POLL: Global Warming?
What are your thoughts on global warming? Here are mine...
I believe that global warming is occurring, but is not ALL due to neglect. If you think about it, our earth has experienced ice ages and periods when it was warmer. Although I predict that global warming is natural, pollution is effecting our planet greatly. To sum it all up, the pollution is speeding up the process which is already happening.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”
6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.
8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for imme
- Anonymous1 decade ago
First you must realize the climate we enjoyed up until the last couple of years was the mildest in 8,000 years. While climatolgists alarm the general public with scare stories about how bad a warmer planet could be real scientists who actually study the subject are observing what is happening with the sun and getting very worried. It has been well known for better than 400 years that the sun and the earth have regular cycles of activity and they are tied together with the climate cycles of the earth following the sunspot cycles of the sun. And now solar scientists are predicting that the next 3 to 4 solar cycles are going to be below average in the number and possibly size of spots produced. So it is now possible we might be entering another deep solar minimum like the Dalton minimum of the early 1800s that was the final or so many thought cold blast of the little ice age.
But then the question begs have we really ever left the little ice age or was our current optimum been just a mildly warm interval in the little ice age and are we now going to return to the cold years with a vengeance. We must remember that it is the warm years that populations grow and flourish with greater crop yields and longer growing periods. It is the cold climate periods that cause death, starvation, disease, and barbarian invasions looking for food and relief from the cold. Time to build forts and defenses on our northern borders to protect our crops from the northern invaders trying to find food to keep their families from starvation.
And finally a decent explanation of how sunspots cause a warmer earth and why a quiescent sun is a cold sun with documentation.
- HydeLv 41 decade ago
I believe in Global Warming during the Spring. I swear it gets warmer during that time every year, I'm not joking.
Then, we have Global Cooling during the Fall. How come nobody ever talks about that? It could be fun too! We could all run around fearing we're gonna freeze to death 45,082 years from now.
- 1 decade ago
I agree with you completely. The Earth goes through a cycle that increases and decreases the overall temperature of the Earth every few thousand years. About ten thousand years ago (I think it was 10,000 years) was the last Ice Age. Now, we are going through the warming phase. This "global warming" is very natural, and yes, I do agree pollution is speeding up the process, but if you think about it, the "pollution" is the burning of fossil fuels, which warms the air, and when the Earth cools again, it will go back into the Earth, so either way, the Earth WILL warm up, but it will also cool down.
Both phases will cause dramatic changes like it has in the ancient past, such as the extinction of some species and the creation and adaptation of newer ones. Who knows, maybe we might die out. :)
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- NightwindLv 71 decade ago
Its funny to hear the unintelligent and the too young to know better crowd continuously bring up this topic and speak as though they knew what they were talking about.
When in fact they just parrot what they've been taught and told by those driven by an agenda.
Any scientists can come up with a theory, hell, even an idiot can come up with a theory, but for all the worry, all the stress, the politics and not to mention government jumping on the bandwagon and forcing life style changes based on something that to date hasn't been proven...Well that's just ludicrous. Are we all so rich that we have nothing better to do with our money than to throw it at some wasteful politician or agency now days ?
The polar bears aren't dying, or downing...that was an outright lie. If anyone did any research they would find that 75% of them live in Canada and that population had quadrupled.
The glaciers aren't receeding....because if you go back to those same glaciers a few years after the photo's that enviro whacko's love to publish, you'll find they have expanded or returned to normal.
Hansen from NASA said we had only 20 years left, and 20 years later we are still here, some other scientist claimed the oceans only had 10 years......its still there and it hasn't risen. Later it was found that these scientists were on the left agenda payroll. And what kind of "real" scientific community ousts people for speaking out against global warming ? Call me silly, but I thought science was decided by FACTS, not peoples emotions and agenda. It that were not the case, Sir Isaac Newton and Capernacus would have never been able to make their case.
The air and water quality has improved due to pollution awareness that started way back in the 70's and we didn't "trade" pollution credits like Al Gore is trading carbon credits. For if we did, the planet would be just as poluted as it was then. If carbon is a culprit, then why isn't it being eliminated. The reason is simple, its not a problem, Global warming is a hoax although local climate changes may be happening. One can not deny that plopping 1000's of people in an area isn't going to effect the ecology, but there's no proof that man kind is destroying the planet.
To date, no enviro freak can explain why the ozone "hole" was largest in 1956 before the use of CFC's. Real scientists speculated it was because of how cold the region was but couldn't prove it. And do you realize how many people may have died due to this shift in government forcing people to stop using products they deemed "unsafe for the enviroment" when they've had no real proof ? Take the space shuttle disaster, the heat shields were made of a different product than the past, all due to such changes. And these changes have been made in all of industry.....buses..cars...taxi....airplanes. So here we have had the government,...driven by the ecology fringe...to make and force changes that have unknowingly effected our lives and safety.
IF global warming was a real problem...then why haven't the waters covered coastal cities ? Why are many regions throughout the country seeing the coldest weather in decades ? Even the so called experts claim that there hasn't been any warming for 5 years.
Even during out industrialization from WW2 to the 70's....we were wrecklessly spewing pollution from all our plants...but temperatures were going down.
As for the greenhouse effect, its a natural effect that has existed since the beginning of the planet, and there is no proof that its becoming a worse problem. The catastrophic BS many tout is only a theory generated by someone's laboratory experiement...Which hasn't played out in real life.
People use to complain after a day at work in LA that their lungs hurt.
I can go on and on, the evidence is out there and i've been around to see it for decades, but the sum total is, you can't take the lies of the left and propaganda you've been told or heard and run with it, since most of it has been proven to be out right lies to get people involved. If your going to comment on such a subject which will effect peoples cost of living and life, you should study it from all sources and know what your talking about.....not what you've been told...and in the arena of science...your opinion means nothing without proof.
That isn't to say people have a license to pollute and litter, i'm just saying this "crying wolf" crap has got to stop.
- BullseyeLv 71 decade ago
According to the IEA we would need to build over 30 nuclear power plants every year-- plus 17,000 wind turbines each year for the next 3 DECADES! and retrofit hundreds of coal fired power plants-- to achieve a 50% reduction in CO2 ------------ which is the minimum amount needed to affect global temperatures.
Now do you really still think there is anything you can do by DRIVING LESS or turning off the TV!!
- bravozuluLv 71 decade ago
I think that a small amount of beneficial warming is probably caused by humans. The physics of the absoption of IR by CO2 makes me think the warming is very unlikely to be much more than a degree. Since we don't know what it would have been without human caused CO2, nobody knows if it is good or bad. Historically speaking, moderately small increases like that are almost certainly beneficial. The process isn't speeding up. The ocean is a sink that holds 50 times as much as the air. They are in equilibrium and it is highly unlikely humans will significantly increase their usage. Alternatives need to be found because the cheapest fossil fuels have already been used. The problem should correct itself long before it becomes a hazard. it is actually much more likely a blessing than a problem. Unlike most compounds that humans make, CO2 isn't pollution or harmful in any way.
- 1 decade ago
The majority of Earth's energy comes from the sun, it is the driver for Earth's climate - it obviously fluctuates to its own natural cycles and it is those cycles that effect our planet's climate cycles. We have experieced numerous ice ages in the past and we will in the future. I also question the accuracy of the recorded temperatures on Earth millions of years ago, there's no way the accuracy is withing +/- 1 degF (or celsius) - they have general trends but that's it, we can't accurately say exactly what the temperature was one million years ago, heck we can barely do it today using online instruments.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
the earths temperature varies greatly over time if you see it all graphed out, we are actually in a colder period. although pollution doesn't help the earth warming it won't affect the temp of the planet as much as al gore says it will. the earth will warm up naturally over time but will drop back down again. you shouldn't worry about any drastic effect in your life, the next major climate problem will be another ice age anyway.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
This is a stupid people alert: Put CO2 in a jar and put auir in another jar. Put them in the sun. Will the CO2 be warmer becuase it is a greenhouse gas. NO!!!! It will be exactly the same. How in the world can a substance 0.053 % of the atmosphere cause so much concern.
My theory. Al Gore was supposed to be a life form on Venus where they have 97% CO2. That is why he is so panicked.
The earth warms becuse of the sun and atmospheric physics we don't understand yet!
- rofeLv 51 decade ago
Man made global warming is a farce. WE are still withing the range of normal temperature fluctuation. Increased Carbon Dioxide will increase plant production. Warmer climates will allow increase plant growth. there is not enough ice to cause the predicted ocean rise. If you check the math on the global warming proponents you will see that they are not correct in their calculations.