I am generally ignorant of any of the sciences which are not social so forgive me if this is a stupid question I understand that the vast majority of scientists accept that global warming is a fact, but there seems to be a somewhat active "denier group" which seems to attempt to refute the fact that global warming is even happening. How can there be ANY dispute over this subject? Whilst it seems as though the reason that this is happening could theoretically up for a large deal of debate. t would seem as though the question of whether or not global warming is actually occurring should take about five minutes to determine, I would assume that there is AT LEAST data upon the general temperature of the last 25 years so isn't an upward trent or lack thereof utterly undeniable? So why is there any debate as to THE FACT of global warming? Rather than just the reason. Or is there no debate whatsoever on the fact and I am just misinterpreting the arguments of those who deny that the cause of global warming is human? Thanks.
Take a look at this chart and it might help. Please make special note if sun activity. No one is denying the Earth has had a trend of heating over the last century. Nor is anyone denying that Co2 (along with water vapor) are greenhouse gases. But the majority of Co2 comes from humans and animals, not cars. The majority of Co2 is reabsorbed in the biosphere. The oceans, the land-biomass. It's now called "climate change." Sun activity more closely relates to the last century of warming than carbon usage. Not to say carbon didn't help, but it wasn't the primary factor. Facts are facts.
I think its possible the Earth is in a period of warming and cooling like it has done the last 6 BILLION years...
It was climate change which contributed to the decline of my prehistoric friends. Cryoconite is said to come from far away deserts, volcanic eruptions, and carbon emissions, it settles on the ice caps and reduces the ice albedo, which decreases its ability to reflect light and increases its ability to absorb heat, which leads to ice melting.
There is a debate because liberals want to spread lies to gain control over every person to "save the environment". They want to control every aspect of every person's life and want to use fear that the earth is going to lose its atmosphere or whatever because of global warming.
I acknowledge global warming and even suspect anthropogenic causation, however, I prioritize the economic health of the USA OVER the long-term health of the planet. I do not support extremist measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. I expect that once things get troublesome, the planet will unleash some havoc to wipe out the human population a bit. If not, I'm sure I'll be dead so I don't care.
Climate change has caused a great deal of harm to all sorts of life, and we only have one planet right now so we better be sure about it.
Really?? I suppose you have some quotes from liberals about the lose of our atmosphere to back up your claim of fear-mongering.
Climate change does affect life on earth. The climate does naturally change from hot to cold. Global warming (which is what this thread is about) does not affect life on earth since it does not exist. The EPA discussing that the ozone layer (part of the atmosphere) being depleted. http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/kids/kids_ozone.html . It says that people are going to be able to stop this depletion by some treaty that limits our freedoms and forces us to change our daily lives.
Okay, first of all, your claim changed from losing the atmosphere (a general statement) to losing a part of the atmosphere. Secondly, your link says nothing about climate change. It mentions CFCs, methyl bromide, halons, and methyl chloroform as the culprits. The irony of your claim that liberals are liars by...well...lying about their claims isn't lost on me, my friend! You're a funny guy.
volcanic eruptions were a contributing factor to the climate change which led to the decline of the dinosaurs. Volcanic eruptions are emissions of gasses just like man creates. The question isnt whether or not its real, but how much does man contribute to it. You will have to do better than simply saying something isnt real or posting charts that everyside seems to invoke in order to make a reasonable argument.
There is a debate because thre are trillions of dollar worth of oil profits to be made. ts all about part lines and money. In what ways are they wanting to control every aspect of your life?
I'm sorry but no one here has answered my question, HOW CAN THERE BE A DEBATE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WORLD TEMPERATURES ARE RISING? NOT WHY THIS IS THE CASE. I don't care about the reason behind the rise if there is one, but how can anyone deny or say that temperatures are rising if they are or aren't?
The world has a history of warming and cooling. Nobody would try to deny this. The debate is whether man is contributing to it and to what degree. I said this inan earlier post which effectively answers the question.
Okay so there is no current debate over whether or not climate change is occurring at the present time and I indeed have misinterpreted some of the debate?
There is debate over whether it is currently in a warming or cooling stage. Climate change is most certainly real and proven. Global warming refers to the alleged rising temperatures and mans contribution to this.
Because there are trillions of dollars of taxes to be collected as well. Funny how you seem to readily see one boogeyman, but completely ignore the other.
Because the GWs T is an idiocy. There is always a debate on idiocy. Look here http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/199380-evolution-joke-pt-v-18.html it is endless because evolution is an idiocy. Your idea of you taking a thermometer and measuring the T of your body and there is no debate is anti-scientific. It is not what scientists do. Moreover even if it was if scientists were using your anti- scientific method, - it is still an idiocy because they dont know at what T you would be sick, or another words what the readings can mean at all. Thats why your Q was not heard as it was asked. It was anti-scientific, it was related to the real, not fantasized world
Answer: anybody with a brain understands the planet warms and cools itself over long periods of time naturally. The debate, is people who claim man has the ability to increase/decrease planet temperatures on his own vs people who understand that man cannot control these temperatures b/c the planet is to (*)(*)(*)(*)ing big and the entire galaxy is the major culprit of any warming/cooling. The folks who want to claim man is causing warming b/c we drive cars around and therefore tax people are claiming that that tax will somehow decrease world temperatures. Us on the other side think they are nuts. Plain and simple, but pithy!
In my studies of the prehistoric world I have found that there are many factors which can contribute not only to overall temperature but atmoshperic gas makeup as well. Volcanic eruptions, while Much more profuse througout the cretaceous, is considered a primary force behind the climate change of that epoch. While of course there were more contributing factors, volcanic activity should not be ignored.
Right on. Mother nature herself is the culprit. A volcano spews more pollution into the air in one burp then what man can deliver all by himself within a year. Volcanos are nasty things that actually have global consequences.
