is global warming true or not is it is has it been going on since 1987?
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
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
675468
Not really but in fact the bigger problem is not CO2 but CO. Never the less you know that CO2 levels have suffer a cycle since the beginning earth however since the Industrial revolution they climbed hugely the climate has already changed. At least in my part of the planet it is hotter generally I notice it, my parents did and my friends in general, but it is the older people that notice it the most. The climate is cyclic, sometimes it makes things from 100 to 100 years and at the beginning one thought it might be that but it’s not it’s really a matter of global warming. (I am portuguese to now more about the fire in summer consult the web or see it in CNN in the summer), it is real and it is now
397342
Yes. read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science" by Tom Bethell. You will be amazed with truths about climate change and environmentalism.\nSome examples are: "Environmentalists not so long ago believe the earth was cooling"\nEarth day is a ridculous holiday. Go outside and have some fun.
1093830
Here's something to dwell on:\n\nGlobal Warming has become a religion run by fanatics reminiscent of the leaders of the darkest days of the Inquisition that nearly destroyed civil society only a few hundred years ago. We are not to question the great god of Global Warming. Those who do are separated from civil society and labeled as heretics. \n\nThe simple truth is there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming. In fact, as the media frenzy screams global warming, there are a growing number of scientists who are expressing their doubts.  In 1992, just prior to the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders signed The Heidelberg Appeal, a quiet call for reason in dealing with the climate change issue, which expressed a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world’s ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. Today, the Heidelberg Appeal has been signed by more than 4,000 scientists and leaders from 100 countries, including more than 70 Nobel Prize winners.\n\nAlso in 1992, another statement from some 47 atmospheric scientists was issued saying greenhouse global warming theories derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. The statement went on to say, "We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science."\n\nIn 1995, over 85 scientists and climate experts from research labs and universities worldwide, signed the Leipzig Declaration. In part it says, "In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For these reasons, we consider ‘carbon taxes’ and other drastic control policies – lacking credible support from the underlying science – to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."\n\nIn 1997, a Gallop Poll of eminent North American climatologists shows that 83% did not support the claims of the green house theory of Global Warming.  In 1998, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) issued a petition for signature by atmospheric scientists saying there is no scientific evidence indicating that greenhouse gases cause global warming. That petition was signed by more than 17,000 scientists and leaders involved in the issue. \n\nGlobal Warming scaremongers have tried to discredit these statements from the opposition, saying either they are too old to be counted in today’s debate or that they weren’t signed by real scientists. Neither is true. One only has to look at the signers on the documents and statements to know who and what they are. The relevance of the documents can be answered in two ways. First, most of the signers of these documents from the 1990’s hold the same positions today. Second, as is the fallacy in the Global Warming debate, such drastic climate changes, as described by scaremongers, would not come about overnight. Though the proponents would have you believe otherwise, 15 years is but a microsecond in the study of the earth’s activities.\n\nHowever, there is great question about the validity of the documents promoted by the Global Warming crowd. In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the United Nation’s report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented a draft of its report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. However, when the printed report appeared in May 1996, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the report to make it conform to the P
202062
Global Warming is cause by solar activity.  The increase in the number of sun spots causes the earth to warm.  The temperatures were hotter in the 1920 than now.  The hurricanes were also just as bad then as now.  A rise in CO2 from 1/4% to 1/3% in the atmosphere has no impact on global temperature.  The scientific community has only been accurately measuring temperatures for 30 years.  The only validated temperature measurement of the earth is from the polar satellite.  In 30 years it has only seen on temperature anomaly.  A rise of 1/4 of a degree caused by the full moon.  No other measurement system has shown the accuracy to measure this rise.  Therefore they are not! The polar ice cap has only been watched for 30 years by satellite.  No one measured it before, so how can they say it is now melting for all time.  They don’t know, they are drawing 1000 year conclusions with 30 years of data.  Not possible, not valid.
722880
All of the following sites allow that global warming is a reality. What makes them somewhat refreshing is that they do not automatically assume man is the cause of global warming (they do not dismiss it, either) and attempt to objectively pursue all sides of the argument.\n\nhttp://test.weathereye.org/expert/warming/\nhttp://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=942400#post942400\nhttp://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/index.htm\nhttp://www.gcrio.org/ocp99/toc.html\nhttp://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp\nhttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleostory.html\nhttp://www.marshall.org/subcategory.php?id=9\n\nHope this helps!
806892
The 'debate' is in the media only.  The data only supports human-caused Global Warming.  It has nothing to do with political party IF you actually look at the data like a scientist.\n\nCO2 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, and 2006 is shaping up to maybe break that record.\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
395082
Because only 30 years ago, the same scientists were talking about the new ice age that was coming.\n\nAnd, historically, the Earth goes through hot and cold cycles. Greenland was once green. Ohio was once covered in glaciers.\n\nAnd right now, the sun is going through a cycle of increased activity. Mars is getting warmer, too. They don't have SUVs there.\n\nAs for whether there is any significant human activity contribution to the current increase in temperature, there is no data that suggests this.\n\nBut are you willing to cause civilization to collapse because of an unsubstantiated enviro-wanker scare tactic? The staggering cost of putting something like Kyoto into effect would cause a severe world depression worse than the Great Depression.\n\nDon't beleive the hype - someone is feeding you a load of bull.
234985
It is clear that we are in a period of Global Warming.  The average temperatures are rising.  That is a fact.\n\nIf you mean, are we suffering from a man-made global warming, that is a tougher question.  A lot of experts have debated this and disagree.  Here in Florida, we have had two really bad hurricane seasons in a row, and a lot of people are scared that this is because of "Global Warming" but the experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric agency are reporting record warm temperatures and at the same time are downplaying the man-made causes by saying there is no "proof"\n\nAn interesting thing that may happen is that Europe may go through a mini ice age because of this warming.  There is an oceanic conveyor belt that helps distribute heat throughout the world.  This belt ends up in the Artic near Europe.  When the polar ice caps melt, there is an influx of fresh water that changes the salinity in the ocean up there.  This breaks that belt and so the warmth stays in the other portions of the globe.  There was a great special on this a couple of months ago on the History channel.\n\nI don't know if we are causing the Global Warming, but I do know that we are trashing our environment and we should be a lot better consumers so that our children and grand children will have a vibrant and healthy world to live in!
678117
Its not global warming... Global warming is a problem, but the  wet and dry seasons do not follow human calenders to the date... Anyone that thinks mother nature is that reliable and predictable appearently doesn't understand climatology and weather.\n\nWet and dry seasons are averages... Not exact...  Nothing in weather is exact, everything is longterm averages.  So when they say its the dry season but its rainging, you have to remember thats the average.\n\nAverages mean that about 80% of the time its true.\n\nTake an average temperature for example... In L.A. lets say the average temp in January is... 71 degrees F.  Well that means that they took the temperature and recorded it for years for january, then averaged them out.   So in january you might actually end up with days that are above 71 and below 71.  Its not going to be 71 everyday in january...\n\nJust remember Weather is all about average climatology, even wet and dry seasons.
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.
706254
ok now here is some truth for you. Global warming is a THEORY nothing more, it has not been proven. an ALL the scientists do not agree. more than half do not agree and because of that they do not get media coverage. That is why all you hear is global warming on the news because it gets ratings. Many, many scientists agree this is a phase, the earth has wamring periods and cooling periods, we just now are getting out of a cooling period. every here of the "year without a summer" in the 1770's. that was the height of the cooling period. if you look back further in the 1300's it was hotter then, than it is now according to historical evidence. Volcanoes produce almost 10 times the green house gasses then humans produce per year. Nature is not this fragiel little thing like all the libs want you to believe, its very tough and adaptive it recycles many of the wastes we produce but also many of the wastes itself produces which in comparison to ours is infintismal. I agree we should not be reckless and find better, cleaner and more efficient ways to do things. If you want the truth, yes global warming is true, the "globe" is "warming" but not because of the Dodge Diesel you drive, but because its a cycle and in a few centuries it will begin to cool again. Most people here never heard of what these very same scientists were saying in the 70's. the same people screaming about global warming were do the same thing about "global cooling" in the 1970's and some suggested we put coal soot on the ice caps to gather heat from the sun to melt them. Look it up, its true. So before you goes starting going nuta about this global warming farse, do your homework instead of believing everything you hear on the ratings driven news everynight.
544753
it's really interesting.. the 12% answer is correct as a close approximation.\nThe interesting thing to note is that we are supposed to be causing globabl warming. This figure puts makind really into a good global perspective.\nThe next thing to do is see how much smoke and gas volcanos and thermal springs pump into the world every year. \nThen add in all the gases caused by animal excrement (include human in the numbers), and all the plantlife on the planet (including photosynthesising plants and animals in the oceans) and you start to build a very good picture that mankind is not causing global warmnig.
368747
yeah I heard all the crap about the new ice age what a crock same thing about human activity causing global warming bunch of nonsense read the astronomy reports the sun is burning a little hotter it does this ever so often like during the middle ages and think about it haven't we been coming out of an ice age for the past ten thousand or so years does this not mean it has been getting warmer
949336
Global Warming is a natural phenomenon. The earth's temperature has gone through warming and cooling cycles naturally throughout history. The ice age was not caused by prehistoric humans and neither was the global warming that melted it. So basically, there is nothing we can do but adapt to it.
716608
There is not a consistent policy about global warming because no country wants to limits it own industrial capabilities to prevent pollution. The US agreed to the Kyoto Accords but now finds ways to side-step their obligation. How can any group of countries punish the US? Too many factors such as the national economies of small countries depend on the US for trade to force Washington to comply. But one thing is certain and that is that there is no agreement as to global warming even amongst the scientific community. It is being used by politicians as a gimmick to sway opinions. Before Al Gore didn't much worry about global warming but found it useful to take votes from Republicans and so there was sudden attention.Are you certain that there is indeed global warming? I realize that people have been tugging at the issue for years, but there is no substantial proof that this warming effect is not a cyclical phenomena. We have no proof about the last 50,000 years from the estimated period of the Ice Age. Counting tree rings is hardly an answer and the oldest know trees are less than 3,000 years...perhaps this situation occurs every ten thousand years. Fossils date much further back and we know that some cataclysmic event, a massive volcano or perhaps even a meteorite created so much dust that the earth was blanketed and brought about the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs. That took place about 65,000,000 years ago...just days ago, Norwegian paleontologists announced the discovery of a dinosaur 'graveyard' with the fossils of ichthyosaurs and pleisosaurs (perhaps cousins of the Loch Ness Monster) on an Island about 800 miles from the North Pole. Because both types of dinosaurs were marine (living in salt water), we then can assume they died in the water...but the 'graveyard' is now situated on a hillside some distance from the sea, but also that the water level was much higher at that time...Global Warming? Island can rise and sink because of volcanic activity but the island shows no geological suggestion that that was so. Perhaps too, this is a natural event in that as the temperature increases, so does evaporation and thusly more rain, so could it be that it is a cleansing system to remove pollutants from the atmosphere? There are many far-fetched theories and one is from Australia where scientists claim that cows are a major source of pollution. Herbivores produce methane gas as they digest grasses, fodder and such, and with the vast number of cows and other herbivores, our atmosphere is contaminated. It makes little sense as in America were vast herds of bison, and the plains of Africa still have millions of grazing animals...both past and present. The die-off of marine organisms is often linked to man-made problems...oil spills, dredging, sewage and such...i.e. the Thames River of England was so polluted years ago that no fish could exist...the environmental agency cleaned it up by stopping sewage, etc and now 10 species of fish have returned. We build dams and prevent floods and deprive vital nutrients to the sea. In Asia, DDT was introduced to protect the crops and successfully killed many species of fish and birds (most potent when used with oil as the solvent). Few people understand that a tree does many things besides provide wood, it retains soil but also transpires a substantial amount of moisture into the air...and we cut down the forests. We cover vast areas with tarmac and concrete and deaden the soil. On my last visit to Mt. Kilimanjaro, I noticed the reduction of the ice caps and glaciers but I didn't come away with any firm conviction of a drastic change. In Tibet, I visited the glacial rivers but they seemed much unchanged, and the peak of Mt. Everest seems to have the same amount of snow and ice. The only tangible proof I have found is that some of the tropical marine life in the Sea of Cortez have move further north, but that could be explained by a shifting of currents, rather than an