Global Warming...Truth or Junk Science?
486568
It's both.  Truth, the earth is warming.  Junk, no prof why it is.  If we look at the past, one could easily conclude that it is normal cycles.\nDuring the 1300's there was major global warming..hense Greenlands name...Greenland.
1103551
Here is the problem with global warming.\n1.  We do not know that it is occurring.\n2.  Even if it is occurring, we do not know if the sun is to blame, like with the melting of Martian polar caps, or if it is planet caused.\n3.  Even if it is planet caused, we do not know if it is nature, like when Krakatoa and Helens blew, or man caused.\n4.  Even if it is man caused, we do not know if the overall effects of an increased growing season and farmland increase is a bad thing.\n5.  Even if it is bad, we do not know if we can reverse it.\n6.  Even if we can reverse it, we do not know if it is more economically efficient to adapt or to try to reverse it.\n\nBut think instead of wack a mole at chucky cheese you could play club a seal in alaska.  Could be fun.
1172263
How about when the left stops putting out fake news and calling it "science".\n\nBTW, as a scientist, I've seen many advocates for Global Warming either exaggerate their data, improperly analyze their data, or publicize unfounded conclusions from it.\n\nWhy?  They're on a different payroll, wise guy.\n\nSo, how about getting your head out of your lower orifice, and start learning instead of being so gullible?
353680
the global warming theory is driven by politics, not science
976302
1.  Yes, temperatures actually have been rising - in certain places.  2.  No, it isn't too early to make predictions, as long as they are based on sound, unbiased scientific findings.  3. I believe that the warming is being driven by both people and natural causes.  We can do something about the former, but not the latter.  To what degree (no pun intended) each one is a factor is still up in the air, I think.  4.  Yes, it certainly could benefit some regions of the earth, but it would damage many populated regions tremendously.  That's why we need to try to slow down the human contribution a.s.a.p.
997939
In this enviroment of Global Warming I would say not. Cold is not cool any more, warming is hot.
806057
You're a fool if you don't believe in global warming.  That is happeneing and vetted by alot of scientists.\n\nNow, the cause of global warming is certainly up for discussion/debate.
1088549
I have been wondering if I would see a global warming question up here.  I thought for sure there would just be a bunch of answer blaming Bush for it.  I am glad to see it hasn't gone that way yet.\n\nThis whole global warming thing is a complete sham.  When I was in school they used to run stories on global cooling, we were all going to be under ice, because all the air pollution was going to block out the sun.  Now its global warming, just more nonsense.\n\nUnfortunately they don't teach you kids much in school nowadays.  The Earth goes through climate changes ALL THE TIME.  I know you have all heard of ice ages, probably only because of the cute little kids movie, but we have had them its really true.  It has also been really, really hot here.  We have been completely covered by ice, we have been without even ice at the poles.  The poles themselves actually flip from time to time.  One day the north pole will be the south pole, it has happened before and it will happen again.\n\nWe can't even come close to attempting to try to affect the climate.  And nothing we can do, can stop, or alter where the climate is going.  If it does in fact get warmer, we didn't do it, and we can't stop it.\n\nYou really need to understand what is behind things like this though, because it is truely unAmerican.   A large part of the world and more unfortunately a small but significant percentage of our own people, simply believe we do not deserve to be the world most powerful country.  And everything they can do, to level the playing field, they will do.  This is simply one of those devices.  There are plenty and there will be more.
698388
The artic ice shelf IS melting .Not a myth .Polar bears ARE drowning .Artic communities have experienced increased flooding and evacs.Worst droughts out west since the thirties.There is abundant evidence of glaciers retreating.The science is out there and I will believe scientific evidence and experience  over people who want to bury their heads in the sand and stupidly do nothing any day of the week.Don't let yourself get conned by people who are in denial and have no proof of their own to contradict scientific evidence and eyewitness accounts .Global warming is no joke and we must do something to prevent it from getting worse now before it's too late.
66796
You know, when my grandfather was a kid, the government and the military dreamed of controlling the weather.  Now, 70 years later, the government has long since given up on the idea of controlling the weather.  But now we have people running around screaming about global warming who are supposed "experts" in the field.  We can't control the weather and bend it to our will so now they want us to believe that we can drastically alter it by ACCIDENT?!?  What arrogance.... Michael Chrichton's book was a work of fiction but his writing was solidly researched based on actual scientific data, not by waiting till the middle of August and then claiming that since it is 105 degrees outside, it must be due to "global warming".  What a riot.  Why do you think the government refused to sign the kyoto accord?  Because of money?  Bull... it was because it could not be scientifically verified.  OK. Very sorry to have climbed up on the soapbox.
1080290
He's not, Professor Patterson is the exception to most of the scientific community with regard to global warming. Stop letting your political views cloud your capacity to learn the truth, here's a link  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
49486
Interesting, since I just heard on the news that there is some sort of German study that points out that trees do indeed create more greenhouse gases than automobiles.  Or something like that.  They pointed out too, how Reagan's quote is often found on liberal sites for dumb things Republicans have said; but that Reagan may have been more right than we realize.
198097
I don't know what most people think of physicists.  General public opinion has much more to do with mass media and education than with facts.\n\n"There are only two infinite things:  the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the universe."  (an inexact quote from Dr. Albert Einstein)\n\nThe masses are drilled in pop junk science more than in theories based on replicable observed evidence.\n\nIn the category of junk science I include:\n\nmacroevolution (as opposed to microevolution, hybridization,  natural selection, and limited adaptation within species).\n\nman-induced global warming (as opposed to long-term solar cycles and climate change, like the Little Ice Age of 1350-1850 A.D. or thereabouts, recovery from which continues to this day).\n\nuse of condoms for birth control and STD prevention (which is taught to individuals as being effective, but is actually only effective in a public health sense, affecting a percentage of a population).\n\nthe value of big pharma's latest offerings (those which haven't been around long enough to fall from favor or into disrepute).\n\nprojected cost-effectiveness of non-petroleum fuels such as kerosene and ethanol (which rise in price with the price of gasoline, not because they have increased in cost, but because the game is rigged).\n\nbanning DDT, based in part upon faked scientific evidence (even though sub-Saharan Africa has been consumed by locusts for four of the past six years).\n\nfuturist prophecies of environmental doom based on current trends (ignoring the fact that, on the way to extremes, environmental conditions exert market pressures in the direction of prior equilibrium states).
1032968
Dr. Lindzen has said there were a wide variety of scientific views presented in the NAS report and "that the full report did, [express a wide variety of views] making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them."  The same is true of the all of the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change's studies on which the notion of global warming is based.\n\nClaims that scientific opinion is nearly unanimous on the subject of global warming are wrong. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine received signatures from over 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, to a document saying, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."\n\n-----------------------\n\n"Contrary to the conventional wisdom and the predictions of computer models, the Earth's climate has not warmed appreciably in the past two decades, and probably not since about 1940. The evidence is overwhelming:\n\na) Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979. In fact, if one ignores the unusual El Nino year of 1998, one sees a cooling trend.\n\nb) Radiosonde data from balloons released regularly around the world confirm the satellite data in every respect. This fact has been confirmed in a recent report of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences [1].\n\nc) The well-controlled and reliable thermometer record of surface temperatures for the continental United States shows no appreciable warming since about 1940. [See figure] The same is true for Western Europe. These results are in sharp contrast to the GLOBAL instrumental surface record, which shows substantial warming, mainly in NW Siberia and subpolar Alaska and Canada.\n\nd) But tree-ring records for Siberia and Alaska and published ice-core records that I have examined show NO warming since 1940. In fact, many show a cooling trend.\n\nConclusion: The post-1980 global warming trend from surface thermometers is not credible. The absence of such warming would do away with the widely touted "hockey stick" graph (with its "unusual" temperature rise in the past 100 years) [see figure]; it was shown here on May 17 as purported proof that the 20th century is the warmest in 1000 years." \n--Testimony of Prof. S. Fred Singer\nPresident, The Science & Environmental Policy Project\nbefore the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Climate Change
782745
"Are we destroying the earth with technology or is the earth doing business as usual"\nI suggest you track the changes scientists have found in the entire history of the earth, warming, freezing, wet and even effects of smoke from Krakatoa. Then compare what is happening now with pollution and the depletion of the ozone layer and ask the readers to make their own conclusion.
753693
CO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years. Methane is 130% greater. These are two of the main pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in excess, and they are two of the primary greenhouse gases.\n\nLook at the 'hockeystick', which shows a dramatic warming since 1950 after a fairly stable climate for 1000 years. In fact, the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1990, with 2005 being the hottest.\n(see links below)\n\nHow's that for proof of man's fault in this? There is ample proof, any real scientist will tell you that.\n\nThere has NEVER been an article doubting man's influence on global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal. A recent study of almost 1000 proved that.\n\nYes, the earth naturally heats and cools, but the rate and amount we are warming now is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. We are doing this, and we must stop it. This is not some political statement or rhetoric. This is science trying to educate a crass, ignorant public of the damage they are doing. The magnitude of temperature increase ALREADY is about 10x that of the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, and rate and amount are only going up. \n\nJust to be clear, glacial and interglacial cycles are mainly controlled by astronomical fluctuations, but we have a detailed record of the last 7 cycles, and what the climate and CO2 is doing now is way different and extreme. The rate of increase is much higher than in the past AND the value itself is much higher.\n\nHI CO2: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm\nHOCKEY STICK: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109188.stm\nGeneral climate stuff: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897061.stm
1045634
I don't think a lot of people read this. It is interesting information. I had to take a tree hugger science last year and one of the things the professor admitted to is that another one of the destructive gases to the ozone that they beleive is causing the global warming is ethanol, and uria, which are both caused by natural body occurances, the ethonal comes from Pooh, while the uria comes from Urine. Not just human but animal as well. I personally don't know, but am refreshed to see another prospective on the whole thing. Now they can prove all of it, inclucding the CFC part Maybe we can all use Aqua Net again.