Anyone Not believe we are causing Global Warming?

Do Humans cause Global Warming?


  • Total voters
    217
In my observation anthropogenic global warming has been failry conclusively demonstrated, however natural processes might be an important additional factor.

If you read anything worth reading, generally they take account of natural processes as much as they can. Of course it's not possible to completely clean up data, it's too complicated to weed out everything, but your average scientist is not going to publish anything unless they have something they believe has real anthroopgenic change with as little interference or allowing as much for interference as possible.

From what I've gleaned from a small amount of learning, essentially the process is to confirm the data has taken account of all other factors before it comes to a conclusion and of course the conclusion is subject to peer review, which will further weed out statistical errors. But then I think as usual we agree about these matters.
 
Hmmm i know humans do, but i heard cows do also by releasing methane gas into the air? Is this true?

If so. :lol:

Humans milk and consume them.
 
For all the people who are *****in' about the US not signing Kyoto, has your country lived up to its promise?

Actually, most of Europe has. Even places like France and the UK are doing well, and they didn't have the German benefit of shutting down East German industry.

It is mostly us North Americans and those Aussies (funny considering that their drought issues are causing so much pain) amongst the developed world.

Come on skadistic. Step one for any AA meeting: admitting you have a problem. "My name is Skadistic and I have a carbon problem"
 
For all the people who are *****in' about the US not signing Kyoto, has your country lived up to its promise?

Yes people do have a hand in climate change but the question is how much? How much is natural? How much is from volanic discharge? How much is from solar flairs? Is it hotter now then ever before? What cycle p[osition are we in? How much is it el nino? Why wasn't this year as hurricanely active as the 'experts' said it was going to be? Why were they wrong about the number and strength? Are we coming out of the tail end of a mini ice age and returning to normal? Are we entering a mini hot age? Why can't all the scientist agree?

Because it's a compicated issue, which is tied up in politics, so many scientists are hard pressed to remain unbiased, but many do.

England is the only country to meet it's Kyoto protocol promises and the EU is on course to meet them. So yes we have or at least we have tried. Which means I can get on my high horse by the law of high horses, and prod those who have done nothing, or near to nothing :)
 
Damn! I voted the wrong one. I don't think humans have much to do with global warming. Climate changes happen WITHOUT humans.

That is a logical fallacy. Just because climate change can happen without humans, it doesn't mean humans cannot also contribute to it. They are not mutually exlusive.
 
Damn! I voted the wrong one. I don't think humans have much to do with global warming. Climate changes happen WITHOUT humans.

That's ok my mistaken vote cancels out yours. Any reason you believe that humans aren't having an effect or an appreciable one?
 
That's ok my mistaken vote cancels out yours. Any reason you believe that humans aren't having an effect or an appreciable one?

Pretty simple, Earth has gone through dozens of warming, cooling, freezing, thawing, and repeated all again, periods before humans. Now, we may effect it slightly, but not throwing our Earth into haywire.
 
Pretty simple, Earth has gone through dozens of warming, cooling, freezing, thawing, and repeated all again, periods before humans. Now, we may effect it slightly, but not throwing our Earth into haywire.

Have you researched the issue, any links you'd care to use to back up your sentiment, what is this view based on? I'm not badgering you honest, I'm as open to free dialogue as anyone.:)
 
This seems to be another American troll thread. Very interesting how the poll was targeted but I digress....

I doubt any scientist will deny global warking or whether humans have an impact. However, how much evidence is there that humans are the main cause. From what I understand over the past 100 years most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

So to reverse the question can anyone prove "scientifically" that the Kyoto Protocol would positively impact global warming?
So how much of this was human generated?

More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view.

In the meantime, a British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.

So again to twist the question, how much of what we are fed is scientific illiteracy twisted by the media?

I guess I fall into the "show me" camp of global warming.
 
Have you researched the issue, any links you'd care to use to back up your sentiment, what is this view based on? I'm not badgering you honest, I'm as open to free dialogue as anyone.:)

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/26/1101219743320.html

An intresting article that talks about global warming skeptics and other things, and in the middle of it, tells when we last experienced similar tempature growths, and carbon levels.

Meanwhile, the evidence of climate change keeps mounting. Last century's global warming of 0.6 degrees - 0.8 degrees in Australia - may sound small, but an extra 1.5 to two degrees will mean the loss of coral and other delicate ecosystems. It is the most rapid warming the planet has seen in 10,000 years. In that time, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remained constant at around 280 parts per million. It is now nearly 380ppm, a level the earth has not experienced for at least 400,000 years.

Now, as it said, 10,000 years seems like a long time, but Earth may be billions of years old, and every 10,000 years is not much. Same with 400,000 ,larger than 10,000 but still not very large in the scope of things.
 
If you read anything worth reading, generally they take account of natural processes as much as they can.
Absolutely, but natural processes are still potent. IIRC from my environmental engineering textbook the estimated impact of insolation variation is about 15% (that number is pretty crude, and could be off by a factor of 2) as much CO2 changes, certainly that's a significant componant.
 
everything has an effect on everything. The question is how much.

And for that, I am skeptical that human caused global warming is causing more than 2% of our atmospheric temperature increases.
 
Has the Earth warmed up a bit in the last century? Yes. Will it likely continue to warm up? Yes. Have human beings had an impact on global warming? Possibly. Are humans the sole, or even major cause of global warming? I doubt it.
 
That's an exceptionally good article MjM and long so I've editorialised some of it's points.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/26/1101219743320.html

I am skeptical though that the lavoisier members are mostly conservative businessmen that have a serious reason to be biased against any concensus. Particularly in Australia. It's alot like the Bush cronies, but at least it's tried to be more scientific. Anyway an interesting article.

Secretary Ray Evans describes the 90-odd Lavoisier members as a "dad's army" of mostly retired engineers and scientists from the mining, manufacturing and construction industries. Many, he says, regard climate change as "a scam". It is unclear how much Hugh Morgan supports Lavoisier financially, but members pay an annual subscription of $50 and the annual budget is around $10,000. When they want to print a pamphlet to distribute at universities or take an advertisement in a newpaper - as they did in The Australian a few years ago - they appeal to members for money.

In Australia, the group is the obvious embodiment of the movement, but the idea has also been taken up by right-wing think tanks, such as the Institute of Public Affairs, and also feeds into a global network. It is a sophisticated machine that has successfully created the impression that climate change science is mired in uncertainty.

Scientists and environmentalists say the sceptics have been so good at spreading their message they have slowed action mitigating global warming. In Australia, the sceptics have been so persistent that the CSIRO, which employs some of the nation's leading climate scientists, has been forced to be far more proactive in defending climate change science .

Meanwhile, the evidence of climate change keeps mounting. Last century's global warming of 0.6 degrees - 0.8 degrees in Australia - may sound small, but an extra 1.5 to two degrees will mean the loss of coral and other delicate ecosystems. It is the most rapid warming the planet has seen in 10,000 years. In that time, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remained constant at around 280 parts per million. It is now nearly 380ppm, a level the earth has not experienced for at least 400,000 years.

This month, an eight-nation report found global warming was causing the polar ice-caps to melt at such an unprecedented rate significant portions could be gone by century's end. Land temperatures made last month the hottest October on record.

But still the sceptics resist. Some are convinced that humans can't render change on something as large as the atmosphere. Many, like the Lavoisier Group, are concerned about the cost of Kyoto to Australia's resource-intensive economy. Others, such as William Kininmonth, have found fame in sceptic circles in the twilight of their careers. Academics like the Australian National University's Ian Castles, a former Australian Statistian, have become hardened in their scepticism because the IPCC has reacted slowly to criticism.


Still others, such as geologists, are cranky because their study of climate change over millennia has been ignored, they argue. University of Melbourne geologist Ian Plimer says this period of climate change is just "one frame in a three-hour movie". Climate change, he says, is "a dogma, not a debate".

The Lavoisier Group distributes the work of geologist Bob Carter, Ian Castles, William Kininmonth, Ian Plimer and a few other Australian sceptics. The Institute of Public Affairs, which receives funding from companies such as ExxonMobil, the most sceptical of the world's fossil fuel giants, also engages in the debate, scouring the web and email groups for evidence that climate change is natural. Early next month, the IPA is bringing to Australia Andre Illarionov, the economic adviser to Russia's President Vladimir Putin, who lost the argument that his country should not sign Kyoto.

Recently, the doubters have been infuriated by NSW Premier Bob Carr's comments that in future, parts of the state will be like "living in an oven", and the Lavoisier Group is preparing a complaint to the ABC about its "appalling" and "sustained campaign" on climate change issues on Lateline and the 7.30 Report.

Australian sceptics are not as powerful as those in the US, where, for a long time, George Bush's Administration has also questioned the science.

Late last month, James Hansen, a director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, accused the Bush Administration of trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming. "I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now," he said.

In the past few years, with the exception of ExxonMobil, most fossil fuel companies in Australia are believed to have quietly accepted the climate science. But in their submissions to government, behind-the-scenes lobbying and through industry associations, many remain Kyoto-resistant and have argued recently against incentives for the renewable energy industry.

Scientists say they are still unsure about some of the impacts of global warming. The effect on coral reefs is clear, but there's limited understanding about the impacts on fisheries, for example. "Likewise we have a good understanding of impacts on some crops, but a limited understanding of impacts on cities," Hennessy says.

Hugh Morgan, probably Australia's leading sceptic in business and the force behind the Lavoisier Group, remains dedicated to the cause. "We are interested in this debate because we see that John Citizen is going to be asked to do some dramatic things to change his way of life in respect of matters (the community) doesn't understand."

While William Kininmonth is respected by his former colleagues at the Bureau of Meteorology and they agree about the climate's natural variability, they disagree that recent warming is natural. In a review to be published in March in the Australian Meteorological Magazine, University of Melbourne associate professor of meteorology Kevin Walsh will argue that Kininmonth has failed to present the case for natural warming. "Some of his detailed arguments are a little bit curious," Dr Walsh told The Age. "Some of his statements actually contradict well-accepted work."

But strangely enough, the Lavoisier Group heard that message on Monday night. In what seemed like a coup, Hugh Morgan had secured the respected John Zillman, former head of the Bureau of Meteorology, to launch the book. Dr Zillman agreed, but made it clear that there were significant parts of the book that he disagreed with. Dr Zillman, who is known to be quite conservative about climate science, said he was concerned about appearing at a Lavoisier Group book launch, but did so in the interests of debate.

He says he is not aware of any sceptic argument that has invalidated the mainstream science, and is now convinced - although would not have been 10 years ago - that it is mostly humans changing the world's climate. "I won't be expecting to be invited back as a regular," he said.
 
Global warming is a self explanatory thing like The Earth is round or gravity.

True although in the past the warming and cooling cycles were much much milder then the server spike we are now experiencing.
 
True although in the past the warming and cooling cycles were much much milder then the server spike we are now experiencing.

So durring the year Washington crossed the Delaware in a year called 'the year with no summer' that was a mild swing?
 
No, I dont see humans causing Global Warming. The Earth goes through these cycles of warming and cooling periods.
 
Top Bottom