Live from Abu Dhabi Connect the World takes you on a journey across continents, investigating the stories that are changing our world.
Has 'climategate' changed your opinion of global warming? (Getty/AFP)
CLARIFICATION: An earlier version of this blog post stated that: “Recent polling by Rasmussen Reports show that the number of people who believe global warming is a serious problem is on the decline.” The Rasmussen poll is actually intended to gauge opinion among likely U.S. voters, rather than the general population. This blog post has also been updated to make clear that the Rasmussen poll was conducted in April.
(CNN) Climate change scientists have been cleared of any wrong-doing after a seven month investigation unveiled that professor Phil Jones did not fudge data to try to silence skeptics.
Muir Russell, who led the investigation, found that scientists at the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia did not do anything to change or alter critical data and they still produced work in a "rigorous and honest" way.
The controversy was sparked when years of e-mails between the scientists were released online and disseminated by climate change skeptics.
The nay-sayers argued that the e-mails showed that years of research were manipulated to back up the theory of man-made climate change.
While the inquiry may have given the all clear to the scientists, the controversy may have done more harm than good to the cause.
A poll from April 2010 by Rasmussen Reports show that the number of likely voters who believe global warming is a serious problem is on the decline.
The telephone survey found that 54 percent of people believe that climate change is a serious problem - that's down eight percentage points from a year ago.
43 percent of those surveyed said that climate change is not a serious problem, including 21 percent of people who said it was not serious at all.We want to know what you think.
Has the 'climategate' scandal changed your opinion of global warming? Do you still believe that it is a serious problem? Has concern for global warming taken a back seat to economic issues that many countries are face?
Please leave your comments below and be sure to include where you're writing from.
CNN, why do you lower yourself to such low standards as asking whether people "believe" in facts and science? Would you run a story on "Do you believe in Evolution?" Oh sorry, already done that. Right, I forgot, you're bottom trolling these days, having given up serious journalism long ago.
New York, NY
It is clear that global warming is real and exaggerated.
That is, human CO2 emissions are increasing global temperatures and will continue to do so until we stop emitting CO2.
The magnitude of warming might be overstated by the models, but might be about correct.
The effects of warming have certainly been systematically overstated, to worst-case scenarios that defy credulity.
The hockey stick propaganda that led to Climategate is and always was junk science.
Hopefully the events of the past year will lead the IPCC to push the activists from Greenpeace, WWF, and NRDC back to the sidelines where they belong, and get back to real science.
No I do not buy global warming fraud, and do not want any carbon racket or green derivatives , or tax on productivity or green fraud.
The only thing that worries me is there is still a block of people that are more than willing to ignore the corruption and scientific dishonesty proven in the field of global warming so they can hold onto a empty belief that justifies hating themselves.
Believing in global warming is not like believing in God – The fact that global warming is still up for debate shows that science is no match for shouting.
The latest IPCC cites hundreds of scientists and thousands of articles by some of the most respected minds, yet shouting down by lobby groups, big business and lay(z) people still means that global warming has a question mark in the media. These groups put the spotlight on cherry picked details not to rightfully raise points of concern, but to undermine a broad and strong scientific consensus. This consensus is shared by 98% of climate scientists (see study: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10370955.stm )
Believing that global warming is less of a problem does not make it so. Lets pull our heads out of the sand and realize that the consequences, however slow yet steady they may seem now, are not reversible any meaningful sense.
Global warming is a real threat. The fact that extra CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to some warming was already recognized in the 19th century and is basic physics. It all depends on the feedbacks this small amount of warming will induce. Positive feedbacks (less ice cover leading to more warming, for example) are already happening and visible, whereas negative feedbacks are unproven by science. So yes, I'm very worried.
Human caused global warming is an absolute and undeniable fact. Most of those who poo-poo it simply haven't explored the data. The reason so many continue to disbelieve it is simply because oil and other energy companies have been enormously successful in spreading doubt and fuzzing up the issue. Their financial interests demand that enough people question human caused global warming, so that they can continue the same wasteful, polluting and unregulated policies they've been getting away with for decades. Citizens of the world ignore this threat to the peril of their own children and to the peril of generations yet unborn.
Rogerbj – you're right: believing in God is not the same as believing in Global Warming. The bible has never been proven false – global warming has. The life of Jesus is the most document event in ancient history – global warming documents have been shown over and over again to be false. God will save you – global warming proponents only wish to destroy...
You illustrate this report with a photo of what seems to be a refinery, electric generating plant, or a manufacturing plant. However what is clear is that it shows condensing water vapor ("steam") emanating from a stack. The subliminal suggestion to the reader is that the visible emanation is "pollution" causing global warming. In point of fact carbon dioxide (as are most other "greenhouse gases") is completely colorless. Why do media insist on misrepresenting the science? Are you trying yo convince readers that climate change is caused by "dirty" pollution? Until the general populace understands that carbon dioxide and not traditional polltants is thought to be the cause we shall continue to point to indusrial pollution as opposed to our own overuse of energy as needing control.
Lets remember, that global warming is not some experiment in a test tube at some government run lab. And we have to believe the word of 2 scientists in lab coats. Global warming is just that, warming on a global scale. Observable by anyone by the enormous amount of photographic evidence compiled over decades showing glacial melts and thawing of frozen tundra. This is not some vast "Photoshop conspiracy"... where all pictures taken by people over decades, by NASA earth observing satellites all were run through some back room at Al Gores house to show the effects of global warming... let's use some critical thinking skills here people!
No, I don't believe the global warming is man made. History proves that there are cycles. Also, the 80s in the mid-west (Dakotas) were seeing highs in the 110s degrees farenheit. We haven't seen those temperatures for 20 plus years now. I can get a temp reading of 120 if I go down town and park my thermometer on the pavement. But we've also seen more rain and clouds then in past years.
There is an agenda of scare enough people and you can control the population. If you get the population to believe that cars are bad, or people are bad for the earth, you can force them to congregate into cities and control what they do and where they go. The richest part of earth's history has been the past 150 years as industrialization occurred. Obama and his democratic liberals are hell bent on reducing the wealth of this and every other nation to an acceptable level (their acceptable level) until literally we are forced back to the dark ages.
I also believe that the devil is angry that Christianity has spread so widely due to the freedom of travel and information, and the best way to kill this and create hardship on people is to destroy this freedom of movement as well as the control of the internet and other freedom of speech activities. One never encourages improvement in life by going backwards or controlling the population. You don't improve your lot by destroying or tearing down someone who is richer than you. Rome came apart because of this same ideaology that we are going thru – but are we smart enough to know that before we do it? i doubt it.
Of course it is still a huge problem. I don't believe in global warming, but the thought that pollution is still affecting the climate is huge.
Just look at what's been happening in the Gulf of Mexico. Think of the crowded streets of Beijing, Jakarta. Climate change is still huge and there is tons that we can do to try and prevent the world becoming too polluted.
Biggest thing is to try and find that alternative transition energy (totally going to be natural gas by the way) to help pave the way for future energy needs while we research and further develop the more high-tech green energies that we will use in the future. Natural gas vehicles and plants are going to be the next large step.
A bunch of the largest changes can be made in the less developed countries. Think of China whose energy is majorly fueled by coal, a place where pollution doesn't really matter much to them. Making the initial step to achieve clean coal does magical amounts of good compared to spending exponentially more amounts of money to reduce emissions by a fraction in more developed countries. Think of the law of diminishing return. Pretty much exactly like that.
I g2g. Peace bros.
Who would benefit from the fact that "global warming is caused by mankind"? I am wondering why so many people think its a huge scandal. What would be the purpose? Who would win in that situation? Wouldn't the world be a better place if we didn't rely on fossil fuels and had a more sustainable lifestyle anyway? Next time you are in traffic with cars pumping pollution around you, look around because that situation did not exists a 100 years ago.
I believe that Global warming is a fraud perpetuated by liberal scientists who don't believe in God and want to take away my rights to live how I want to live with my standard of living.
I believe that the term "global warming" takes a serious issue and makes it seem cataclysmic.
Regulate ALL pollutants, including CO2, and you will solve the problem. The issue is that industry has for years run the regulatory agencies (I used to do regulatory and permitting work), and they argued away regulating CO2.
If this Chicken Little mentality is what it takes to get CO2 emissions regulated, well I guess it's okay. As a scientist, I think the media has gotten hold of this as a doomsday scenario, which it is not.
Why not publicize how the recent temperature increases are NOT as high as predicted, AND the ocean temperature is not rising enough to make up for the supposed "expected" global warming.
I am a computational biochemist now, and I can tell you that MY models are not considered GOSPEL like the models of these guys are. Selling your field, whether it is valid or not = funding = money.
Global warming is a bit of a misnomer. That is, global warming is occurring but that happens globally and is not very noticeable to individuals. However, one of the symptoms of climate change is the increase in extreme phenomena (extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, droughts). Can any TV watching individual deny that is occurring?
I don't really care whose fault it is (though I do believe humans have been misbehaving badly). I do care about the effects, though!
Science has facts, the government has facts, the fossil fuel industry has its facts. I have flown around the world many times in the past 35 years and witnessed the advance of populations and the retreat of forests, jungles and glaciers everywhere without respite. So, who do you believe, the government or your own eyes? Climate change is a reality, the question is, where will it lead. I tend to think that once the buffering effects of the poles are neutralized, we will enter a period of logrithmic increases in temperature to a plateau. Some models propose 200-300 degree temperature rises in 100 years. Early in such a scenario, mankind will cease to function. Try "living" in the Saudi uninhabitable quarter for a summer without an a/c. It is called uninhabitable for a reason. You will have a real appreciation for the risk we are assuming. Until then, it is nice to write platitudes from our cool air conditioned offices (all thanks to mountains of fossil fuels).
Oh, and "facts and science" is subject to peer review and the flavor of the month. As a scientist and engineer, my biggest fear is that science is becoming like religion to some people – they just believe what they read in the newspapers and NEVER compare sources, check out studies, and put things in context.
Global warming is real to some extent, but it is only the end of the world if saying that will get you more funding.
Hello CNN friends,
We Need Green Energy to Save our Earth and our Climate!
Please Think Twice before you are using Gasoline or Petrol Fuel,
because the Oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico is Killing
our Earth and our Climate!
Just Think Twice!
Let us Now Connect to make our world
a Better Healthier and Beautiful World
for You and for Me!
Jurgen R. Brul
The planet may be warming, but what is causing it is still up for debate. Global Cooling was "proved science" in the 1970's, but I notice none of the "man-made global warming nuts" want to bring that up.
As for an independant review? What crap. Muir Russell works at a liberal college (as if there is any other kind), and his findings are going to be suspect. That is like asking a group of people from Haight Ashbury to determine if Bush won the 2000 election. You know the answer before you even ask them the question.
It's really not about believing or not believing. The whole global warming issue is about who's blowing it out of proportion and who's not. I'm all for clear and honest debates on the effects of global warming but when people try to prove or disprove their case with extremes in either direction it helps nobody. I do know its HOT as heck in the NE right now.
CNN is the problem. Sensational media is the problem, but not as much as CNN's cascading viewer numbers and need to stir up controversy.
Catching the lying scientists was great – a great lesson for future ego-driven climatologists, but now CNN needs to boost its emphasis on investigative journalism to find the NEXT key angle like innovative solutions to climate change and energy security. Stop re-hashing old stories!
@Michael, the fairies at the bottom of my garden are yet to be dis-proven also... but we're still looking.
I certainly believe in global warming. There is world wide agreementby way to many repected members of the scientific community that global warming exists and that it is a world wide problem with the potentional for crisis proportions. The naysayers remind of the Black Knight in the Monty Python film... "it's only a flesh wound!" when he was missing his arms and legs.....they refuse to admit what is right in front of their face.
The facts have proven the direct link between warming and CO2 gas have not been repeated as they were in the past. Usually the two are separated by 600 years. Nobody has any real idea what is happening, because this has not happened before... That is the fact.
Climate Change or Global warming or whatever you want to call it this week is junk science. CNN didn't cover the scandal when it first broke, now they're covering the "independent" investigation. The e-mails tell a clear story. They were told to manipulate the data to fit their agenda.
In May at the Oxford Union debates Lord Christopher Monckton decisively won the debate against Climate "Scientist" and their theory of Global warming. You can check out the story here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2521501/posts
This is going to be used to try to pass the egregious Cap and Trade legislation. Once again we are being lied to by our Government. Wake up people and don't believe the hype.
It's like this:
99% of the climate scientists say: we think this and this is going on and it's destroying the world we live in.
Then there are some people who say: yeah, but perhaps you're wrong.
Maybe they are, but I want don't want my policy makers to sit and wait.
Climate change is not a human caused or curable concern.
The earth will warm naturally sure the cycle of things tell us so. But to be in a comfortable climate for humanity we may want to stop accelerating it!
and CNN stop putting "gate" on every thought to be scandal. other then toughs of us Larry Kings age remember the Nixon nonsense!
Climate skeptics have no rigor at all in their "evidence" only opinion and yet they are given equal footing in the media with scientists. That is the real scandal... the media not investigating the skeptics side with equal rigor. If they did, they would find there is no other side at all. Just a lot of ranting, and oil/coal dollars behind it. That is a great story, but the media doesn't cover it. Why?
Cause of Global warming is mostly unknown. It is also an historical fact that CO2 been many dozen times higher in the past of earths evolution. The mathematical models are slightly hilarious.
It is interesting how some people embrace science and fact as was it religion. Science is a disputable fact. Learn that first. Here is a list of scientists that don't believe in Global warming including one of the worlds most brilliant Mathematicians.
ndividuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.
* Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
* Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."
* David Bellamy, botanist, believes that climate change is part of the Earth's natural cycle and that such changes have been seen before. Says Bellamy, "The sun is getting old and it is getting warmer all the time but we do have cycles of sun spots and when those sun spots come the effect is to warm the Earth up and warm the atmosphere."
* George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."
* Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."
* Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."
* David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."
* Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"
* William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."
* William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University: "all the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"
* William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."
* David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."
* Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"
* Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
* Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".
* Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error...human influence on the 'Greenhouse Effect' is minimal (maximum 4%). Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 4% of the ~2% of the "Greenhouse Effect", hence an influence of less than 1 permil of the Earth's total natural 'Greenhouse Effect' (some 0.03°C of the total ~33°C)."
* Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University, wrote a booklet proposing a phenomenological theory of climate change based on the physical properties of the data. Scafetta describes his conclusions writing "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030-2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."  
* Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.
* Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”
* Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."
* Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".
* Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."
* Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."
* Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."
Hey CNN, do you believe in gravity?
Of course climate change is a massive problem. I'm not a climate scientist, but I'm also not dumb enough to ignore the consensus of the vast, vast majority of the scientific community.
We need to take better care of our earth, and we need to start doing it yesterday. Americans, I'm looking right at you. Start recycling, stop drying all your clothes in the dryer, change your driving habits, and do it right now.
I'm writing from Germany right now, but I live in Missouri.
Nature doesn't care about our opinions. Reality is always more powerful than belief.
Oh Michael, how wrong you are. Did you just say the bible has never been proven false? I sincerely hope you are joking, as the Bible itself is only tool you need to prove its false. And no, Global Warming hasn't been proven false yet. Honestly, where do people make these claims? Is this what watching Fox News does to young minds?
"We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain."
So it's okay to lie by manipulating the data as long as, in the fine print that somehow evades the headlines, you admit to it?
"crucially, the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behavior that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional."
So admitting to "behavior that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional" doesn't count because the admission was in an email?
Do I still believe in anthropogenic global warming? Of course not, and never did. For the most part, only fools, the terminally gullible, and politicians do. The temperature of the planet has been bouncing up and down for millions of years–Arctic core samples and the like make that very clear–and no one has much of a clue why. The same is true over the last few thousand years, as demonstrated by analysis of tree rings and countless other indicators.
It's a con, it's a scam, it's a fraud. I honestly don't know why a lot of people buy it–it's become a religion, I guess, impervious to reason, and those who dare to question it are figuratively burned as heretics. Politicians, on the other hand, I understand–they buy this pseudo-science because it offers endless opportunities to extend the scope and reach of governments, and to raise taxes–two things dear to the hearts of most of them.
My belief in global warming has not diminished as a result of "climategate" - but my faith that we can collectively rise to this challenge has.
The consensus among climate scientists is clear. Unfortunately, the willingness of some groups to politicize the science has created controversy where there should be none. The issue requires collective action, and that, I fear, is impossible given the conspiracy theorists success in driving a wedge into the public's will.
There's no such thing as believing or not believing in climate change.
There's only understanding or not understanding.
Or not wanting to understand.
Shame on you for asking such a ridiculous question. The scientific community has come to the consensus that rapid unnatural climate change is happening and is caused by mankind. The only debate remaining is what exactly excessive amounts of GHG will do to the climate and how fast.
Science is never "settled". Scientific discovery is, and will always be, an ongoing process. There are two-facts that call into question the validity of the report given by CNN.
1) Manipulating data in the control of any experiment, then publishing the experiment results as fact, is scientific fraud.
2) Offering popular opinion as scientific fact does not make it so.
Publish all of the data (all control sample data and all experimental data), and we shall see if global warming is a real threat.
I do believe that warming of the environment, at this point in time, is real. However, without evidence to prove it so, I dispute any claim that global warming is man-made.
Seems as though we can liken those who deny global warming to those who hung on to the myth that the earth was flat a few hundred years ago. Those who deny global warming have a complete lack of insight and vision. Data is data. Facts are facts. The earth is round(-ish) and earth's temperatures are rising. Furthermore, it seems more than a coincidence that human-caused increases in atmospheric CO2 match an identical increase in global temperatures. Again, it's data.
climate change is very serious recent bad issue.
that's clearly right
planet is getting warmer not hotter
iceberg is melting fast
all this big noise about climate change etc in recent years. If as claimed by many humans are changing climate change, then who caused the last great ICE AGE ? And who caused the ice to melt and the ICE AGE to end ??????? In the earths history numerous such ice ages have come and gone, what caused them? Is it not possible we are still in the withdrawl mode of the last ice age ? What caused the atmosphere on mars to disappear and the water contained therein to be frozen into the ground ? Do we have sure shot answers to these questions ? Only then can we authoritatively talk abotu humans causing "Climate Change".
YES, I know there is a climate change, a global warming and a glaciers melting. The United States north east high temperatures is the evidence, and the last winter freeze temperatures are also evidences. I am an independent scientific researcher on environmental sciences, myself!!!... hurricanes are now stronger monsters, and severe weather worldwide now is not natural, but man interference with normal natural weather cycles!!!...
Global warming is very real, but so disturbing to most that they deny it exists. When they will be hit by major storms, flooding, etc maybe will they contemplate that there is some truth to it. We just destroyed big time our environnement in less than a century. Just ask yourself this question: What will happen to the next generations? Will we be judged for crime against humanity? Won't they ask themselves they knew it and they did nothing?
This is a legitimate question to ask, even to those who would castigate the news media for fanning the flames of controversy to suck in audience ratings. There can be little doubt that modern industrial civilization is affecting the global ecology of the planet Earth in ways that will have long-lasting, if not devastating effects on our way of life. Granted, the fact that it was 103 degrees yesterday in New York City does not in itself mean global warming will be destroying the planet next month or next year. But the fact that power utility companies are struggling to maintain output and that there have been outages and grid cutbacks to ration available power suggests that we can not assume that technology will always provide a quick answer to our problems. The solution will also involve political goals and strategies. It is time we take global warming seriously, so we can begin to take moderate, yet necessary, steps now to avoid more drastic measures in the future. We ought to continue to believe in the efficacy of science. It is what created modern civilization, and only scientifically-informed political decisions can keep us operating in a sustainable future on this planet.
Climate change is a religion not science. The report by Muir Russeel, whoever that is, doesn't change my opinion that global warming is a myth created by so-called "climate change scientists" as a justification for obtaining public attention and grant money. Projections for global warming are based on theoretical computer models that, by derfinition, cannot be tested or verified. The global climate change lobby is a political movement that is obsessed with power, not scientific truth.
That's still a serious problem. But global warming is just a part of a bigger problem. Lack of interest, wisdom and general will of changing our lifestyle in order to respect the environment, forgetting that we'r part of it, not separated.
I wonder how many people on here have actually looked at the climate data. Not the scientific reports, the actual data. The truth is that while AGW scientists predict catastophic effects of a dramatically heating planet, the actual global temperatures (and regional ones) have stayed within well established cyclical means and have mostly evened out (with the exception of the current El Nino phenomenon we are experiencing now). Scientists can predict whatever they want, but if the earth isn't getting abnormally hotter, it doesn't mean jack.
While we are comfortable in air-conditioned environments, with a well-stocked refrigerator and flowing clean drinking water, it is so easy to dispel global warming. Ask the thirsty squeezing drops of water from parched river beds. Ask those whose homes have been washed away in torrents of mud and rain.
Do you believe the nazis killed 6 million jews?
That's a similar question.
Had the nazis committed their crimes in the age of foxnews and talkradio they would have gotten away with it. There would be a powerful lobby claiming that it was all made up by the `liberal media and a government conspiracy' .
All that you need to know is that we cannot predict the weather a week from today accurately, so how do you seriously think we can predict "warming" in the next 30+ years? Our earth has been around for so long that how are we to say humans are negatively impacting the climate based on such a small set of data we've gathered in several life times compared to how old the earth is. It's seriously very embarrassing that so many of you don't look at the big picture and realize it's impossible for us to predict this. THINK ABOUT IT PLEASE. Once they can tell me what the weather will be like next week (or even in 8 hours from now) then I might be able to accept their theories a little better.
I say if you believe in man made global warming, you should do what's best for everyone and move to a cave to stop 'polluting' and live off the land. Ditch the car (don't sell it because that just means someone else will be polluting with your vehicle). This would reduce carbon emissions severely without goverment forcing garbage bills down our throats that do nothing but negatively impact our economy based on a theory.
It's not real. Maybe if CO2 reached the percentage of Water vapor in the atmosphere. Plus being that this atmosphere is measured by mixture and not weight(because of the winds), it couldn't block the rays from leaving the atmosphere like clouds can. Water Vapor(clouds) is a bigger threat than CO2. I think if people actually studied on their own they'd become skeptics. CO2 weighs more, and it's much much less of a percentage in the atmosphere than Water vapor.
As always, I think CNN's headline/question is incomplete, leading to premature answers. Do I believe in global warming? Yes, but the averge global temperature has increased 1.8 degrees F in the last 130 years, hardly a crisis. Do I believe that humans may be making this worse? Maybe. There needs to be a lot more UNBIASED research one way or te other. I am open to both possibilities, but all parties seem to have too much vested interest in their results.
There is no question that global climate is getting warmer – why else would glaciers melt? The issue is whether we are to blame (I personally think we are), and what might we do to mitigate the problem with a clearly enormous amount of carbon dioxide emissions.
People who deny a warming global climate are kind of like Holocaust deniers - you can be as nutty as a fruitcake if you want, but it doesn't change the facts. The difference is the Holocaust was then - global warming has some interesting implications for the future, none of which are especially helpful to the human race.
But does the planet care? No. It really doesn't give a darn if we as a species go extinct or not. It will evolve as it always has... just without us on board.
Sure, global warming turned to Global climate change... and I do believe in that. The climate will change, as it has always been changing.
As far as Global warming ? Does anybody remembers the last winter ? Record highs, more snow and ice then ever ? I sure was not warm at all. The record high temp's on the summers are same as before, peaks. Nature always were changing and ups and downs are and will happen.
Al Gore can ran around the world in his Jet to shout to stop using cars because they pollute, won't do any good. Airplanes and Space shuttles and factories do pollute much much more then cars.
I say limit their emission 1st and then go to the little guy with his car. A Factory in China was reported to pollute more in 1 year then the entire car collection on the world !!!
Its easy to tell Joe Smuck that he has to buy an electric car (which pollutes more) so we can get his money.
Electric cars needs power, electricity and that comes from where ? not waterfalls and solar power, but nuclear reactors !!! I think we will have nuclear waste and nuclear leak danger 1st before we will have global warming issue.
The global warming issue is FAKE and it was created by a bunch of idiot scientist to claim fame and collect funds. Its so popular to jum on that wagon but its not a real threat.
Stop nuclear danger and then deal with this later.... much later.
As usual, CNN only included excerpts of the report vindicating scientists accused of sending those emails. Read the report, look around, ask yourself why things are changing? Is it God or global warming? I prefer to think the changes are based in science.
Oh come on. Do you "believe" that the earth is round? Do you "believe" that it revolves around the sun?
This isn't a matter of "belief," it's a matter of fact. The current fashion for conflating scientific truth with arbitrary "belief" is incredibly destructive. It's perpetrated by extremist ideologues in order to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful and undermine the public interest - in this case, the greatest public interest there can be, the fate of the planet.
Yes, the planetary surface and the ocean are warming. Due to emissions of greenhouse gases, principally CO2, due to human activity. I don't "believe" that. I accept it as a fact, because an enormous, incontrovertible weight of evidence proves it.
oh, forgot to add, the glaciers are NOT melting. The thickness of the ice is at record high !!! In fact if anything the artic has cooled down in a past few years !!!
I believe in naturally occurring climate change overlaid with a degree of anthropological effect. It's that degree of effect that is very much in dispute.
Is it too much to ask the journalists of this world to separate the two? From the way many articles are written climate change is entirely related to man's activities. That's just lazy reporting.
Global warming may not be as bad as we fear or it may be worse. The jury is still out. To dismiss it out of hand doe not help in our understanding of it. There can be little doubt that we humans are having an effect. We simply don't know how much.
Also, the climategate scandal didn't influence my opinion... I realized it's impossible for scientists – no matter how smart they think they are – to predict the climate change in the next X number of years. There are much bigger factors in the world than us. For instance, the sun... Yes, reducing pollution is always a great idea and we should always try to, but please don't give in to this and blindly accept what these politicians are telling you. Cap n Trade will NOT help the environment.
People believed the earth was flat at one point because scientists said so. People blindly took it as fact. They believed it was flat because they didn't know any better, they didn't have enough knowledge to came to the conclusion yet they did anyway. Same thing here people...
Nope, not even a little bit. Mother Nature knows exactly what she is doing. Always has, always will.
Should we stop polluting, absolutely without question. Are humans causing climate change, not a chance.
Global warming has been proven as well as the fact that the earth is turning around the sun (some people still deny that too).
We know we are creating huge amounts of CO2, we know how the CO2 traps the sun's heat, the temperatures that we measure around the globe are rising.
And for the the ones who believe that such straightforward measurements as temperatures can be manipulated, you can go take a hike up in Colorado, in the Alps, in Greenland, up the Kilimanjaro and see by yourself how far the glaciers have receded.
It's been over two decades I've heard about climate change and so far, what we are observing now is close to the worst case predictions made at that time.
Will we have to wait for some real irreversible disasters predicted for a few decades away before we wake up???
Man made climate change is a fact. The argument now is what we must do about it.
Lets say global warming is real. I myself do believe there is a pattern that shows signs of this, but there is also the question that some areas have not be tested, have actually formed more and thicker ice patterns.
My biggest concern is that Spain, after many years of the so-called, "Going Green" initiative took place, they have nothing to show for it except higher unemployment in this sector and no real reduction in green house gases.
The biggest success has taken place in France. They are 80% independent with the move to nuclear energy.
The opinion of the average person matters because it will determine the size of the response to global warming. While there is little to no debate as to the existence of global warming or it's anthropogenic causes within the relevant scientific fields, there is debate over the specific consequences and appropriate response. The fact that there are many people who still don't realize this is proof that people will believe whatever they want to believe regardless of the evidence. Unfortunately, it does matter because a lot of these people vote.
So will nearly all scientists in the field believe drastic measures need to be taken to avert serious consequences, only half of Americans do. This is more a result of scientific illiteracy and political brainwashing than lack of intellect.
Lets get at least some basic things agreed on. and advance agenda's later. There is one thing clear regarding the increased temperatures of this planet. It's been warming up for 10k years or so. Since the last "ice age" broke and glaciers started to recede the planet has been getting warmer. The planet has certainly been warmer than it is now in its history. Was climate change avoidable? Um... no. If high levels of "man made" CO2 created a mini-plateau of steady temps for 75-100 years or it has increased our warming trends by 1% or so then the end result is still warming that the planet was gonna do anyways. The scientists should be accepting that the planet's plan was to warm up all along. It may even eventually reverse and go globally cold again in the future (it seems to have a cyclical tendency). The Scientists should be looking for ways to allow us to adapt to the more critical changes and shifts coming, not preventing it. The planet has her own agenda we are just along for the ride.
Absolutely, I believe in Global Warming, and I'm very glad to hear that term come back – Global Climate Change doesn't give the problem the needed punch.
I have friends who are scientists working on this problem. They are not skeptical of whether it is happening. There is no question in their minds that human progress is a major cause.
If you ask a random person on the street if they believe in Global Warming, I suspect that some people, maybe a part of your 43% that don't think it is serious. Since 21% are hardcore deniers, maybe the remaining 22% are the ones that only see what is around them at the time, and their answers may change with the weather. Seattle is still rainy, San Francisco has El Nino this year. But the African Sahel is getting little rain. If you look at trends over decades and centuries, the evidence is there.
Read Atlas Shrugged if you want to see how Global Warming will play out. The looters have another tool to take from the productive. Don't come crying to me when you have no job and your wonderful government can't take care of you as they promised or you had hoped. As one who choses to be a parasite and accept the crumbs and rights given to you, you will have no right to complain when disaster comes and the greatest country in the world is finally taken down to the levels of those so wanting us to fail.
you are right the planet will live on and even do better without us
when you write:
But does the planet care? No. It really doesn't give a darn if we as a species go extinct or not. It will evolve as it always has... just without us on board.
I don't know if you saw a documentary "Life after Men" you find out that humans are even worse than the nuclear pollution for all animals around Tchernobyl came back because their main predator, man, is not there!
Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find money cannot be eaten.
~ Cree Prophecy
So, do people who "don't believe" in global warming think that treating the planet with more respect is a bad idea? Even if CO2 emissions aren't what is causing global warming, should we not conserve fossil fuels? Even if cutting down the rain forests ins't a mitigating factor, does it really sound like a good idea to destroy vast amounts of nature? It's one thing to not believe in science (not that I can even begin to fathom that concept) it's another thing altogether to not pursue the preservation of our planet from a common sense standpoint.
its great that we want to "go green". and yes i do think that the earth is getting warmer. i live in south louisiana and i know its getting hotter out here! but to think that taxing the american people to make it go away or to even slow it down is freakin crazy. sure we can do our part to help keep the area of the earth that we live in clean. but if were the only nation on earth doing it, whats the point. i dont see china trying to go green. there are just as many scientist saying that they dont believe that "global warming" as there are scientist that say that they do. so who do you believe? i do think its getting hotter here, but at the same time it has snowed three times here this past winter. thats more than ive ever seen here in my life. you people talking about how dumb the south is and how we'll never grasp the concept because you think you are that much more superior than the rest of the world can go ahead and help your cause of getting rid of co2 gases and stop breathing. last i checked trees needed co2 to thrive.......dont we need the oxygen they release to live?????????
My opinion has not changed with this controversy. Global warming is real and it is upon us. Where I do not see "doomsday" in the near future, it is apparent that we are altering the enviornment. A trip to Alaska a few years back was proof enough for me. The rate that certain glaciers have retreated, the slow-going destruction of both the tundra and permafrost and major changes in the Boreal rainforests around Southeast Alaska was all the proof I needed.
It;s pretty simple really, if it were true, then I would believe it. It isn't, end of story.
I question the reality of global warming for one reason:
– Those who believe in global warming attack and smear anyone who questions the data or theories supporting global warming.
– If you can not question or challenge global warming without being assaulted verbally, then those who hold to the view of global warming as settled science must have a weak case!
Why are the people so arrogant to believe that we are capable to influence the climale on the world and all the resulting effects on the universe? Since when do we compare ourselves to God? The warming up and cooling down of our planet has always been the case, remember our schoollessons about the ice ages? The thing is that since Al Gore started interferrng, because the after ellection dip, and sold his name to controversial reports and a movie, and voila: like sheep the whole of the us and afterwards the world believed and followed without even stop and think for themselves. How about all the researches and scientific resluts that show that the sun plays the most important part in all of this? Don't just jump in at the first hype that appears, Think for yourselve and mahe up your own mind! Fred
Regardless of whether or not Global Warming is man made, going to blow up the planet or even happening at all, no one is going to argue that pumping garbage into our air, water and land is a good thing.
Doing what I can to ensure I breath cleaner air, drink cleaner water and walk on a cleaner planet seems worth doing to me.
I live in a tropical country, and every summer, I'll see the weather men saying that Taipei has just reached temperature that broke the record. The speed is almost another degree celcius higher per year! I don't need a group of scientists to tell me whether global warming is going to have a serious effect on my life. I know it will and it is. Besides, look at all the funny weather lately. Taiwan has april showers too, but this year, all we're having is pouring rain or no rain at all, which in the end might lead to a drought, especially in southern Taiwan. I am whole-heartly concerned with the global warming issue, and the reports on the climategate scandal does not sway me a bit.
I believe humans are causing climate change. I'd offer that part of the population doesn't believe smoking is harmful - even in the face of powerful retrospective statistics. Of course, people are going to be skeptical about future CO2 induced climate change demonstrated by modeling. But, like getting lung cancer, a rapid rise in sea level or a hyper-drought with famine will clear many minds (of course it will be too late then).
This article contains the presumption that democracy offers an aternative to science.
Democracy offers a valuable protection against tyranny by governments, but it is not a source of wisdom beyond that.
It is sad that the NYT is willing to exploit the people of the world's most powerful nation with this silly stuff.
What it boils down to is deception, denial, and short-sighted stupidity on the part of right-wings politicians and Fox News vs an honest assessment on the part of scientists who have no interest in deception. The scientists need to abandon their reluctance and vigorously join the debate – the public one that is fought on websites such as this. They should challenge hiuman garbage like Rush Limbaugh to let them on his show, confront idiots like Inhofe, write letters to news organizations and cite their credentials. It's unthinkable how journalists and politicians – completely unqualified and uncredentialed in the relevant fields of study – have managed to hide the truth for so long.
Of course it is. Only a blind man won't see it coming. Unfortunately, we have been electing sightless fools for years so......
The question is not whether Global Warming is true and indeed caused by mankind. By now, with so many insights available, the burden of prove should be reversed.
Can anyone prove that there is no global warming happening, and that mankind has no devastating effect on our living planet, affecting our own survivability in the next 100 – 200 years?
If the answer is no, we are morally obliged to change drastically, whatever the consequences for our living standards.
If they answer is yes, bring it on.
Global warming is a farce. The only reason an intelligent scientist proclaimsit to be real, is to keep his paycheck coming in from the EPA. No global warming = no job.
Sure there's global warming. It happens every year, and is called "Summer." Which is followed by global cooling, called "Winter."
Then we have long term periods of cooling, called "Ice Ages," followed by periods of warming, called "Interglacials." This has been occurring for millions of years and is a perfectly natural phenomenon having nothing to do with human activities. We currently are nearing the end of a small, minor interglacial period and the beginning of the next ice age.
In the peaks and lows of these natural cycles we find resonance. At the transition boundaries between high and low cycles we find dissonance, which is exhibited by temporary extreme fluctuations counter to the prevailing trends.
None of this justifies drastic social manipulation based on political correctness driven by a climate of ideological agendas.
It's not real, the science is fake, and it's a political tool for implementing wealth redistribution and other socialist agendas. See, among many other things,"The Great Global Warming Swindle" aired by the BBC (that right wing front group)! Anyone who tells you it's settled science is either ignorant of the facts or has an ulterior motive. It's a lot like fears about "The Coming Ice Age" on the cover of Time magazine in the 70's and, more recently, the hysteria over swine flu, which fizzled into nothing. Never let a good crisis go to waste, that's the mantra, and that's what we're seeing over and over.
Jesus visited me last night and told me to tell you that Global Warming is real and He's pissed at all your rightwingers that pirated His words and religion. After He finished His scotch he left me a Twinkie.
Well, said, Duncan. There are 6.7 billion people on this planet and not only we, but our factories and machines produce CO2, methane, etc. Cattle, alone, account for a large percentage of it. Until we stop, The globe will continue to get warm.
But I want to expand on that. We could all become vegetarians, stop using cars and go back to an agrarian lifestyle but it won't stop global warming. Sixty million years ago, dinosaurs were not burning fossil fuels (in fact they were MAKING fossil fuels for us hehehe) and yet it was warmer than it is now. Why?
Because life brings energy into the biosphere. Snow and ice do not absorb heat very well, but life forms do as well as does open water. We absorb the sun's heat, as all life does, and uses it to create more life. More life, more heat. There is no way to deny this.
Unless you're willing to kill off a large percentage of humanity, thereby reducing the reliance on fossil fuels for manufacturing and livestock for food, it would be better if you planned on how to adapt to the slowly changing world. The world changes- it always has.
What is unnatural is the thought of somehow, through human intervention, keeping the changes from happening. Life relies on the ability to adapt to changes, not on the ability to stop changes from happening.
Global warming is not legitimate. Climate change, sure, that I can believe. However the sun and it's affects upon our crust, the fires and volcanos are far more impctful upon our climate than we are. I believe the science is so heavily tainted and the politics to accept the data anyways and make drastic changes that are ultimately hateful towards man are far more damaging than anything we have done.
Look at sites where there were wars, people after 40 yrs forget the war if not for the memorials as Nature has taken over. We have to remind them of history. History which says that climate change happens no matter what we do.
Climate change is part of the change of this wonderful planet. Love the planet, Love your Fellow man more. Stand up for your Rights and don't let this administration take it away.
Global warming? Are we still using that farce of a name? I thought the collective non-idiots of the world had agreed to move on to a less idiotic and more accurate term like global climate change. Global "warming" is a farce and always will be. Climate change on the other hand, is happening. It happens all the time and has happened throughout the history of the Earth. The only question is whether or not it is man-made at all.
Current evidence shows that climate change is cyclical, and we are just in that cycle There is little to no causal evidence that climate change is affected detrimentally by humanity, and the books are being cooked by those with a financial interest in so called "green technologies, such as hybrid cars that actually create more toxins in their manufacture than they save over 12 years of use.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't treat the earth with more respect. We shouldn't be dumping anything, and it doesn't hurt to cut down on CO2 or other emissions, to lay it all on the shoulders of some farcical temperature trend is just asinine. I've noticed that this same argument usually comes from the people that claim wind power will get us off foreign oil, which we don't even use for 99% of our electricity generation.
I've been reading these comments with great interest in both the religious and scientific aspects of the discussion. As a pastor with a background in science I find the weaving of the two to be troublesome and part of the problem but also expected. Comments from Michael and Justin, for example. As one writer put it, understanding rather than belief is what is needed here. Having said that.......
Regarding belief, I find it hard to believe that the huge increase in human population and burning of fossil fuels over the last 150 years is NOT pushing the ecological balance of our planet to the breaking point. I embrace the concept of "anthropogenic global warming." I'm very involved in promoting recycling in my church and local hospital and am amazed at how few people are willing to take personal responsibility for even the slightest improvement in their green footprint.
The environmental sins of the fathers will be visited upon the children.
Time to wake up.
As a professional scientist -with no vested interest in climate science and no link to activist organizations-, I can say that there is more than enough serious science supporting the concept that the Earth's climate is warming rapidly, and that human activities are contributing significantly to this trend. In addition, another serious consequence of CO2 emissions is generally ignored. CO2 dissolves in water and turns into HCO3 (carbonic acid), making water more acidic. This is happening to our oceans as we speak, and the consequences for the biosphere may be just as serious as warmer temperatures. The energy industry has desperately tried to muddy the waters by fueling a "controversy", while in reality scientific consensus is building throughout the world. This is a strategy that was followed for decades by the tobacco industry, which tried to refute claims that tobacco smoke causes cancer by supporting a scientific "controversy" that was never warranted. The simple facts are that: 1) the human population has tripled in one generation, and with economic development in Asia and elsewhere, our rate of fossil fuel consumption are growing at an unsustainable rate; 2) waste products from our fossil fuel consumption are polluting the Earth, our only habitat, creating negative consequences for our climate, our oceans, our rivers and our land, all of which we need to survive. The only question is how long do we have until our waste products create irreparable damage that is incompatible with modern life as we know it. Since we don't really know the answer to that question, is it wise to wait until we wring the last penny out of oil and coal, and risk destroying the habitat that future generations will need? In my opinion, that course of action is greedy and short-sighted. It is time to invest serious scientific resources in alternative energy, with the aim of eventually eliminating fossil fuels.
Yes, there is climate change (yes, Greenland is melting). But the scientists themselves do nothing about it: they prefer research into every field, and sending fuel-guzzling rockets everywhere, to the construction of sources of clean energy. It is this "ivory tower" mentality, I think, that is being protested. Also, I thnk that "believe," even in a scientific context, is appropriate. There are few studies done on the effects of both heat and CO2 on the brain. People seem less and less able to learn, whether it is languages, science, history, art, their own culture, or anything else, and this can't all be because of sports injuries to the brain. Again, scientists themselves aren't building energy generators. People get into uninsulated hot cars in the summer, and I truly think that their brains are as affected as if they were hit in the head every day.
I believe in conservation. I believe waste is unnecessary and pollution is self-destructive. But do I believe in Global Warming? Not at all.
It's another Ozone Layer crisis. Incentive for environmentalists and government agencies to get funding and for politicians to get support. MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of dollars being spent on a THEORY due to emotional outcry of the public as encouraged by the environmentalists and the media. One scientists cried "global warming!" and everyone jumped on board. Who would dare recant their statement with such momentum that's been gained??
The earths temperature has always fluctuated. Period.
Come on, people. Stop letting your emotions be ruled by hype. Your tax dollars can go to much better use. Write your congressman!!
I get worried at the staggering ignorance surrounding scientific fact. I would guess that the same people who claim Evolution isn't real are claiming Global Warming is also bunk. However, level headed people don't have to take these people seriously, or give them serious time. If they are not willing to examine facts, or start with a belief that can't be falsified, then they simply aren't worth having a discussion with. They've made up their mind and no mountain of evidence will ever convince them otherwise.
It's very difficult to fight ignorance with science until you can convince someone that your methodology is valid– collection of facts through falsifiable experiment. People do simplified experiments all the time. They just have a tough time understanding things they don't feel are tangible– like climate change.
Sadly, most would rather take Rush Limbaugh's non-fact based opinion as fact. Unfortunately for them, his opinion does not hold the same weight as a climate scientist in concerns of science.
Global Warming, sure. Whats not to believe. Our solar system is cyclic and warms and cools regularly. Human influence on this Universe sized phenomenon, baloney.
No. ClimateGate has not changed my belief. I knew Global Warming is real to begin with, but not caused by man, and has been going on long before man walked the face of the earth. It's also a period of prosperity on the earth. I’m ready for it!
Climate is always changing and always has. Man does not control the climate. Carbon is part of the environment. Is it constantly being transferred between earth and atmosphere and living things? Yes. So what? The sun will have events we cannot control. Asteroids may be headed our way that we can do nothing about. Volcanoes will erupt. Forests and grasslands will burn that our not within our control. There will be wars, because madmen must be stopped in their evil ways. Stop obsessing about the change and learn to cope with it. Change makes opportunities that were not available before. Do not give up your freedoms to fear of change. Do not let governments gain more control over your life. It is good to conserve. It is good to investigate new forms of acquiring energy. When a good idea is discovered it will become viable on it's own. Keep the government out of it. It is OK for governement to suppport science but someone always wants to control it. Let scientists do their thing and let engineers do their thing. I believe in peoples ability to choose what is best for themselves. I also believe that people will choose what is best for each other as a whole when given the chance. Democracy and free markets with a free and unbiased press are the answer. Stand up and demand it now!
We must protect the forests for our children, grandchildren and children yet to be born. We must protect the forests for those who can't speak for themselves such as the birds, animals, fish and trees.
Qwatsinas, Nuxalk Nation
Do you seriously consider Global Warming and Evolution actually science?
The significance of Man-made Gobal Warming has been grossly exaggerated. The earths temperature changes have varied only slightly over the last 200 years. There has been a a mass climate change once before. It was called the THE ICE AGE. Man was not around to be blamed back then. I resent my tax dollars being wasted on so called green initiatives.
Evolution has been disproved years ago. Evolution is merely the state sanctioned chosen religion of the mindless Atheists.
Rio de Janeiro – Brasil
It looks like the planet is warming and the melting of the polar caps is one of the evidences this is a fact of science
Now, the question that is to be clarified is:
Are human activity accelerating this otherwise normal planetary cycle?
Human development has destroyed forests in most of the world leaving mainly South America and Africa as main natural carbon absorbing islands (not considering oceans).
Humans dump hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon on the atmosphere annually.
Carbon dioxide is a known effective green house gas.
It should not take a scientist to conclude that human activity is acceleration the otherwise natural global climate warming.
The question, still to be answered is HOW MUCH is the human contribution and what would be the scenario without the human added carbon dioxide contribution?
It looks like politics and financial interests interferes so much in science that we are still to get this very basic response!
There are a few level headed people making some great comments, and others who are simply a mirror reflecting what someone else has told them. Politically, "do you believe in global warming" can be rewritten: "are you worried enough to accept more government control"?
For those who are political mirrors voicing what someone else on tv as told them, this is what they see.
However there are others that have posted with some great level headed comments. Here's the highlights of what they're saying: "it's never a good idea to flagrantly destroy or misuse (fuels, forests etc..)"
Bottom line: Don't allow yourself to be swept up in a crisis. Allowing the government more control just because it's easy isn't the right choice. Government largely corrupts and any enemy of the United States only wishes for it's government to take more control. If you are so inclined to prevent future consequences of global warming, then you have my support while doing it as a private operation.
Know this: Look it up, The earth has cycles of cooling and warming. It was not long ago when we experience the "mini" ice age, and it won't be too much longer ahead before we'll experience another... and another. The earth has it's own thermostat.
First, for all of you that are beating the "belief" drum, believing in man-made climate change means that we have an incomplete understanding and are left with intuition. Even top environmental scientists disagree about this subject so all of the rest of us are left to draw our own conclusions, including conclusions based on misleading information.
Who would possibly provide the public with misleading information? Well, I would suggest following the money. Governments all over the world are funding research into global warming and especially in the current economic situation this funding is being jealously protected. It's almost inevitable that some corruption will find its way into this research effort.
Climate change is a fact. The climate has been warming since the last ice age. Man-made climate change is a theory. If the theory is proved then any effort we make now may reduce the effect of climate change for future generations. If the theory isn't correct then the worst case scenario is we have spent significant time and money researching ways to increase effiency, diversify our energy supply and clean up the environment.
The question remains "Is global warming a problem?". I would suggest that any change in our environment is a problem. I would also suggest that this presents us collectively with an opportunity to be part of something that will drive a social evolution that may equal our current technical evolution.
We have the intelligence and the tools but do we have the will?
Man-made global warming is the biggest scam in human history. Carbon dioxide accounts for less than 4/100ths of 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. (380 parts per million). The change in CO2 levels since man has been burning fossil fuels (from 300 ppm to 380 ppm) accounts for only 8/1000ths of 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. There have been periods in the Earth's past where CO2 levels were 10 to 15 times higher than they are now, and yet planetary temperatures were about the same as they are now.
Climate has regularly changed ever since there has been a planet Earth and it will continue to do so. Those changes are caused by fluctuations in the energy output of the sun, changes in the Earth's orbit and angle of rotation, and topographic changes to the Earth's surface which alter weather patterns. Compared to things like these, man's burning of fossil fuels for a mere 150 years is laughable in its insignificance.
Of course global warming is real, but the questions that need to be answered is how much is in part of human activity, and how much is natural climate shift. This still doesn't change the fact that we need to start taking consideration into the effects we have on the environment. Anyone who doesn't believe in global warming doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
Though I do not like the pollution that is being put in to the air, I still do not fully believe in global warming. I just got back from China and the air was disgusting there, it was the equivalent of smoking a pack and a half of cigarettes a day.
What we are experiencing right now with the climate change is a "cooling" period from the last ice age. Temperatures were much much cooler back 300 years ago and they are getting warmer because we are still coming off of the last ice age.
As for these scientist, they are supposed to be the greatest minds in the world right now for climatology, but if we go back in history, didnt the greatest minds in the world believe that the earth was flat?
Global warming may or may not be true...BUT....for all the people who try to say "big business" is trying to cover up global warming, you apparently have not noticed that it is "big business" that is trying to promote global warming. Both sides are being promoted by "big business". There are thousands of companies that stand to gain if we push the global warming initiatives and they are pumping millions into promoting the global warming agenda....just like there are thousands of companies on the other side. Most likely, reality is somewhere in between and we need to sift through the propaganda and take some common sense steps before the drastic steps proposed by the extremists.
When the cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flow into the northern Atlantic, it shuts down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm.
The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age – in a period as short as 2 to 3 years – and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.
I believe that gobal warming may be real.
I also believe that the human caused global warming "crisis" may be the biggest misunderstanding of science (if not outright hoax) since Galileo was arrested for daring to state that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Man is a very egotistical beast. In Galileo's time Man's ego told him that His home, Earth, had to be the center of the universe. Now Man says that the Earth could not be warming without His influence.
Recent NASA photos show that the South polar ice cap on Mars is receding. Those same photos do not show any little green men driving SUV's around nor any coal fired power plants on Mars. The sole explanation has to be that the sun warmed up relative to what it had been. The Earth is closer to the sun than is Mars.
The Great Lakes were formed when a large sheet of ice melted. This was one of several ice sheete that have come and gone in the past. There were no SUV's for man to drive nor any coal fired power plants when the Great Lakes were formed. The sun warmed up relative to what it had been. The sun has a far greater effect on the Earth's climate than Man's poor power to add or detract. (Apologies Abe.)
How can you be asking the question "Do you believe in Global Warming?"
Global warming is a fact. Out planet is getting warmer. The correct question to ask would be "Do you believe CO2 emissions are leading to the warming of our planet"?
The answer to this question is yes. Scientific data since the industrialized revolution clearly shows that our planet is warming. CO2 acts like a green house, trapping in heat that would naturally be reflected back to space. Thus, our planet is getting warmer.
What the argument is over, I am not sure. When we stop the ridiculous debate over whether or not global warming is a fictitious claim, we can actually find and start mandating appropriate measures to insure, not only the reduction of greenhouse gases, but the opportunity for alternative energy to open up a new worldwide economic marketplace.
Global warming and cooling is natural. We had the ice age thousands of years ago and so now it's time for us to get a little warmer!
Naahhh! Global warming is not real at all! And we can safely drill at any depth in the ocean, and the financial debacle was not caused by greed ridden thieves hard selling loans to folks who could not afford them, nor by market creaters creating bad investment instruments made up of these bad loans, selling these very instruments as triple A investments, after paying off S and P's and Moody's for the triple A rating. And solar enrgy is not real, neither is wind enrgy, all a hoax! Oh yea, we are not contaminating fresh groundwater with drilling for natural gas, while poisoning the residents of Garfield county CO. And electric cars are not real, and corporate America does not control the Whitehouse, Senate and House, or Supreme Court. And American car companies did not close American plants 20+ yrs ago, even while making huge profits, just to increase their profits. And these car companies did not simply want more money for themselves. Republicans never side with the people in word, and then side with and vehemently support the largest corporations in actions, regardless of the obvious harm they are doing. And actions do not speak louder than words. And deregulation is a good thing, and it won't harm the environment or financial markets. And markets will police themselves without regulation, and Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr. did not support complete deregulation thus exposing the American people to environmental and financial catastrophe. And Americans, through ignorant and selfish behavior are not effectively killing the food chain. And all marine life including whales and Doplhins LOVE OIL!!!!!!
Global warming is a hoax! By the way, I'm looking for some ocean front property in Montana. thank you, Republican
nature is going to do what it wants to do. you are not going to stop it. taxing the american people is not going to help it. we have had the coldest as well as the longest winter ever this past year. your president is going to send us back to the stone age. stop trying to scare us with your dooms day theorys, its hotter than ever, its also been colder than ever too. how do you explain that without disproving your theory. please school me on this,seriously, i'll listen to any ideas. i dont know all the facts, but from what ive been hearing neither do the scientist you guys are getting your information from either.
Scientists at ICR.Com (Institute for Creation Research) have
shown that the world is cooling – not warming. See their journal
Acts & Facts, July, 2010 (Vol 39, No. 7), pages 12,13.
The best way to protect resources is private ownership. Do we have a shortage of cows? Chickens? Trees? Nope. Private ownership.
How about the research that proves we can't control CO2 levels? Indisputable scientific research that shows the sun has more control than we do?
You guys just ignore that so that you can hate yourselves more and more. Be doers, not complainers.
How do we explain all of the "other" periods of global warming and severe cooling that occurred in history, the most recent just a thousand years ago? Yes, carbon emissions are higher now than then, but to what degree is the increase? Finally, there were still a lot of "buts" mentioned in the article. Apparently, there were agenda driven people involved. It is safe to say that climate change research has mutated into an industry unto itself. Cap and Trade is one of those lucrative illegitimate industries that had hoped, and still hopes, to cash in on billions of ill-gotten revenue. Those are the people we need to be wary of.
We have been global warming since the ice age: Pliestocene. All done without man's help or assistance. This is no secret but fact!
As to the honesty of the scientists involved with justifying man's influence on global warming:
"Jones wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years ... to hide the decline.""
This implies hiding the actual decline in global temperature data. Hmm.
We are led to believe that this was a mistake and not intentional. Hey, millions of research dollars are at stake, as well as reputations that could be scarred if the truth be known and accepted.
Thank you for misleading the public!
Some people say pointed out that the globe has been warming up ever since the end of the last ice age and has been so during every interglacials. Everybody who has studied geology knows that, and I'm sure researchers and scientists of this field are totally aware of that. However, the thing that bothers people so much is the incredibily high speed of gobal warming, and that is abnormal even for interglacials. It's like saying death is inevetible, so why don't we all start smoking, take drugs, drink ...etc. unlimitly.
Global warming is occurring on Earth, Mars, and Jupiter , Venus, Triton in our solar system. We are responsible for this but not entirely unless some creatures are living like us on these planets....
What is true is that the climate change will kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, by eliminating the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.
The rise in sea temperature will trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, methane trapped on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena will increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further.
Anyway no need to argue, the planet is beyond repair, unfortunately!
It is apparently clear that there is a climate change, and it is getting worse every year. Today we cannot even predict clearly if it is the right season for rain or not. So the answer to the question, the result of the investigation does not mean anything as I can see, feel the fact we are in the brink of a major climate change.
When the people who espouse climate change actually stop flying in private jets and owning multiple mansions, trading it all in for a simple agrarian lifestyle, then it might make sense to listen to them.
Anthropogenic Global Warming has been disproven, over and over and over again, yet the propaganda machine keeps cranking.
Why wasn't the headline for this article: East Anglia scientists cited for failure to respond appropriately to Freedom of Information requests, and for obfuscation of data sets?
Looking at a heat wave or cold spell and claiming for or against global warming doesn't make sense.
Just because you flip a coin 5 times and it's comes up heads all 5 times doesn't mean the coin will always come up heads. Similarly if it came up tails all 5 times, it doesn't mean it will come up tails every time.
When those who have been farming the same land for 50 years notice things they've never seen, I'll take their word for it.
The earth is too big for any human factor to affect the global warming.
Yes, I agree that we should do something to make the air clean in the area we live.
Y. W. Wu
This is how I see it. Global warming and climate change are two different, but also similar concepts. Global warming is based solely on the idea the earth is warming at an alarming rate. While I believe in this somewhat, it is different from climate change!
**Climate change is the notion that people are causing irreversible damage to the earth which is a detriment to our future on this planet.**
For some reason, people equate these with each other when in fact they hinge on different details. Scientists are trying to move away from using 'global warming' and instead they are using 'climate change'. Whether or not the earth is warming or cooling is besides the point, we must look at how people are USING the earth. It cannot be denied that we are using resources beyond a level sustainable for our future. Its just like Newton's Theory: Nothing can be created nor destroyed. We are not destroying fossil fuel when we use it but rather converting it into a gas which, if you think its healthy for you to consume, I'm sure its healthy for the earth too (of course I'm being sarcastic). But that also follows that we cannot create more fossil fuel; at least not in a time frame that is realistically feasible.
While the heating and cooling of the earth's atmosphere may be natural (whether if on a scale that we are currently feeling it can be debatable), the rate at which we are consuming our resources and polluting the earth is not.
I think that people blaming it on the earth is a way to disentangle one's responsibility for their contribution. I am not in any way perfect in this respect, but at least I claim ownership of my responsibility. Its just another way to say that driving a Hummer (which, by the way, is completely economically-irresponsible, even if you don't care about the environment) and building properties that aren't needed is okay.
It baffles me that people believe that people can change history, create bombs to destroy millions of people, go into space, pollute oceans, change the landscape but yet people have NO effect on the atmosphere by injecting tons upon tons of debris and gases in the air. The world is not big enough for this to have no effect, and nature works on its own time, not on human time.
After all of that, I will part with a question: why is it that Americans are the only modern, westernized world that still debate whether or not our actions affect the entire world?
Of course "Climate Change" is real. It has been since the beginning of the planet. Man made climate change is a farce. Yes, we do pollute and it does have an environmental effect but, it does not equate into "Global Warming".
As far as the uneducated drones that believe in man made global climate change, please ask yourself why for every 1 (one) scientist that believes/confirms "Global Warming Theory" (that is all it is..is a theory) that there are 100 scientist/meteorologist that do not. And for that matter why won't the so called global warming experts release their raw data..they never have and never will.
The Earth has warmed up and cooled down several times in its history. The fact that we are at the faster end of an asymptotic curve gives people the motivation to blame something other than a natural cycle for the phenomenon. Even if humans weren't here, the world would be experiencing a global warming trend.
Do you any of you realize that:
1.) a single volcanic eruption emits more greenhouse gases than humans can produce in 100 years? Just the volcanic eruptions in the 20th century emitted more gases than mankind has produced...ever!
2.) If mankind is the culprit for global warming, oops I meant "climate change", why are other planets going through the same temperature cycle?
3.) Every one of these "controversies" that appear are led by the federal government and inevitably coupled with taxes, power grabs, etc. Why is that?
Technically, the science is correct to an extent. Although minute, the gases in question may have a global climate effect. But the real cause of the warming/cooling cycles is mainly solar patterns, among other factors.
Saying that the gases produced by man affects the global climate is the same as saying peeing into the ocean raises water levels. While technically true, it's immeasurable. This is the point where science stops and politics begin. Alternately, by immediately ceasing all human-produced emissions no measurable affect on climate cycles will be made.
NEWS: "there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness", notable over complying with Freedom of Information (FoI) requests."
Hey, failing to display the proper degree of openness is typically in sync with HAVING SOMETHING TO HIDE like cooked books or data. Who spearheaded the major investigation of the CRU? AlGore the Carbon Hore (aka "The Poodle")?
Oh, and its' so fun to see scientific morphology at work. g l o b a l w a r m i n g takes on tarnish as it's scrutinized so all media shifts to c l i m a t e c h a n g e. Too funny!
ok, let's see, the sea is rising so that whole villages have had to move because there is no more land. the ice caps in the andes have melted so much that whole cultures are gone now, cannot farm and have had to move down to the lowlands to work for whoever they can, but no, let's ignore the facts, let's just pretend it is not real. oh, and let's not get vaccinated either, why even learn to read? the religious liars can tell you all you need to know....
I do not dispute that climate is changing, but the premise that we are the only cause of it is crap. Climate change has happened many thousands of times before. In fact, during the Jurassic, Antarctica had a more temperate climate and without an SUV for in site for 150 millions of years.
Screaming "climate change will kill you" is a good way for researchers to get funding. If a scientist went to a politician and said everything was going great, how much funding do you think he/she would get?
Would you pay extra tax to your government? Probably no. So how politicians can extract money out of your pocket w/o your objections?
1. Inflict fear of coming apocalypses
2. Provide prove that it coming
3. Collect money to stop it.
So now how to provide prove of such an event? As we know scientists needs money for their research. If a scientist provides study report that is boring and not controversial most likely you will not even hear about it. But if the report will say "The end of the world is coming" everyone will read it. Money will start flowing for more research and obviously the glory. Prophet, savior etc... Who doesn’t want it?
We should not ask “Do you believe in science?” but “Do you trust it?”
Just because several so called scientists jumped on Global Warming wagon it does not mean that they are right. Look big picture. Global warming is multibillion dollar business. Check how much Al Gore made on it. Don’t be fool and don’t get scared by some unrealistic apocalyptic visions.
Climate patterns are even more complicated and more unknown then weather patterns but still we cannot predict weather two days ahead with some reliable accuracy. So next time, think about it before you blow the whistle for alarm.
It's been colder. It's been hotter. It's been wetter. It's been drier. It is arrogant to think that we are the determinants of climate fluctuation. We create models with rules to fit our desired ends and cite them as definitive. e.g. CO2 is critical but water vapor (another,more abundant greenhouse gas) is not. Or the effect of the sun (our heat generator) is constant. (It is not) We change the nomenclature from global warming to climate change so that any event fits the story. Consensus has become science. Why? MONEY. You've got it; they want it. And, if they can make it a religious (cult?) experience, you won't mind so much.
Global warming is a reality,most of it man made.We cannot release all this in millions of years stored sun energy,special coal and oil, during 1oo years.We must change to clima neutral energys.
There really isn't a debate when the facts are the facts – climate change is real – evolution is real. Now do something about it!
You are either blind or dumb not to just look around and see that the climate is changing on a regular basis.
It knew it all along. Its just one of those malicious concoctions. No better than the theory of evolution -fairy tales and pure fiction :)
what happens now to Al Gore's Nobel Prize? hahaha
Global Warming seems to be a real threat, that is, to human intelligence. hehehe
unbelivable... how can you come up with such a question? Why not asking: If the sun appeared at midnight, would you think this is abnormal? Global warming is not, like Fox News, Palin, Limbaugh want us to believe, a mere hearsay.... it is a fact, you id...
Your question has been misphrased. There is no question about Global Warming. It is happenning. The debate is about whether Global Warming has anthropomorphic causes (caused by man) or not.
Only in the USA has this issue been politicized, with the Republicans generally "believing" that man is not to blame and Democrats "believing" the opposite. Could it be that the Republican party is owned by Big Oil?
Eventually the chickens will come home to roast. but by then it will be too late.
Climate change is undoubtedly happening, but the discussion on the subject is largely irrelevant. There is no political will to reduce the growth of carbon emissions, and they will continue to increase. What we need to be asking ourselves, as individuals, is how will we prepare for the inevitable outcomes of global warming? And how will we be able to profit? Particularly troubling (or an opportunity, depending on your perspective) are rising sea levels, since the majority of human population lives on the coasts of our continents, within 300 feet of sea level.
There is evidence of global warming and evidence that all that prevented us/prevents us from entering another ice age is global warming. So how much carbon in the atmosphere is optimal and how much is too much and how much is too little. What happens when a big volcano erupts and really puts us in a cold snap like caused the french revolution and maybe ours. Humans do have a significant impact on our planet but the earth is more powerful than us. I think it reasonable to reduce carbon emissions and get us off of foreign energy sources for our economy and to modulate the effects we have on the earth. However, overpopulation of humans is the real issue here more so than overdoing the carbon. A program said 3 billion is all the earth can comfortably hold but we have 6 billion going up to 9 billion. In the wild, overpopulation results in mass starvation and a plummeting of the population. do we think we are going to be exempt from this even if we reduce carbon emissions?
I was convinced that global warming was real and almost totally man made. I still believe it is very real but I am not so sure how much of a factor man has contributed.
Without a doubt, these scientists have badly damaged the credibility of the argument they were trying to make.
Earth = Venus 2.0
The Venusians did'nt believe in global warming either and look what happened to them. An atmosphere of mostly carbon dioxide and surface temperatures of 2-300 celsius.
How do you like your suntan? Well done or Pitsburg-Medium?
Thousands of years ago, what is now the United States of America, the East side at least, was covered in ice. Glaciers ruled down as far as North Carolina. Yet all that ice melted, long before hydrocarbon use.
The other planets in our solar system are also warming at this time. Scientific fact.
Climate changes run in cycles. They go up , there is melting. They go down, there is cooling, even several mini-ice ages. Then it happens all over again.
Asking about climate change in the middle of a heat wave, even a rough one, leads to opinions that lead and lean to the hot side. Ask in the middle of a cold snap, it leads and leans to the cold side.
Common sense people, something that isn't found very often anymore.
man made global warming is the greatest hoax!!!!
Thanks to the media, people only know what they hve been told by the media or educators. The green movement had 20 years to spread their message of global calamity , but it never happened, and now we know that their message was wrong.
If anyone asked me ( I live in Nova Scotia ) and am 52 years old, if my climate has changed in my lifetime, I would say no way. Yesterday was hopefullythe last day for my furnace to run for the summer...Usually it stops around July 2nd, but this year, a bit later than usual.. and it has been the same for years.
So, if I haden't known about this global; warming scam, pushed hard by gov'ts and WWF and greenpeace, I would have no idea what they were talking about. THANKFULLY, the sky didn;t fall, and we can get on with living as we always have, and bury this scam into the annals uf history. If I ever hear the expression " carbon footprint" again, I will vomit.
CNN headline today, "Record US Heatwave Continues".
So, I guess we can all forget about that global warming thing. ;-)
Wow – reading these comments makes me realize how screwed the entire human race is. Way too many ignorant people exist. Yes, I'm talking about global warming skeptics.
Hey, this is the Land of the Free and we're fighting hard to keep it that way (good thing someone else is doing the fighting though).
You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. And I am free to drive my 9 mpg GMC Yukon. Gas is a lot cheaper here compared to Europe. Plus, we are larger people and don't want to cram into a sedan. It's better being up high because we feel more secure than if we're in a regular car.
The greater question is, how are we to temper ourselves from the industrial practices of centuries past? In many ways, our consumption of fossil fuels paraelles our system of slavery prior to the American civil war in the 19th century. It [fossil fuel consumption] is invariably our peculiar institution and a cherished way of life. We currently do not have the discipline to curb our appetites from the continual use of oil and coal. But for all nations and commonwealths concerned, what is our alternative? Our factories, mills, railways, every means of vehicular transportation all rely on this component in the world: fossil fuel. Nothing we have can compare to the vast energy and versatility as this filthy element in all societies. This is the wealth of nations. If we lose that we lose everything. It took a war to dissolve the practice of slavery in the United States, I can only surmise what sort of conflict it wil take to dissolve global usage of oil and coal. Again, what are we to do? I admire the efforts of our most brilliant chemists and engineers who are at present laboring on the some of the most ingenious methods to preserve of resources and to accomplish what I think is the "blue rose" of science: the manufactury of limitless, renewable energy, a most charming panacea! I do believe that it can be done. It can't be that complicated. After all, we devised a flame that burns underwater! If only there were a substance like flubber, as in the motion picture. Now that substance would solve our energy dilemma at once.
Global warming has just about come to an end. We need to be prepared when things swing back the other way. And it may happen fast. We need to be proactive and not reactive!
The worst thing is that no matter what the weather is, it falls into the 'global warming fiasco'. If it is extra cold, it is an extreme condition of global waming. If it is extra hot, it is an extreme condition of global warming. If it is a drought, it is global warming. If it is a rain deluge, it is global warming. No matter what the weather, it suits their agenda. And not to mention that the more they can "prove" global warming, the more money they get! Self fulfilling destiny!
Cyclical. It warms, it cools, it got hotter than this 20 years ago, and it will be colder again. The tiny amount of info, from only a century or so, is a drop in the ocean compared to the age of the planet earth. That is like asking 2 people a question, and expecting the answers to represent all of manking. It is utterly ridiculous.
HOWEVER, we are hurting the planet with pollution. There is a 5 acre illegal chemical burial site that drains chemicals into the Dan River, and the Roanoke River Basin Authority, in Danville Va. The illegal chemical site is in Caswell County NC, but drains straight North into Virginia.
has videos of the pollution, documents from the government, and even admissions by the ones who buried the stuff, pure confessions. But they bluffed a cleanup plan, approved by the gov't, and right now there are 55 gallon barrels washing out of the ground that have rusted out and spilled their poison into the groundwater. We have two wells contaminated so far, and the chemicals are spreading after hitting the veins of water.
Lord help us, for we have shown we cannot help ourselves.
Randy Dowdy, Dowdy Lane, Providence NC, 27315
Great comments by both sides. I would love to see CNN be more clear in their questions – Global warming (and cooling) are undeniable by anybody as it happens every day, whereas MAN-MADE global warming is debatable. Trying to draw a direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature is, at best, questionable because it doesn't tell the whole story.
The best that each of us can do is research this FROM BOTH SIDES. Somebody from the Netherlands referenced the consensus among climatologists – this is a dangerous path. First they have a vested interest, and second, being in agreement is not the same as being correct. On the other side there are also vested interests. Do the right thing and try to understand both sides. Then make an informed decision. I will say the "The Resilient Earth" (Hoffman) was a good, if rough around the edges, book that lays out the history and data quite well.
Not believing there is climate change is like not believing the sun comes up in the morning. The evidence is overwhelming in both cases. Not believing that it is man made is from ignorance or a refusal to believe something that will have negative consequences on you personally. Man is releasing green house gases and green house gases increase global temperatures. Those are just facts. The only open question should be how much warming are the man made carbon emissions causing. To answer that you have to rely on the scientists and the overwhelming majority (99%?) say that yes, what we are seeing agrees with what we should see from the amount of man made carbon emissions that are being produced. QED.
Whether we believe or not is immaterial. It may be true that the earth is gradually warming, although when I was in school they warned us of a coming ice age...the same "scientific proofs" offered. In any event, I seriously doubt that mankind has much, if anything, to do with the change. Many cycles of change have occurred throughout the millions of years this planet has been around. To suggest that puny man can seriously affect a planetary condition is just another evidence of mankind's centristic thinking. CO2 emmisions cannot compare with a single volcanic eruption, and how much control do we humans have over that? Not one iota. Let's leave the big picture to Him who is in control of it.
Michael - "The life of Jesus is the most documented event in ancient history"? Where did you pull that from? For being such a prominent figure, his life is almost entirely undocumented. How many books of the Gospel are there? A few devote followers writing their biased impressions is interesting, but doesn't count for very much as historical data. Consider all the information that is surprisingly NOT available about Jesus given all the supposed miracles, preaching, etc.
As for global warming documents having been shown over and over again to be false, I think maybe you need to take a break from Glenn Beck for a while. You seem to have misunderstood that he's only a shock-jock entertainer just like Howard Stern. He'll say anything shocking he can to drive up his ratings, without regard to the truth. You would be on safer ground saying that you disagree with the conclusions rather than claiming the data is false.
Oh well... it's the usual ball-and-chain routine. Save the right-wing extremists in spite of themselves.
I must say that I do really miss the old days. There was nothing like watching rivers on fire from all the massive pollution dumped into them. But of course most young people don't know about that because it doesn't happen anymore. We have those annoying regulations that prevent it. Up until those glorious fires, any efforts to clean up the pollution was, of course, going to ruin industry and bring the entire world to an end. Pretty confusing though - having the regulations and the world still being here and all.
The other thing that was really nice about "the good old days" was actually being able to see the air you breathed. I mean, do you really want to trust breathing air you can’t see? So your lungs hurt a bit and you couldn’t go out and play a couple weeks each year. That was a minor inconvenience compared to the benefits of being able to actually see the air. Then they imposed those air pollution regulations and unleaded gasoline on us! We were going to have to pay through the nose for unleaded gasoline! It was going to be the end of the world! Oh wait… I just realized we’re still here. Shoot, what happened?
It is arrogant to think man cannot affect the climate, which is in the very same vein of arrogance that says deep water drilling is safe and will not harm the ecosystem. This is the same arrogance that says mans greed for a piece of paper won't destroy everything this planet has to offer. I truly wish the naysayers would get off their butt and go drink a glass of water in Rifle CO, or go help clean up the oil in the wetlands, you know the oil that our behavior did not cause. If we can destroy the land, it stands to reason, and all common sense, that we can destroy the air and affect the climate. Nothing in our food chain can live in oil, and you cannot be born in the San Joaquin Valley of California and not end up with respiritory issues. Climate warming is without a doubt, affected by human behavior. We just do not know to what extent. What we do know is the Gulf is dead for years to come, and some folks drinking water from the kitchen tap in Rifle CO flares when presented a flame because of fracking for natural gas. Energy companies are liars, they control the Republican leaders and energy companies like security, thus the fantasy they must sell is that global climate change due to man does not exist. This bewilderingly idiotic stance is food for fodder for all the lemmings who love their combustion run toys, and it eliminates responsibility which face it, Americans suck at taking responsibility! Albeit Americans did a damn good job changing behavior of consumption on Dec 8, 1941, the difference today is now Americans behavior, is America's worst enemy. Climate change due to man is real baby, get used to it!
Read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. He is a former Greenpeace activist who studied the global warming scam in great detail and found, to his own surprise, that global warming is not occurring.
Also, plants convert carbon dioxide to oxygen, and increased carbon dixoide stimulates plant growth. So it would only make sense that decreasing C02 levels will ultimately decrease oxygen.
This entire global warming fraud is just another tactic the government is using to impose Cap and Trade and any other regulation they can come up with to squeeze more tax money out of people. The greed and corruption that runs rampant in all government agencies is totally out of control. It comes as no surprise to me that these "Climategate" scientists were "mostly cleared". They could be standing over the dead body with a knife in their hand and they would still be cleared. The government can't allow them to be discredited or they lose all of that lovely tax money and the opportunity to come up with more bogus regulations to further subjugate the people.
nothing but a hoax to make people rich on green technology. the summers have been colder for the last 6 years here in california. not to mention green technology is still too expensive for the average man. cars are costly, solar panels costly. i mean if it was so important, this stuff would be priced for the masses. that is the first sign its a hoax.
...global warming, yet Antartica has increased it's ice-land mass by one third...global warming states melting of ice causes cooler water temps, causing colder temps...yet if ice is melting bc of "global warming," then how are their record levels of ice mass?
Is the ice melting, or increasing?
What about record ice depths in Greenland and the northern caps?
Common sense says melting ice does not make more ice, it makes water. Hint: Why doesn't Gore turn down the temp in his ice box and see if the "Global Warming" temp creates colder air resulting in more ice...
The moons of Saturn, Europa and Titan were formerly frozen, now they are in a liquid state due to increased temps.
Can someone tell me who is driving and using all that fossil fuel to heat up both moons atmospheres?
Or could it be an increase in the temperature of the sun that has been causing warming not only on our planet but our entire solar system!!!
and what evidence due you have to say man is causing all the climate issues? some wacky enviromentalist scientist write you a letter? i do believe man can mess up local ecosystems with pollution, but to change the ecosystem or warm the entire earth? c'mon lets keep it real. the earth will repair itself as it has since inception. i won't be dumping used oil in the gutters or pouring gasoline in the dirt, but thats about all the environmental concern you will get out of me.
This allegation is absolutely true. We are heating up the Earth with our vehicles, building heating and cooling units and the international fight for global economic prominence.
In addition, muh of our transpasesort emits carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Airplanes, buses, cars, trucks ALL emit these gases to say nothin of houses, farms and factories.
The real question is can we cope with our emissions so far and the future ones to come.
Do I believe that billions of more humans, billions of more livestock, millions of new automobiles, hundreds of thousands of new factories, billions of tons of new and interesting chemicals spewed into the air, all in the last, say 200 years, could have an effect on the planet?
Gee, let me think about that one a sec........Duh.
It is straight and simple physics.
Anyone who doesn't believe in it is either too self-absorbed to accept it, or just too damn stupid and will be Darwined out eventually. The ones who are too self-centered should be the first lemmings we send out if and when something cataclysmic does happen.
I don't see much difference between Global-warming deniers and the Birthers: regardless of the evidence being presented, they will always deny reality. To a conspiracy theorist, factual evidence is further proof of a conspiracy.
You lead a horse or in this case and Elephant to water but you can't make him drink.
Those that are either so stubbor or so ignorant not to accept the scientific proof presented that clearly shows Global Warming is real just don't bother to the proper research and reading to investigate. They would rather continue to spread the lies and hate they have been fed by a corrupt republican party...
Sad that people are simply so stupid they will not research for themselves... and of course they will say I and the rest of the world are being fooled.... Sad...
I believe in global warming, but I have a basic point for those who don't: do you believe in air pollution? The same stuff spewed into the atmosphere that cause global warming also cause air pollution. Can we agree to limit pollutants so our children can breathe??
Ummm... Lynda? First, you need to have someplace for the plants to grow. Traditionally paved human environments have not produced major forests. Second, one of the lesser discussed triggers for global warming is the incessant deforestation of the planet. Massive amounts of rain forest are burned every year, which is only the more prominent deforestation to point to.
So not only are humans aggressively pouring CO2 into the atmosphere, we’re also aggressively eliminating the primary way CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. Anyone observing this state of affairs from the outside would have to conclude that humans were engaged in an organized and systematic effort to maximize the CO2 in the atmosphere.
But don’t worry, you’re probably right. Once humans successfully kill off the majority of our population, the vegetation will likely thrive again and fix the problem. The Earth does tend to have an elegant way of correcting imbalances like massive human overpopulation.
Believe? In science? Science is not religion. Science does not need belief in order to "exist"–unlike religion. Thank you CNN for lowering your standards ever further to ask people if they "believe" in facts. The fundamentalists have really scared every facet of society into "believing" and that it is the only way for something to be true.
Sad, sad state of journalism.
The world burns over 3 billion pounds of oil every day. This is dumped straight into the atmosphere. This is not counting all the coal burned, cement production, steel production and other industrial CO2 production. This has consequences. It's not the first time the earth has warmed. But it is the first time for the human race.
Global Warming is Real and has been for millions of years. The real question is has man done anything to speed it up? Has man polluted to Air? The Water? The Earth? Has man created any machines or inventions that pollute the air? Has man polluted any ground or water in pursuit of wealth or just greed. Have any on you noticed how the weather is different than it was when you were a kid? Has it changed any in say the last 10-15 years?
Mans ignorance or greed will kill us all. This Gulf oil Spill, has anyone thought of what that will do to Global warming? Especially if they fail to cap it. Ice caps are melting every day, Seas of oil, evaporationed or ignited clouds fill the air we breath. We are Doomed.
Maybe the real question is how much do we care about our grandchildrens life on this planet, will they have a life?
on an earlier comment the Global Warming data was compared to The Bible. His response was the Bible was never proven false.
No Book of the Bible was written by anyone in it.
Written approx 400ad, before then embelished by tribal story tellers
a degree was made to all Rabis to write the word of God.
A panel read all "scriptures" and determined what was and what wasn't the "Word of God".
It is a book of valued fables covering how to live your life, not a book to be taken as factual. Men didn't walk with the Dinosaurs, evolution is real. Global warming is real and being evolved by mans actions.
Scientist all over the word have concluded Global Warming is real and humans are having a real affect on it.
'Believe' is not the right word to use, as this is supposed to be a scientific debate. Science is not based in belief, but rather in observation of outcomes which may or may not support a hypothesis.
People use the verb 'believe' to describe what they WISH to be true. I can choose not to believe in gravity, but that does not free me from the effects of gravity!
It is apparent that demagogues for the oil industry have been far more successful in winning the hearts and minds of the American public than the scientific community has been. This is tragic, but not unexpected.
The data is overwhelming, incontrovertible, and unanimously accepted by everyone who has ever bothered to actually study it. Global warming is real, it has been happening at an unprecedented rate since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, human-generated CO2 emissions are directly responsible for the vast majority of the increase and if the trends continue we face a very real possibility of the extinction of the human species as a direct result of it.
This is uncomfortable. The implications are not good for industry or the economy. I don't like it, either.
Study the data. Real data, not from Fox News, not even from CNN. If you don't like the government, fine, but for better or worse by virtue of being the people we rely upon for our weather information they have the best data. Study the NOAA data, all of it. The picture isn't pretty.
This is not a political issue, and needs to not be politicized. Choosing Al Gore as a spokesperson was a catastrophic mistake; if the scientific community had chosen Limbaugh instead probably it would be liberals who doubted the science, but nonetheless the science is real and the effects will impact liberals and conservatives alike.
For the record, I'm an ex-Navy vet, drove ballistic missile submarines and worked in the petroleum industry afterwards. I eat meat and I drive an SUV. I'm hardly a paragon of left-wing virtue.
Global warming is bigger than partisan politics, whether we like it or not.
Stop asking questions, guys.. Its time to act now. You probably will be asking questions even when the earth comes to a worst situation. "Do you still believe that the earth will be covered with full of water or almost full of water? Send your comments.."
If you want evidence of global warming, go visit countries like India, Bangladesh and observe the rising temperatures year by year..I haven't felt that heat in my childhood..Why I am I feeling now..It's common sense.
ohce July 7th, 2010 5:36 pm ET
And some don't see much difference between the Al Gore philosophy of Climate Change/Global Warming and people who believed that Hal Bopp was a space ship sent to Earth to pick up members of the Hal Bopp cult. Of course, Al Gore sees it as a lucrative industry which he will personally reap obscene profits from ... if Cap and Trade becomes reality.
Ask folks who are not "bought off" by the oil industry or coal industry eh. Like the forest firefighters throughout the west! Sheesh, I'm sure the naysayers can find a way to call them liars too, in an effort to somehow justify trashing the planet. Corporate minions, bought off polititians, and a pile of Republicans buying into Lord Christopher Monktons argument in front of America's senators.He was Margeret Thatchers energy policy adviser in the 80's, he's also the clown that Republican leaders "chose" to testify in front of a U.S. Climate Change overview Commitee just a few weeks ago. This clown had the audacity to say that climate change is not happening, and even if it was, we need not be concerned for at least 23yrs and any resulting changes in climate would be beneficial! Now who should America believe, the NOAA scientist and two other "real" scientists who testified to the contrary, or a money grubbing Brit?
Again, just ask the hardworking American firefighters in the western states. But alas, the problem with the naysayers is they don't "want" the real truth, they want to hear their fantasy pronounced to the very extent they present British Lord Christopher Monkton to America's own Senate Committee Hearings. Surely they could have found an American scientist who actually does field research in the arctic or at least Alaska.... and they call themselves Americans, who are you kidding! BTW, the Gulf oil spill should be enough for cap and trade laws!!!
It's apparent that the so-called "independent report" on Climategate does nothing to change the fact that scientists were manipulating data to serve a green agenda.
This poll just reinforces the false view that scientists really haven't made up their mind. Because the media, including CNN, is so irresponsible on this issue as to treat it as if there are two equal and opposing camps–as opposed to the reality that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and every national institute of science confirming the fact of anthropogenic climate change–large groups of the public don't have a clear picture of the science. Why not just poll people if they believe tobacco causes lung cancer?
Is the global climate changing? -I believe so
Is it warming? – I believe so
Is overall climate change due to human behavior? – Perhaps so
Is human behavior a significant contributor to global climate change? – I don't think so
Would changing current human behavior have any impact on global climate change? – I don't think so
What is "Global Warming" really about? – Social change, politics, and who controls resources (same as it always was)
Thank you for asking CNN.
After reading thru this posts, I see a lot of people saying they believe in global warming because of scientific consensus; however I would ask the question who funds the scientific community. If my federal grant was in jeopardy if I did not prove what my funding wanted wouldn't I or you use a "trick method" or falsify data to keep my grant money flowing? As for my answer on Do I believe in global warming, NO. All I have to do is follow the money/power grab to understand what is going on. As for people whining about fossil fuels, look at all the plastic in your house, look at all the wood in your house, look at your life style. IT IS ALL BROUGHT TO YOU BY FOSSIL FUELS. Worried about the oil spill, drill on shore and in shallow water. But no, the greenies/environmentalists won't let us. HMMM.. wonder why that is.. Might be we'd expose the hoax for what it is.
I find it incredible that people who don't understand a thing about science or econometrics go into scientists emails and try to use that against them. They are using econometric terminology and in econometrics, you often use the term "manipulate" the data to suggest that they are entering the data in the system to be evaluated... NOT that they are changing the data in any way.
It's like going to a different country where you don't know the language and telling them that based on how you interpreted what they said, they are wrong! (but you don't know what they said because you don't understand the language)
The report shows that they are honest scientists who are just doing their jobs and have found there to be evidence of global warming based on the data they collected.
Most scientists are trained, educated and intelligent people are here to help us figure out the world around us. We can thank them for cars, tvs, microwaves, refrigerators, air conditioning... etc. We listened to them when it benefited us, but when 99% of them tell us we have to stop using our cars as much or the planet will suffer, we suddenly believe that they are just trying to trick us for some random reason out of the comforts we have acquired thanks to them. I don't understand why people would think they would be lying to us about this?
Well, if we stop listening to them and allowing them to actually do their work, we can go back to the middle ages where we knew nothing... Unfortunately, at the rate at which this world is changing due to climate problems.... we might not even have enough time to do that.
Perhaps the science is not yet convincing enough but the problem is real – climate change is happening and the natural green house effect that maintains life on earth is weighing more toward negative imbalance due to human impacts.The sooner we change our attitudes and behaviour that damage an irreparable earth the better not for us but those to come.
Learn more, become more aware and support the mission to finding out more rather than the pathetic ignorance submission. It's lame.
We're slowly noticing the changes in the developing world and remember, as the least contributors to CO2 emissions globally, we'll be the hardest hit. Rather invest billions in climate change research than sending shuttles to space!
i was taught in school that 10,000 yeqars ago the planet started warming up.thus melting the 1 mile pile ice where chicago now exists.why would we would want to bring back the cold?it would be hard to grow my pot plants.medical reasons heh heh.
This is not like Santa Claus. Global warming is real and has grave consequences. Science is based on facts and is not a matter of debate. Do we "believe" that the sky is blue or that the Grand Canyon has been there for millions of years? The argument against global warming is based on fear of losing industry profits. Ask yourself what is the motive for those alerting us to global warming? The truth of course that we better do something about it.
For all those who question Global warming:
Issue is Risk
The down side of addressing the issue:
We pay more for fossil fuels.
Added benefit: We can stop the oil additions and stick it to some of the less the friendly countries that export oil.
Down side of doing nothing:
Rising sea levels?
Loss of crop land due to drought.
Tropical diseases appearing were they did exist before.
Climate change for some civilizations in the past caused them to disappear.
There may be benefits if you live in what are now colder climates.
The safe(smart) bet is to do something to address the issue with the idea of buying time.
Scientists believe in Global Warming, and they have ideas to fix it. Isn't that the point of paying for Universities and researchers in society? What's the point of having them if you don't believe them? You may as well ask if you believe in science as ask if you believe in global warming. Scientific results are based on what the majority of many studies and tests consistently support. Uncertainty is built into the scientific method, and we go with our best possible understanding of what's going on, offer it up for peer criticism by other scientists, and refine and update with all new information. We don't just pull these results out of a hat. Of course there are always minorty opinions, and these opinions are important in order to maintain constant revision. I bet that those who cope with the fear of man made climate change with the irrational belief that it doesn't exist are less likely to cite the weaknesses of science to fully explain every case with a carefully contructed model when they need, for example, a heart transplant. Science isn't perfect, but it's the best chance we've got. Ignoring our best chance to understand when it comes to legislation and action is just stupid, even if for many people, it makes them feel calmer to think it's all histrionics.
I am from the US, and i definitely believe in global warming. Ok, the scientists in question weren't the best communicators, but this is such a critical issue. I hate to see it become a political football. We need to get serious and start making the hard choices to save our planet as we know it.
The 'climategate' did not change my opinion in any way, just reconfirmed how much damage political involvement can do to the science. Instead of giving Al Gore the Nobel prize, the scientific community should have kicked him out of the room in shame.
I assume the global warning is real, and human activity is contributing to the process. However, the magnitude and impact of it is very difficult assess. While the honest researchers are abstaining from making conclusions, the self-serving conclusions are made by the hungry for power politicians and ignorant activists of all sorts, as well as by the oil companies.
I think the governments should spend money on the climate research as on any other field of fundamental science. There should be nothing special about it. Once the scientists reach some solid conclusions, let's re-evaluate the priorities.
If Global Warming science was not politicized and exaggerated we would not be having this discussion. Instead GW scientists decided to pair with politics and now people have the same disdain for global warming "science" as they do politics. Make the data public and ensure that research is solid and data is empirical.
Do I believe in global warming? NO!
The question is not "Do you believe in global warming". Global warming is a FACT. Duhhh, almost the entire planet was covered in ice as little as 100,000 years ago. Any fool can spot a trend. The question rather is "Do you believe in anthropogenic (ie man made) global warming?"... That I am not so sure about – insufficient data. While conservation and sensible use of our environment are sensible approaches global warming or not, especially as we pack ourselves ever tighter on these limited shores through exponential breeding, elevating it to the status of a religion is ridiculous.
This is a good example of the distinction between observational science and theoretical science. From direct observation and measurement, it is incontrovertably true that the planet has warmed significantly during what we call "the industrial age." As to how much of this warming is attributable to human activity and what the future may hold, this is the realm of theoretical science. It happens that most scientists trained in relevant fields and paying attention to the data and theories think that it is quite likely that human activity has significantly warmed up the planet, and that if it warms up much more we will likely see a significant change in the ecosphere (a "tipping point"). But irrespective of one's views regarding these theories, is there really anyone who doesn't think it would be a good idea to seriously reduce the amount of pollution we put into the atmosphere and water?
I believe that the earth warmed over the last century. I believe it cooled over the last decade. I also do not believe that either is related to man's activities, but to changes in solar activity.
When someone shows a temperature rise after a rise in CO2 instead of the opposite relationship, I'll be a believer.
No! I don't believe in it!
There are many more articles that says otherwise.
Take these two for example
*Giant blobs of magma rippling Earth's surface
Huge magma blobs can spread ripples across the earth's surface, a new study suggests.
This phenomenon, which works on geologic time scales, may explain relatively rapid pre-historical changes in sea level that occurred without the typical waxing and waning of the polar ice sheets, which hold and release water on scales of thousands and millions of years. This unexplained sea level rise is one of geology's oldest mysteries.
*Sweating the global warming details: Dutch environmental agency admits mistakes in UN climate report
Published: Monday, July 05, 2010, 7:47 PM Updated: Monday, July 05, 2010, 8:19 PM
Here are the links to the two above articles:
*Giant blobs of magma rippling Earth's surface
Huge magma blobs can spread ripples across the earth's surface, a new study suggests.
**Sweating the global warming details: Dutch environmental agency admits mistakes in UN climate report
Published: Monday, July 05, 2010, 7:47 PM Updated: Monday, July 05, 2010, 8:19 PM
Yes, the earth has been in a warming trend like it has been many times before. No, it is not caused by man and particularly it is not caused by CO2. The ocean, and the soil, holds order of magnitudes more CO2 than the atmosphere. As global temperatures rise, CO2 is released from the ocean. The increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is a result of global warming, not the result. Otherwise, the earth would not have been able to recover from prior heating and cooling trends – if CO2 caused increased warming, then as the temperature rose and the ocean released CO2 (like beer does when it is poured into a warm glass), there would be more warming resulting in a run a way thermal condition. A similar result, but in the opposite direction, would occur during cooling trends as the ocean absorbed CO2 and if the decrease in CO2 in the atmosphere caused global cooling. People seem to have forgotten the predictions in the 1950's of another ice age because of global cooling and decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere. The true fact that the earth has always recovered from prior periods of warming and cooling and has not gone into a thermal run a way situation should be sufficient reason for one to doubt today's group of pseudo scientists who earn a living predicting massive disasters if we don't create economic calamity and lower living standards through out the world by reducing the insignificantly small amount of man induced CO2 compared to what the ocean contributes to the atmosphere.
sorry i cannot serve 2 masters... believing in global warming is against my religion.
I DEFINITELY do.
I live in Florida, where it's getting hotter every summer and colder every winter. You don't have to be a climatologist with 110 degrees on your office walls to figure this out. I'm a resident with a 110 degrees on my house walls – that's all the proof I need.
And as if we weren't sh!tting in our own nest enough already, BP just nailed our coffin shut in the Gulf of Mexico, and just keep banging more nails in by the day.
So you can put me down as a big, fat "YES!".
As someone with a conservative temperament, I felt drawn to global warming skepticism for a long time for purely political reasons, namely, mostly leftists believed in it and advocated for change because of it. Also, I was turned off by the quasi-religious nature of hardcore environmentalism (the Earth is our mother!). But, I've since come to the viewpoint that while the scientific consensus has been wrong in the past, it is certainly a more reliable basis for belief than mere politics. Conservatives should look beyond the politics surrounding global warming to the science behind it, and liberals should do their part by treating global warming as an issue in and of itself, and not merely one part of a progressive package by and large unpalatable to broad swaths of the American public.
Temperatures fluctuate. This is accepted as fact. Some years are warmer, some years are cooler. This is accepted as fact.
However, even if everything that the Global Warming people are saying is 100% true, how can it be a 100% proven fact that human beings are responsible?
Oh, and temperatures are also rising on MARS... (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)
LOL, Open-Mindedness has no place in the GW Debate – the debate is over! :)
Global warming....total nonsense...The climate has always been changing and always will....WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
I live in Florida, born and raised here. It's been hotter here, it's been colder here over my 52 years. It comes and goes, ebbs and flows. Man made global warming? Not a chance. Global Warming/Global Cooling? Absolutely, for millions and millions of years and all occuring without the influence of "man"
Belief has nothing to do with it! 50 years of sound science and exhaustive peer reviewed studies lead us to the facts and those facts indicate that anthropogenic climate change is a real and serious threat to mankind!
In the absence of equal and compelling peer reviewed science disputing this position, I remain convinced. I have looked into the claims offered by the skeptics and find that they universally lack scientific rigor and foundation. In short the denialists are trying to contravene science with baseless innuendo and politically motivated obfuscation. This approach only works with the truly uninformed and the intellectually lazy members of society, it has no place in serious scientific discussion!.
Yes. The problem is the deniers and those that back them (oil and energy companies) simply need to muddy the waters of the debate to confuse everyday guys like me.
They do not have to actually counter the debate with science. In addition the changes in question are so subtle and their effects, although far reaching, will take years to materialize. This all plays in to the hands of the deniers.
If you are skeptical of the global warming science, I praise your skepticism. That is a healthy characteristic to have. However, if you have not take that skepticism, and with an open mind, applied it to the evidence presented by the global warming deniers, it is only half commendable.
That is the problem. it is human nature to seek out only information that reinforces out preconceived opinions. I'm not a scientist and it has been difficult to make the effort to overcome my skepticism over the years, but if you apply the data and some common sense, it points to one thing. We are polluting our planet and it has real consequences.
Are skeptics always going to be able to find flaws in particular bits of scientific data? Yes they are. But taken as a whole the data is overwhelming. So is the common sense.
The debate is mis-cast. The earth's history is cyclical. There are periods of warming and cooling. These periods are measured over tens of thousands of years or more. To say that today's temperatures are warmer than those of 100 years ago or 1000 years ago is not to decisively declare that we are in a warming period nor is such a small trend sufficient to predict temperatures in another 100 years.
Some people want to make some pretty radical political, social and economic changes based on some very incomplete scientific data. By the way, these changes ostensibly meant to address this supposed warming trend also fit very nicely with such people's overall political, social and economic views, which tend to be redistibutive across national and continental lines. Move economic resources to the less privileged (defined by them). Ratchet down economic activity in highly developed areas (defined by them). Transfer political clout to less powerful areas (defined by them).
Global warming and climate change is real, but it is a natural cycle the Earth goes through. The notion that we need to cap our emissions because we're causing global warming is absurd.
Yes I believe in global warming. It's going to kill 99% of humanity, too.
Man-made global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated by anyone, including P.T.Barnum. Yet there are still hundreds of thousands of suckers out there who still want to believe in it. And this white wash of a review doesn't change any of it. It's still a leftist hoax trying to bilk money out of people, and it will continue to be a hoax until the cycle changes and the cooling starts again. Then, we'll hear the left talking about how we need to do something about the cold by stealing money from people who earn it and giving it to people who don't. More Socialist/leftist tripe!
This "Climategate" as the news media calls it , is such a bogus spinnig of the hard science climate data that shows human intervention and acccele ration of climatic chang leading to increased warming of the planet. All this is fodder for the anti-global warming camp, including corporations, polticians, greed mongers, and know-nothings. All this people need to re-analyzie the hard objective science and steer clear of "spin doctors" and hidden agendas. There is a real problem about global warming.
Years ago, I read an article on-line from the Boston Globe reporting that the oil and coal industry were dumping hundreds of millions of dollars per year on a global warming disinformation campaign. So knowing this was happening, my opinion on global warming was never swayed by the paid-off climate skeptics.
I remember back in the '80's, British scientist James Burke was on TV talking about CO2 caused global warming. And he has recent videos on Youtube. So I've known about this problem for more than 20 years.
The problem with most people is that they have never seen the info I've come accross so they can be easily duped into believing the global warming denialists.
Another problem with a lot of people is that they are easily swayed by conservative talk show hosts who express their global warming denialism with high emotion, insisting they have the truth. Rush Limbaugh makes his listeners feel special by referring to them as his dear friends. I'll bet he wouldn't make a friend from anyone in his audience. They don't have enough money to hang with him.
There is at least one talk show host (Gary Null) who's unfortunately not widely heard, even though his shows are on the internet, http://www.garynull.com who tells the truth about global warming a global warming denialists and their sources of funding. His website has articles posted on theses subjects. Please have a look. Maybe CNN would like to interview him.
Soon even people like Rush Limbaugh will have to admit that global climate change is real and having devastating consequences. When Rush finally admits it, he will find a way to blame progressives, not just for the global climate change itself, but also for perpetuating the ignorance of those who have been denying it. And the deniers will follow along, blaming progressives (who they will call socialists) and scientists (who they say are "proven corrupt") for their own ignorance. There will arise a whole new category of punditry in which the right-wing echo chamber outdoes itself to prove that all along they were the ones who were warning us, but were sabotaged by the evil left. When will this happen? I'm gonna say end of 2012 at the latest.
Yes. Let's see why...
On the one hand, overwhelming scientific consensus.
On the other hand, ludicrous conspiracy theories whose basis (climategate) has just been invalidated for the third time by independent investigations which make it clear the science is legitimate.
Honestly, we deserve everything we get... in the west we are a land of non-thinkers. We have a population that is so over-indulged and so comfortable that it can afford to be so utterly complacent, as evidenced by the vacuous reasoning employed by many of the nay-sayers here.
The parasites of irrationality and apathy are growing fat feasting on our decadent, vapid, bloated culture.
Apparently CO2 level rises while temperature rises and not the other way around and that's not me who says that but scientists not related to government (unpopular).
Australia Climate Commission says warming risk is real.
( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13497560 )
But what can you do as a poor scientist with only your knowledge and your statistics against all the PR and all cooperate money that is fighting against you.
Not only public opinion can be changed with those PR methods, but for some reason also politicians do follow that lead and do not take responsibility.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 336 other followers