warming is because there is evidence of warming on other planets. Articles have been in Scientific American and Popular Science and other similar magazines. Also, Al Gore says all debate is over and he won't debate anyone and he also won't present any evidence for peer review which is a cornerstone of science.

Going green I have no problem with. If I can help the environment and reuse, recycle, etc. no problem but I don't think western society should be brought down because the Earth is warming. Global warming alarmists are just another attempt at political control.