We have to look where geographically. If we ask people from New York for sure it hotter but if we look some where else. Like Alabama they didn't have that much snow since about 20 YEARS!!! We are closer to an Ice Age then a Global Warming. I will ask you a question: What happen when go in a hot shower and go out after 10 min? You get cold same thing is happening we heated the earth too much we try to fix our error and now guess what? It cooling off and quickly very quickly.
Global warming from 1976 to 1998. 22 years. Flat line temp, 1999 to 2010. Global cooling from 2011 to 2014. Going on 17 years I've heard, omg we will all die from global warming. We are in between glaciation advances, it always gets warmer between them, the sea levels always rise between them. And it beats global cooling!
Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham said, "To me, it's almost laughable, it's the biggest fraud in the field of science, certainly in my lifetime, maybe the biggest one in centuries. If you go back and you look at the data that has been well-documented over the years, you can look and see, for example, that right now both carbon dioxide and temperature are simultaneously at one of the lowest levels in at least the last 600-800 million years. The last time they were both together at this low a level, more or less, was 300 million years ago, and if you go back go back about 500-600 million years ago, carbon dioxide was 15 times higher than what it is now. So, what I'm getting at is this, the history shows you that most of this is just plain nonsensical today."
The idea that manmade CO2 emissions are causing the earth to dangerously overheat is scientific baloney straight out of land cuckoo. It still hasn't been proven (with real empirical evidence) that CO2 has any measurable effect on climate temperature at all. The CAGW scam is being foisted upon the general public by UN bureaucrats at the IPCC who clearly skewed the science in their reports to support the notion that manmade CO2 emissions have been almost exclusively responsible for the 0.8C temperature increase since 1850 while natural factors have been inappropriately discounted. According to the Ryan Eastman and Stephan Warren 2013 paper the decrease in cloud cover and thus albedo since 1979 is estimated to be 1.56%. That implies global warming has been increased by 3.4W/sq.M – that translates to an increase at the surface of the earth of 0.6°C (although some of that radiative forcing may have been used up in the evaporation of seawater without increasing the surface temperature). There have been other studies over recent years, from the likes of Pinker et al 2005 and Goode and Palle 2004 also demonstrating that the albedo of the planet has decreased significantly from cloud cover and the decrease is enough to account for the temperature increases we have seen, which despite popular mainstream opinion is not unprecedented, but well-within long-term natural variation.
For instance, unknown to most of the general public (and also admitted by Phil Jones in a BBC interview in 2009) the global surface temperature increased at exactly the same rate from 1860-1880, as it did from 1906-1930 and 1975-2000. These three rates of warming are virtually the same (thereby suggesting that there is some natural circular phenomena at work). The three rates of warming also occurred during different times of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. From 1860-1880, for instance, anthropogenic CO2 emissions were virtually non-existent, whereas from 1975-2000, they were ~15-30 gigatonnes/year. If CO2 really was the 'control knob' of temperature as it is often referred to one would expect the rate of warming to increase as our CO2 emissions have increased. But it has not. One could argue that counteracting natural forcing negated the radiative forcing from human CO2 emissions from 1979-2000, but we already know that clouds can adequately account for the warming during that time-frame. The point here is that all the three warming periods are virtually identical, thereby suggesting that the warming we are experiencing is within natural variation, nothing unusual and, despite what alarmists claim, not unprecedented. Furthermore, global surface temperatures have been flat for over a decade now, something even publicly admitted by James Hansen and Phil Jones.
In the section opposite to my post, I can see people reciting the usual canards that 97% of scientists agree. Well if you look at those studies, they do not contain quantification on the degree of AGW. Sure, AGW is real, and increasing atmospheric CO2 will be having *some* effect even if that effect is immeasurably small.
As soon as someone offers me some evidence with a legitimate source, that has information which is proven valid, I will exercise the thought that Global Warming is a legitimate science.
Because none of the above has ever been provided, I have come to the conclusion that it must be junk science.
Consult any of the recent IPCC reports on global warming. Ask any geologist or any scientist that doesn't rely on the global warming industry for funding. It's more likely that global average temperature is influenced more by sun activity. Yet say something long enough and loud enough and the dummies all fall in line. All I can say is - show me the money - where is your evidence?
Global Warming correlations from the 50s can be argued, but the reality is that we have only been tracking the climate for a few hundred years. The effect of humans on the Earth is undeniable, but we do not precisely know what effect this has caused. This is a few hundred years in the lifespan of a planet that has existed for arguably billions of years. This is simply not enough to suggest that we concretely know what our climate should be. All we can do is track the changes, and there is a very distinct possibility that this is just a phase in Earth's climate cycle.
In my opinion the CAGW-scam is not merely being used to introduce new moneymaking initiatives that transfer more wealth from the poor to the rich but is also being used as a means to implement the freedom-circumscribing ethos of Agenda 21, which despite sounding crazy and somewhat familiar to Area 51, is very much real and designed to strip away our liberty. Going back to the moneymaking side though, it is interesting the parallels that carbon credits (which have made many people very wealthy) have with Papal Indulgences. Hundreds of years ago the Church frightened people into buying Papal Indulgences to absolve their sins, otherwise they would be subjected to eternal damnation. Or so they were told. You could say that the modern-day equivalent of Papa Indulgences is carbon credits. Today people are frightened into buying carbon credits because they have sinned (by emitting CO2) and they are doing so to save the world from ecological damnation. Or so they are told. In reality nothing could be farther from the truth. CO2 is an odourless, harmless trace gas that constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere. Much too small to have the all-encompassing, significant effects' alarmists pin on it. And the idea that it could cause the planet to dangerously overheat is utterly ridiculous. All you need to do to confirm this is to look at experiments of CO2's maximum total absorptivity/emissivity, which according to Leckner and Hottel, and many others, is ~0.003. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law to translate that into a temperature increase we get 0.08°C. That's from the entire 400ppmv of CO2! The reason as to why you see alarmists claiming that CO2 is a powerful driver of temperature is because they use faulty techniques with pyrometers that do not properly distinguish between overlapping wavebands and because they rely on unproven computer model-codes from the HITRAN and MODTRAN databases. These model-codes have never been independently verified in the public domain. To conclude: CO2 is not a problem. The warming we have experienced is nothing unusual (even the last interglacial the Eemian is estimated to be 2°C warmer than today), and wealthy people are making lots of money off of your ignorance and credulity.
Been debated enough times, and those who deny it should either read about the subject or stop trying to satisfy their desire to see a thread saying that global warming is not true because those who have arguments are tired of talking to idiots.
Also, here's a shortcut to knowledge: http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-global-warming-real-yes-or-just-a-bunch-of-scientists-going-to-extremes-no
Read both sides of the argument and compare the TYPES of argument. If you're still in denial, then you're a lost cause.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” -Carlin
We do have Global Warming. Just look at Statistics. I took AP Stats last year as a freshman in highschool, and know that every stats student would believe in Global Warming. Everything points toward it. We also have the most likely causes. I don't know how much more evidence we must have to convince the skeptics that GW exists.
Pseudoscience describes a science that does not follow scientific methods. Global warming research certainly does follow scientific methods.
Furthermore, just about every reputable scientific organization has supports anthropogenic global warming, as do virtually all climatologists. It has immense historical evidence and its predictions have come true. What more is necessary?
I believe that global warming is a real threat to our planet according to many statistics. According to NASA “the hottest year on record was 2005, which matched 1998’. Twice in the last ten years, we've had the hottest temperatures on average ever recorded in our planet's history. That is very likely more than just a coincidence.” Also, “ In fact, the past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record, a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record. For that to happen, it's likely there has to be an underlying factor, and that factor seems to be global warming.” according to Carbon Neutral Earth. So, these statistics enhance my believe that global warming is a real threat to our world.
The entire scientific community is in agreement on this "issue". The only reason there is any debate, is because the GOP denies reality, and for some reason, American media would rather entertain controversy than report facts, truth and uncomfortable consequences of our actions.
There is no reputable source which can disprove the mountain of evidence supporting the climate change model.
When 97% of scientists say that climate change is real, that's not 'junk science'. When 3% of scientists say that it's not real despite all of the facts, evidence and scientist's opinions say it's real, that's because they've been paid by corporations to say it is. They're just sell outs. There's a difference between saying climate change doesn't exist versus saying climate change is not manmade.
The idea that it's junk science is fake is unbelievable. It's a right wing corporate conspiracy theory that it's not real.
The only reason people deny the scientific consensus is because of the efforts of some very greedy oil barons. 10 years ago there was less evidence for climate science but there were hardly any deniers. Now that Koch has gotten involved to protect their interests, America is riddled with deniers despite the fact the evidence has increased. It's so embarrassing living in the only country in the world where a poll like this would have anyone denying the overwhelming body of scientific evidence,
Surprise, its not missing. Or the hiatus of 10 years (actually its still rising just slowly) over a time scale of 2000 years. All these kind of rational excuses to deny climate change are absurd. In fact most knowledgeable climate change deniers, do not deny heating is occurring they doubt the validity of whether its forced by anthropogenic emissions.
Pseudoscience is junk science; all junk science may be considered pseudoscience. But pseudoscience does not apply to a theory; would you call the study of the earth being round pseudoscience? Things that could be considered pseudosciences are phrenelogy; whole fields.
But in consideration to the truth-factor of Global Warming, I believe that Global Warming is an actual thing. During the last 100-200 years, the average Arctic Temperature has been increasing via a slope of 100%; this has correlated with a CO(2) release that has skyrocketed since the 1850s. If we are to look at this on a geological scale, in millions of years, then of course, one is to say this is nature. BUT what Global Warming deniers say is simply horrid; why are we to live the current lifestyle that we are living now?
Nevertheless, CO(2) [apart from Water Vapor) is the Greenhouse Gas that traps alot of heat in the world. But CO2 isn't the only one; methane traps a significant amount more than CO2. However, both have anthropocentric sources; around 70% of methane release have causes in anthropocentric industries.
It is clear the carbon dioxide levels are rising at a rate heavily accelerated many times faster than the natural rate. While yes it is true, historically millions of years ago there have been times where the levels have been higher - but they did not increase at the rate they are today.