Global warming controversy/debate?

Antonia Boomershine: I guess the main part of the debate is if man is having a significant impact on the climate. The evidence presented by the pro AGW group is contested or too small of sample to truly prove anything. I would encourage you to read a variety of articles from many sources and draw your own conclusions.http://nationscrier.com/index.php?option=com_conte......Show more

Debora Soliani: Looks like Al should have spent more time working on his marriage and less on Global Warming. Well at least he'll be rich, oh wait Tipper will get half. Poor Al.

Doreatha Kjellsen: Notice how they have stopped calling it "global warming", and started calling it "Climate Change" instead?Let me present a couple small details everyone likes to ignore. Once large reptilian like creatures roamed the earth in areas which are now nowhere near tropical climates, as these creatures would have needed. Then at some point in time these same areas were enveloped by what we cal! l the ice age, yet they are no longer covered in ice, or have the extreme cold temperatures they once had.All this happened long before man walked the earth, drilled for oil, or drove SUV's. So why is it so impossible to believe long term weather patterns continue to affect our climate, which we as humans have no control over?And yes there are many scientists who still debate the "man made global warming theory" or that global warming is a reality at all. To discount them as non scientists is rediculous and only serves to push an agenda. There are also many studies that have shown contradictory evidence in many areas of the world to the "global warming" theory.There is also plenty of money to be made in the whole "green" movement, so is it fair to discount those who push for "green" energy and carbon emissions as only being shills of corporations looking to make a profit as well?There are lots of debates on these issues, and many different angles to explore. Do yourself! a favor and read, and research all the arguments, then decide! for yourself what you think is best....Show more

Derrick Kloke: Ben: It's not that hard to find where the article was published.http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.p...if you'll go down to page 2 you'll see it was published by EOS on January 20, 2009.

Marna Liddie: This would take much more space than is provided here to answer, so go to the website below which has a bunch of information.EDIT: I'm not sure why I am being trashed about this answer, the person asked what was the controversy, I simply pointed them to a website that is part of the controversy, please read the question....Show more

Madlyn Fallis: Proof that Global Warming is real...http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll250/indianahr...

Kenneth Thuesen: The controversy is being generated by groups like SPPI (see KMcGs link) they put forward any number of theories and conspiracies, all of which are pretty much made up nonsense.The Christopher Monckton who owns these particular ! theories is not even a scientist but a unemployed journalist. He tried using this list of 35 errors in the legal case he was involved in in the U.K. the judge dismissed all but 9 of them as groundless and incorrect. yet the Lord Mockingtone continues to use them all, so much for truth.He also continues to use talking points in his debate speeches that have been shown to be incorrect, here his nonsense is taken apart by a real scientist http://www.scribd.com/doc/25813090/Responses-to-Mo...There is also the myth that no scientist will debate him, a number have been trying for some time it is he that won't debate them, because he knows he would lose such a debate, the closest he has come is a debate in Australia against an enthusiastic amateur who was not a climate scientist but blogs on the subject (Tim Lambert) although not a very good public speaker compared to mockingtone he still showed up a number of mockingtone incorrect points against a clearly denier audience and mode! rator (Alan Jones) a very well known 'far right' radio personality (i.e! . Australia's answer to Rush Limbaugh.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB5N8EtNCzA

Carter Edstrom: Among climate scientists, there is no debate as to whether man is causing global warming. There is some debate among scientists as the whether man is causing all of the warming or whether some natural force might be causing as much as half of it. There is also a small minority who believe that clouds act as a negative feedback and will reduce the rate of warming to less than most predictions.Anyone who claims that the environment is not warming, or that man is not causing the warming, is not a climate scientist and is vastly ignorant of what is now well understood among climate scientists. There is absolutely no debate among people who understand climate that man is causing the environment to warm....Show more

Sammie Bocanegra: You know that secret budget the US spends annually, in the hundreds of billions? Well a giant chunk of this is spent dumping this aluminum! +barium + sometimes strontium mix into the upper atmosphere to reflect heat back out. It's patented name is "Sag Aluminum" I believe. Well it's killing everything, burning crops, killing bugs and thus killing fish that would have eaten those bugs, killing us ( I drank water from Mt.Shasta and suffered bone loss!!!, lost a whole shoe size in last 6 years. My teeth had problems also.) Anyway, the warming of earth is natural, and will quickly reverse soon enough. When the oceans don't rotate as they are doing so now, a massive change in climate will result. The wont because the earth does a physical 120 degree flip every 12,900 years. I don't mean the magnetic poles, I mean the earth itself. Media is controlled and is covering up the truth. Youtube 2012 axis shift. This will fix global warming once and for all....Show more

Dana Russian: It's not really a debate. It's difficult to have a debate with someone who manage to see evidence that the sky is falling. For exampl! e the claim by believers that 98% of climatologists believe in that glo! bal warming is mainly caused by human activity sounds impressive, but of course it's a con. The author of this 'study' is too embarased to mention the name of the publication he got it published in. I expect it's some left wing Marxists magazine with low editorial standards. All similar sounding claims about conclusive evidence for human made climate change turn out to be of similar dubious sources....Show more

Charissa Riley: As Americans have come to realize that the "science" behind global warming seems to mainly consist of fudging data and making doomsday prophecies in return for grant money, the wheels have started to come off Al Gore's hobby horse. Of course, conservatives have not been shocked by this turn of events. That's because unlike far too many liberals, conservatives are actually interested in science, while the Left looks at it as little more than another institution to march through and corrupt in an effort to push their political agenda forward. ! We've been seeing this play out for years in the debate over global warming which has featured conservatives actually asking basic questions about the science behind it that liberals have tried to dodge by screaming "scientific consensus" at the top of their lungs. However, when even prominent global warming advocates like Phil Jones are being forced to publicly admit what global warming skeptics have been saying for years, that there hasn't been any warming in over a decade, it's an indication that the global warming shell game has just about run its course. Soon, the global warming "true believers" will be down to environmental extremists, scientists on the global warming gravy train, and hardcore socialists with ulterior motives for promoting an increasingly ridiculous theory. With that in mind, it's worth taking a look at some of the extreme, impractical, and bizarre changes that liberals want to make to our way of life in an effort to fight a threat that's about as! real as Barack Obama's campaign promises. 1) End Short Airplane Flig! hts. The group Plane Stupid actually wants an "end to short haul flights and airport expansion." Incidentally, in case you're wondering, a "short haul" flight runs 500-1000 miles, depending on the definition that's used. So, if these guys had their way, instead of a 3 hour flight, you'd essentially have to spend a couple of extra days on the road, each way, driving to where you are going. Maybe that sounds appealing to liberals who have nothing better to do than show up at the local "Free Mumia" protest, but the rest of us have busy schedules. 2) Wipe with one square of toilet paper. Sheryl Crow, who’s so environmentally conscious that she goes on tour with "3 tractor trailers, 4 buses and 6 cars," had a wonderful idea the rest of us can adopt to protect the planet from global warming: only use one sheet of toilet paper. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American o! f his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. You think "carbon credits" have been popular? Can you imagine what the market for "toilet paper credits" would look like if Crow got her way? 3) The cow fart tax. All those herds of future steaks and catchers’ mitts apparently fart and belch out an enormous amount of methane. So, in order to discourage this rude behavior, the EPA has considered a cow fart tax. This prompted waggish Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner to quip, "I don’t know if we’re supposed to develop the technology to strap a catalytic converter on the back of a cow." If they ever implement this silly tax, maybe they can take all the money it raises and pay someone to invent one. Continued......Show more

Adan Stribble: The globe has been warming naturally since the la! st ice age. The fact that we are not under a 100 feet of ice proves tha! t. The debate is about man causing GW. The government wants there to be proof of man made global warming because they are using it as a reason to raise taxes and create new regulations. It has also been used by the politicians to push nuclear energy. The whole man made global warming (or AGW) is based on computer models because there is no real proof of AGW. Climategate exposed how the computer models have been written to support the AGW theory.Here’s the code exposed by climategate. The programmer has written in helpful notes that us non-programmers can understand, like this one: “Apply a very artificial correction for decline”. You get the feeling this climate programmer didn’t like pushing the data around so blatantly. Note the technical comment: “fudge factor”.; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!;yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factorif n_ele! ments(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’The numbers in a row, in the [ ] brackets, are the numbers the data are to be altered by. If there were no adjustments, they’d all be zero. It’s obvious there is no attempt to treat all the data equally, or use a rigorous method to make adjustments. What could their reasons be?East Anglia Data AdjustmentsIn 1900-1920: “All thermometers working accurately”.In 1930: “Stock market crash and global depression causes artificial inflation in temperatures. Corrected, using inverted Dow Jones index until 1940?.1940: “Due to WWII, briefly, thermometers work again”.1945: “Artificial rise due to Nagasaki/Hiroshima effect. Compensated.”1950 â€" 2000: “Quality control at thermometer factories must be going to pieces. Thermometers are just reading too low, and it kept getting worse until 1970. Instead of demanding the factories get it right, simply adjust the data. Still not enough. Quality control puts air! -conditioning exhaust vents close to thermometers in the field, to furt! her counteract apparent factory problem.”Or it's all just a scam to get money....Show more

Nilda Bafia: There is no argument amongst scientists. It is only the media, the public, people paid by the oil or coal industries who are saying man has not done this.The science is not 100% because science rarely is 100%, but there has been enough research done to show that about 80% or more evidence that man is causing the problem.You should watch an inconvenient truth (if you haven't already) it explains it all in plain english, and I really do believe Al Gore is just showing us how it is. Apparently there were a couple of small things he was wrong about in his movie - but they were not things that would change the fact that we are causing the problem. We trust scientists all the time, the appliances we use today, mobile technology, computers, medical technologies - most of what we have today wouldn't exist if it wasn't for scientists and their research. Yet for some reason! now they are telling us that we have to stop abusing the earth and that we are going to kill ourselves......no one wants to listen. That seems very strange to me.They discovered the hole in the Ozone layer and it is well known that is a man made problem, it is now slowly on the mend due to us banning cfc's. Yet even after that, we don't trust them. We still insist that global warming could not be man made.The only reason why many people say it isn't real, is because it may take some effort and possibly some money and forethought to fix the problem. The public don't want to waste their money on renewable alternatives and governments are all about 'now' and 'the next election' to think or care about the future of the planet.I just hope the oil spill in America will help to open eyes, so we can start to make an effort to get away from oil and fossil fuels....Show more

Ollie Hamiel: Do some research into the science, not the politics.Science questions EVERYTHING, that is! a key element of the scientific process. Anyone who says something di! fferent is doing politics, not science.Look at the solar cycle. Solar cycles are not entirely well understood. However the solar cycles show a VERY close or very strong correlation to teh Earths climate trends. (hmm the primary source of energy for the earth has an effect on our climate? Novel idea!!!. Not for a scientist...)There is some debate as to whether it is the solar flux or the sunspot activity, but until recently these have also been very closely related. (Some argue they are still closely related we just count sunpots now with our better tech that had not been counted in the past.)AGW proponants will say solar irradiance does not vary enough to account for the scale of global climatic shifts. This is an ingenuous arguement and ignores a great many other factors including more than likely quite a few we do not fully understand yet.Example: Solar winds. Solar winds vary a great deal with the solar cycle. Stronger solar winds keep cosmic radiation away fro! m teh earth.. Weaker solar winds allow more cosmic radiation to hit the earth. Recent testing has proven that cosmic radiation plays a role in cloud formation. Why and how exactly we are not entirely sure. The more clouds you have, the more the suns rays are reflected back to space. So, now you get low periods of solar activity with a little less irradiance AND weaker solar winds AND greater amounts of cloud cover. More cloud cover means more of the weaker suns rays reflected to space.Example 2: Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) This also varies with the soalr cycle. We do not yet know what effect this has on the earths climate system.Example 3: Solar Flux (SFI) This also varies to a large degree in the solar cycle. The earth's magnetic field adjusts accordingly through mechanisms we do not yet fully understand. We do not yet understnad what effects this has on our climatic system. However we do know that stronger magnetic field mean less radiation reaches t! he earths atmosphere of the Earth's surface. Weaker magnetic fields me! an more radiaiton gets in. We also now know htat more cosmic radiation means mroe cloud cover...The main controvery is between true science and the politisation of science. True Science is "settled" on virtually nothing. Even the theory of gravity is being revisited and is nowhere near as simple as was first hypothesized by Isaac Newton. I believe there are over 20 seperately identified and specific forces that have been isolated thus far that make up what we commonly call gravity. Much more complex than 2 masses attacted to one another and the greater mass having the greater effect. Facts:The Earth had been waring in the 20th century but that trend stopped and reversed itself in the late 1990's. At this point in time the earth is trending cooler not warmer.The sun has recently ended a "Grand Maxima" which ran through the mid to late 20th Century. The sun could not be entering a "Grand Minema" but we're not sure yet.During the last "Grand Maxima" the earth was in the! mid-eval warming period.During the last "Grand Minima" the earth experience the Little Ice Age.Summary:Controvery is both. Is the earth still warming?Is man the primary cause of global warming....Show more

Saran Stealy: To answer the headline question, Wikipedia "global warming controversy" has an informative entry, with links to more sites about the science and politics. Wikipedia is of course not the primary source, but these articles are well referenced and will lead to the original data.Bob, have you checked the correctness and contexts of your quotations? The hackers stole an enormous amount of personal correspondence, much of it repeatedly misreported, and I think you're trotting out either total fabrications, or Christmas competition jokes....Show more

Germaine Tieken: the argument simply seems to be between to groups formed mainly by the public.think of it as a chemical reaction with one molecule being the public who dont care in the sence that they d! o not want their everyday life ruined and the other molecule being the ! public who care for the planet. then you have the public who have their own opinions but they have to convey the messages of the HQ and therefore present news so over exxagurated that it acts as a catalyst without actually being used upi in the reaction.the scientists however are very much out of the controvercy as they are clever enough to understand that you cannot jump to an immediete conclusion, hence CLIMATE CHANGE THEORY!good question by the way!...Show more

Clifford Gombos: There is a global warming debate. In the public view you generally see 3 main debates: is it happening? Are humans causing it? What should be done about it?In the scientific community, the vast majority of climate scientists believe that it's happening and that humans are causing it:tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...However, there is more debate over what will happen in the future: most reports think that doubling CO2 will lead ! to 2-4.5 C of global warming. A small number of scientists think that it will be less: Lindzen and Spencer are examples - they think that changes in clouds explain most warming and that a good portion is natural. However, if their theory was always right, then it blows current theories of recent ice ages that occurred like clockwork with small changes in the Sun out of the water.There is also significant debate and uncertainty surrounding regional changes (climate models don't capture rainfall well and we're expected to get warmer than any time in hundreds of thousands of years so we don't have good geological rainfall evidence), and things like short term temperature changes and sea level rise.Lord Monckton is a liar and a fraud, and the SPPI are a business funded group who regularly spread lies and fraud.http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.htmlwilcotex is a good example of someone who assume they know better than the scientist! s and apparently haven't read much research. The Intergovernmental Pane! l on Climate Change was founded in 1988. There has never been an Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming. Past climate changes are extensively studied:http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-lit......Show more

Nikki Sypult: The zealots pushing global warming have ruined whatever chances they had of convincing people, by refusing scientific debate, and mocking their opponents, and lying (see their emails). Al Gore the Nobel Prize winner, refuses to debate! Could it be because the Supreme Court of the UK found his "science" movie Inconvenient Truth was riddled with errors? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3310137...Forget about all the mathematical & statistical models for a minute. The Russians and Chinese both confirm the data from their countries was manipulated, some by moving the weather stations to hotter locations. You can run computer models all day, but if the data is corrupt what good is it? RUSSIANS CONFIRM UK scientists MANIPULATED DA! TA to exaggerate global warminghttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...Moving weather stations in China!http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/...The debate is over, Global Warming was a lie. Even the commies agree.“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” -- Mark Twain...Show more

Ervin Overbee: The link below is a Newsweek article showing how the belief of the general public in the 'man made, catastrophe soon' official dogma is sinking fast.http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/28/uncertain-scien......Show more