Question for global warming advocates?
Answer:
Many of us who do decide to back up this belief do NOT ignore the other sides of this argument. The other "entire branch of science" gives us reasons we can't do anything about. The fact is, we do not know a definate reason for Global Warming or even if it really exists. HOWEVER, we take certain measures based on our "corner of the scientific argument" because we can do something to stop "Global Warming" just incase it does exist. It's better to be safe than sorry. Even if that means spending a little extra money. Can you say that we are not doing our Earth some good anyways even if our theories prove to be false?
As for your defination of concrete evidence, is models and scientific studies on the effects of CO2 and CFCs NOT concrete evidence? Are those observations of experiment not similar to "your side"'s observations of the Earth's climate. And as for these computer models you think are not true, just so you know, almost everything in your life has been impacted by the use of a computer.
So in conclusios, I would say this is indeed a wise choice.
geeez i hate the taste of scotland grapes there so dry!
State your sources. When they are both accredited and reviewed by a panel of expert peers I'll read their published articles and decide for myself. Put up or shut up.
Archaeologists and Anthropologists?you mean the same branches of science responsible for the Piltdown Man??
3DM the global cooling hypothesis never did gain significant scientific support. the largest promotion of that idea was in tabloids, not peer reviewed journals. I can still remember reading the tabloids that printed it, at the checkout line, even before I attended university science classes, and making jokes about it.
Most scientists knew the idea of global cooling was dubious and not investigated well. This climate change phenomenon has been researched continuously for decades, and much more is understood about the climate patterns. Maybe you should stick to what you know, and not with what propoganda tells you.
Short answer. Because the scientific data clearly shows that things have changed recently.
Medium answer. Do you actually think climatologists are unaware of the data you're talking about? And haven't considered it? C'mon.
Long answer.
Previously climate change was caused by other factors, mostly the Sun. But the data clearly shows that, starting about 40 years ago, man's production of greenhouse gases became more important than natural factors like the Sun.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/ima...
Here are ten different reconstructions of the last 2000 years. All peer reviewed, and using different methodologies. They agree on one thing. We're warmer now and this change is unusual.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/ima...
More details and references here:
http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...
The authoritative peer reviewed report on global warming discusses the historical data in massive detail, with dozens of references:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.
All this is why scientists, knowing the historic data you speak of, agree that global warming is real and mostly caused by us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/scientific_...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu... and:
"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/sci...
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"
I'm in total agreement with this. Global Warming is just another plot made by governments to higher taxes and get more money off us.
I think its funny that people actually believe Global Warming exists, Its also funny that in the past 100 yrs that our temperature only went up 0.5 degrees. and why don't these so-called scientist who say Global Warming exists refuse to debate it with credible scientist. I guess some people believe everything they hear
"Archaeologists and Anthropologists?you mean the same branches of science responsible for the Piltdown Man??"
Yeah, how can you even mention those pseudosciences when you compare them to the inerrant *cough-global cooling - cough* science of climatology. Why, it was only a little more than 90 years ago when they made that faux pas - it just can't measure up to the established *cough - only 30 years ago -cough* track record of error free climatology.
Yep, everyone knows climatology is perfect.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glob...
I'm not an advocate of man-made global warming but i wanted to respond anyway. We keep reading all this junk about the science and the scientists. Bob, above, likes to say, "Forget Al Gore and learn the science." I like to say that it's all about what side of your bread the butter's on. I've always maintained that a lot of these "eminent" scientists are only protecting their own interests, because what good is being a scientist of you can't afford to eat, right? Although I'm generally an opponent of using the internet for reliable sources, let's fight fire with fire. So to Bob and all the other internet scholars - this is for you.
""Atmospheric scientist Reid Bryson said in a June, 2007 interview that "There is a lot of money to be made in this... If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"[13]
Accuracy in Media published a report in 2002 entitled "Science for Sale: the Global Warming Scam," in which they allege that "global warming is driven more by the search for funding than the search for scientific truth."[94] A similar claim is made by various scientists [95] : NASA's Roy Spencer says that climate scientists need for there to be problems to get more funding. Climatologist and IPCC contributor John Christy says of climate scientists, “We have a vested interest in creating panic because money will then flow to climate scientists.” University of London biogeographer Philip Stott says that “If the global warming virago collapses, there will be an awful lot of people out of jobs.”
Richard S. Lindzen, who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, makes the specific claim that "[i]n the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century." Lindzen also suggests four other scientists "apparently" lost their funding or positions after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming.[96] Lindzen himself has been the recipient of money from energy interests such as OPEC and the Western Fuels Association, including "$2,500 a day for his consulting services."[14]
French climatologist and author Marcel Leroux makes a claim similar to that of Lindzen's: "In the end, global warming is more and more taking on an aspect of manipulation, which really looks like a "scientific" deception, and of which the first victims are the climatologists who receive funding only when their work goes along with the IPCC.""
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: