Tom S
Lv 7
Tom S asked in News & EventsCurrent Events · 1 decade ago

Is Global Warming just a lot of hype?

Are we like ants in a large forest? After all in the 1960s people believed that humans are causing the next ice age.

9 Answers

Relevance
  • ycats
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Global warming is widely regarded as a current phenomenon with substantial scientific backing. The real debate is whether the warming may be influenced by humans.

  • 1 decade ago

    I would say not completely. It seems like things are happening, but not to the degree that the Gore-ite crowd would have you believe.

    Despite what they tell you, there ARE thousands of actual scientests in related fields that question the global warming orthodoxy, but are basically being censored and silenced for political reasons.

    One of Gore's books called the internal combustion engine the greatest evil the world has ever known long before the current scare, so this has been his monomania for a long time. BTW did you know that it is Gore himself who is making money of all those 'carbon credit vouchers'?

    It's quite easy to find links to reputable websites challenging global warming orthodoxy -- if I have time I'll tack some in for you all later.

    Here's one:

    http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/

    But somebody up top already did an outstanding job I see!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It is a problem and it is caused in a gret part by what we humans do. It is not going to get any better until the actual cause is dealt with.

    The sheer numbers of us humans on this planet is more the cause than anything else.

    When people face this fact and start doing something about it then there will be some progress made twords peace on earth.

  • 1 decade ago

    Most people don't think it's real, but I do. With the crazy weather we're having, the ice bergs melting and all of the other things that are happening I don't think it's a "hype".

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Mostly, yes, its a way to get lots of money and control into the hands of its proponents.

  • 1 decade ago

    It's real. Are there any facts to contra the raised issues?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    you find out soon enough.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Hype, Hoax, and Marxist ploy.

    On the junk science website you will find links to a documentary called "The Global Warming Swindle"

    The facts are this is purely political and control in nature and has nothing to do with climate science.

    Climate scientists (17,000+) will tell you the earths climate is changing, but they also say it has always changed and will always change. Most of these scientists also say man's impact to climate change is miniscule.

    Do your own research.. I am a convert. The myth is just that. One big myth. I am a commonsense environmentalist, when the former leader of greenpeace stated the environmental movement was taken over by marxists after the collapse of the soviet union I knew the game was different.

    Yes, we need to protect our environment, but we need to use commonsense, science and reason to study and address the problem.

    Don't buy the emotional crap that Al Gore and his commie ilk are selling.

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

    http://www.junkscience.com/

    Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

    By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler in London

    Published: April 25 2007 22:07 | Last updated: April 25 2007 22:07

    Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

    A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

    Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

    The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.

    The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.

    The FT investigation found:

    ■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

    ■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

    ■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

    ■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

    ■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

    Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found “serious credibility concerns” in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months.

    “The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it,” he said.

    These concerns led the bank to ignore the market and fund its own carbon reduction projects directly.

    Some companies are benefiting by asking “green” consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.

    The FT has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. In response to FT inquiries about its sourcing of carbon credits, one company, carbonvoucher.com, said it had not taken payments for offsets.

    Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling “carbon credits” for burying the carbon.

    There is nothing illegal in these practices. However, some companies that are offsetting their emissions have avoided such projects because customers may find them controversial.

    BP said it would not buy credits resulting from improvements in industrial efficiency or from most renewable energy projects in developed countries.

    Additional reporting by Rebecca Bream

    Media Shows Irrational Hysteria on Global Warming

    "The Public Has Been Vastly Misinformed," NCPA's Deming Tells Senate Committee

    12/6/2006 5:57:00 PM

    To: National Desk

    Contact: Sean Tuffnell of the National Center for Policy Analysis, 972-308-6481 or sean.tuffnell@ncpa.org

    WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma and an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), testified this morning at a special hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The hearing examined climate change and the media. Bellow are excerpts from his prepared remarks.

    "In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.

    "I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. ... The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."

    "In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph. "Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.

    "There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed."

    ---

    The NCPA is an internationally known nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute with offices in Dallas and Washington, D. C. that advocates private solutions to public policy problems. NCPA depends on the contributions of individuals, corporations and foundations that share our mission. The NCPA accepts no government grants.

    http://www.usnewswire.com/

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.