Can someone give me an educated reason that global warming is a hoax?
Answer:
There's no such thing. Its as real as you and me. Look up Milankovitch cycles. They are what dominate climate based on natural cycles of earths title, orbit, and wobbles on axis. By these accurate cycles we should be cooling, but we are warming..bad news. Look it up.
No its real its just not as bad as they say it is.
Over the past 100 years the average surface temperature of earth has risen 0.45-0.6 degrees Celsius (°C) (0.8-1.0 degrees Fahrenheit - °F). Wow I'm just burnin' up.
You could research on the concept as a natural cyclic occurence due to the poles reversing, as they have done in the past. Unfortunately, I do not have time to spoonfeed the information, but there are ways for one to learn new things for themselves if they so had the iniative. Which is not to say that I believe in a hoax or there is no human impact, but I do believe in keeping an open mind to possibilities.
The objections fall into a few categories:
The earth's climate goes through natural warming and cooling cycles, and has many times in the past. They don't believe this is any different, or that even if it is human-caused, it will have any worse effects than past changes;
There are still a few scientists who aren't convinced, as there are a few who don't believe in evolution. They give respectability to doubters;
Some prominent people are publicizing global warming. They must be doing it for their own selfish reasons;
Our understanding of the earth's cimate is still too primitive to make such sweeping claims;
The warming so far has been so minor that it makes little difference. If temperatures vary as much as 100 degrees over the course of the seasons, why should we care if the planet warms up a degree or two?
You can see that most of these share a lack of understanding of the scientific issues involved. Others are just thinly disguised denial, or political preferences trumping scientific objectivity. Some have at least a bit of validity, but they are more quibbling over details than counterevidence.
All things considered, I'm pleased and impressed that so many people are convinced and ready to take action. The rest will come along eventually.
Self interest in having pet projects funded and job security. But I can give you a good example. Water vapor, which is responsible for 95% of the Green House Effect isn't even factored into the "computer models" that are used to predect Global Warming. Prime law in computing is GIGO... garbage in garbage out.
Here is YOU Answer... Simply. DO THE MATH!
ONCE AGAIN.
Global Warming MEANS "World Wide Warming!" It is ONLY A Political Term = NOT based in Real Science!
The EARTH is covered by "Three Quarters WATER!" Basic Science, it takes ONE-Btu to raise One Cubic Centimeter ONE Degree Centigrade!
HOW many "Gazillion Cubic Centimeters are there ONLY on the Surface of Planet Earth COVERED by 3/4 Water?"
HOW many Btu's would it take TO RAISE THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE ONE DEGREE?
DO THE MATH!
And, were are the Million TEMPERATURE MEASURING SITES on the Many Oceans THAT TELL US THAT THE OCEAN TEMPERATURES ARE RISING? Not!
Oh yes, POLAR temperatures have varied LESS Than one degree in the past 100-Years. Noticed I said VARIED, = NOT RISEN!
Thanks, RR
There are no names to be given, it is a more general political movement than that.
In the '70's, the general buzz was that we would have run out of oil by now and we be freezing and there would be mass starvations.
The US has always had groups claiming that it's the end of the world. This is certainly one of the most successful movements of that kind.
The government gives funding for research on "global warming" < and nothing to the contrary> so what do you expect everyone to find?
See:
www.iceagenow.com
http://news.google.com/news?ncl=11178850...
There are still a few scientists that have not been brow-beaten int submission. Google "global warming skeptics".
The state of climate science is/was that the cyclic nature of global heating and cooling is not quantifiable enough to predict trends at less than a geologic timescale.
AGW scientists claim that they've "cracked the code". It is up to them to support their hypotheses. But they have not. Have you asked which scientist or group of scientists have submitted a specific theory, or what the actual theory states.
The IPCC statements do not constitute a scientific theory.
As their findings are based entirely on computer modeling, let's see the comprehensive model. Let's have an independent analysis of this model to see if it stands up to scientific scrutiny. But those remain veiled behind the bureaucrats of the IPCC as does a claimed "consensus".
When a scientist like the vaunted point man in the US, James Hansen, says something, it doesn't always jibe with the party line. He has recently stated that CO2 emissions will not overtake dimming effects in the immediate future, although the apparent party line seems to finger CO2.
And why did the IPCC have to roll back sea rise predictions? What explanation is given for the sizable discrepancies from previous predictions? Or was Al Gore's movie prediction just science fiction?
How do you show something is a hoax when it is little more than vapor?
Here is a link to ice core data taken in Antarctica. The graph shows temperature and CO2 levels for the last 400k years and gives you a very clear picture of the natural cycles of the Earth.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: