One PhD Says Global Warming is Man Made, Another PhD says it's caused by the Sun. Who do you believe?
There are reputable scientist who have done the research and came to the conclusion that man is causing global warming.
There are reputable scientist who have done the research and came to the conclusion that the Sun, not man, is causing global warming.
Who do you believe and why?
Do you choose because of your faith, or political party?
Or do you choose because you find one sides information more plausible that the other?
Or do you look at which side has more numbers?
Or is it that more people in your social group believe one side more than the other?
Or do you say that we need more information before we can say one is correct?
- BobLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Superb question, fairly stated, not grinding an axe. Starred.
I believe the major ORGANIZATIONS of scientists. They have to balance out the differing views of their members. If it's at all close, or scientifically uncertain, they'll simply refrain from taking a position as an organization.
They have all chosen to formally come down on the side of the mostly man made cause of warming. They include (my examples are the larger, more important ones, collectively representing tens of thousands of scientists):
The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Association, the American Geophysical Union, the Nobel Prize Committee.
And many more (including the National Academies of every advanced country).
It helps that I find mainstream global warming scientists to be far more numerous, and their science more plausible. But if the same organizations said something I didn't agree with, I'd examine my personal views very closely, guessing that I was very probably wrong.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I think it was created by man. The earth has been here for billions of years. The earth has always fixed itself through things such as the ice age. What is happening in the ozone layer, the rapid extinction of animals, the pollution....the sun doesnt litter. The sun DOES influence global warming (i mean....hello, heat?) but it was man that made a hole in the ozone layer allowing the sun's ultra violet rays get trapped in our atmosphere. I come to this conclusion not because of religion or politics and i dont coem to the conclusion because i believe one scientist has more or better research. I think that it is a matter of common sense. I mean, it is simply unnatural to look at the sky above a city and see...green, brown, gray smoke hovering above it, or to see gross canals and rivers polluted black from radioactive materials and other waste being dumped into it. I believe that it was man. And anyone can see that the sun is the most immediate cause; the sun has enough energy to destroy our planet. But before people and the industrial revolution and greenhouse gases and pollution kicked in, there was no hole above Antarctica, and greenland was not quite so small.
- newsgirlinos2Lv 51 decade ago
I generally distrust any "evidence" given from anyone who claims to "know the truth" about Global Warming but no one who is paying attention can deny the fact that our world is warming up. It may be man's activities or it may be the sun or it may be part of a huge cycle that we are just beginning to recognize, but regardless of the cause the fact is that the warming trend is going to make a large number of humans even more miserable than they are right now.
If it is possible to stem the warming trend by decreasing human contribution to the problem, shouldn't we try to do so? Even if the sun is the biggest contributor to the problem we may be able to off set that by regulating other factors such as CO2 emissions and thereby stopping or slowing down the warming trend to a pace that is tolerable to most of the world. Shouldn't we invest in seeing if that is possible? Or should we continue to bicker over which information source to believe until it is too late to do anything at all? The idea of bickering certainly gets a lot more press than the idea actually trying to fix the problem.
Denying Global Warming because you don't trust the source of the information is rather shortsighted and selfish as is the idea that any single source is the all-knowing-king-of-sources.
You mentioned the Tragedy of the Commons in one of your recent Answers today, and considering how familiar you seem to be with that concept, it is ironic that you do not recognize that the internet has turned "The Media" into a form of the commons. Anyone can dump information into the media through the internet, good or bad. Esteemed scientists alongside radical bloggers-Global Warming commentators alongside The Flat Earth Society, each with an opinion to express, personal pride or cold hard cash to collect, and very little punishment for doing damage.
I look out my window today and see roses coming into bloom and my garden sprouting volunteer plants leftover from last fall and I do not need anyone to tell me the climate is warmer than it was even 5 years ago.Source(s): And yes, I am in the Radical Blogger group. http://vicinsea.blogspot.com/2008/02/tragedy-of-co... http://vicinsea.blogspot.com/2007/10/letter-to-htt... http://vicinsea.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-are-you-...
- 1 decade ago
Global warming is a natural process that's being accelerated by man. There's some truth in just about everything, although, saying that it is completely man made doesn't seem correct to me. I am not strongly influenced by faith, politics, statistics, nor peer pressure.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I believe that both are responsible. I read several articles about this issue and I believe that both sides are responsible because there is enough scientific evidence to support enough to make it believable and possible. i think that we should still do something about global warming because we are the only ones that can really DO anything about it/to stop it since we can't change the sun and the sun can't change itself (at least i don't think it can... :?).
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I follow the conclusions of the IPCC for a number of reasons:-
The are a representative body drawn from many nations
They were asked why the climate was changing and not told the answer
They have worked diligently for a number of years and issued four major reports
There conclusions are supported in detail by proper peer reviewed scientific papers.
I have read the reports and they makes sense to me - although parts I don't understand
Can you please give a link to a scientific paper from the person who says that the current warming is caused by the sun?
- J SLv 51 decade ago
The one that has thousands of peers (scientists) that agree with his or her science.
The one who has had several of those peers, people far more familiar with the underlying science and basis for the particular research being presented than us, review the work and stake their reputations and careers on the new paper being accurate.
The one who is educated, smart and informed enough to know that all trends of the sun have been studied and are negative (cannot have caused the bulk of current warming).
The one who is supported by all of the data (except short ter, local weather, which is irrelevant).
The one that does not stoop so low as to misrepresent weather as climate.
The one that doesn't deny things for a living, who hasn't made a living for the past 16 years denying that cigarettes are addictive, that nicotene isn't addictive, that second hand smoke isn't harmful, that a little more mercury won't hurt our children all that much (so don't filter out poisonous coal power plant emissions).
The one that doesn't need to rely on fanciful tales of conspiracies in order to recruit a few similarly paranoid supporters. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel!
The person who has all of these indicators on his/her side. That's who I believe.
I have curiosity, not faith. I generally oppose the stereotype of my political party on this issue, although both the Republican and Democratic parties here in the States now acknowledge global warming. As for which side has more numbers, I challenge you to show a second side... one that has peer-reviewed papers by qualified, working scientists (not professional deniers or oil/coal industry shills). Social group? No, they're content to consume Fox News' entertainment. Within a dozen years or so the arctic ice cap will be gone, Colorado River reservoirs will have become unusable, the Northwest and Southeast will be starved for water as well, and the United States will suffer a depression as water and food costs skyrocket (gasoline will have skyrocketed years earlier). As it affects their daily lives in major ways, they'll be forced to think about the preponderence of the data and they'll start to get it.
Which "reputable scientist has done the research and came to the conclusion that the Sun, not man, is causing global warming"? Show one peer-reviewed paper please. I believe that you're either grossly mistaken or dishonest. A link might easily prove me wrong on both counts, but I don't think you can produce one.
I'm calling your bluff. Here's my link disproving the thoroughly debunked sun theory. Provide one peer-reviewed paper published in a credible scientific journal supporting the sun as a primary (greater than 50%) cause of current warming.
"There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
"blaming the sun for recent global warming is no science-backed position anymore – it is deliberate disinformation. "
- eric cLv 51 decade ago
I believe in those who have not given me any reason to mistrust them. I lost trust in the pro AGW camp with the hockey stick fiasco.
The way they wanted to "get rid of" the MWP, the way it was accepted and passed the peer review process. The way Mann used his position as lead author in the IPCC to promote the graph. The way that Nature magazine was unwilling to accept any criticism of the study, saying it would be of "no interest to their readers." The wegman report that followed up. The fact that Mann refused to disclose his methodology. Their actions shows a group of people with something to hide, and an agenda to push.
- KenLv 51 decade ago
It's more like 10 Electricians, a Safety Inspector and 1 Physicist say you need to rewire your house and 1 plumber says "don't bother, it might not really be a problem". Who do you believe?
From your own links, the highest percentage of warming the latter part of the 20th century any scientist attributes to the sun is about 30% (most say 10%). That leaves 70 - 90% still attributable to human activity. Should we ignore the 70% human caused warming, just because the solar may be responsible for up to 30%?
Max Planck Society
"researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years"
National Center for Atmospheric Research & Physics Institute, University of Bern
"recent papers suggest that solar forcing may be less than previously believed"
- Ben OLv 61 decade ago
I would be sceptical of both. Science has been wrong in the past and society has too much faith in science such that we are prepared to send people to prison or death row soley on what one scientists says only to find out later that the science was not sound.
We need to be a little more sceptical - just because someone wears a lab coat doesn't make them infallible or even necessarily credible.