Lately I have been really frustrated by the blind insistence of people who deny the existence of global warming. I just spent an entire semester studying the environmental physics of global warming. It exists! (See David Archer's Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast.) Global warming is based in science and agreed upon in the scientific community.
All of the natural environmental factors which could have caused global warming do not equal the amount of warming which has occurred. Anthropogenic forcings have to be considered. Even if global warming turned out to be a natural occurrence, wouldn't it be better to reduce the impact we have on the environment anyway? In burning fossil fuels and wasting resources, we do a lot more harm than cause the temperature to rise.
Global warming is not an ideology. I'm not trying to tell anyone my belief is better than anyone else's. I just get so frustrated when people choose to ignore facts. Of course, you have a right to deny global warming or anything else, but don't attack it when there are sound scientific principles supporting it.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
planets live and then they die and then sometimes, they come back alive.
and that's that.
"All people are smart,
but it is up to them to figure that out."
-ME
You are right, it is based on science, mainly forcast models that cannot be proven or disproven. You may also be a little early in stating that global warming is "agreed upon". Many in the scientific community disagree with the reasons put forth by the proponents (mainly that is is man-made), and many former supporters are changing their minds as they continue to study the base data.
The model that bothers me the most is the "hockey stick" model that the UN relies upon so much and that Global Warming Gore touts so much. If you research the literature you will find that they excluded a warm period in the middle ages that would have screwed up their model. Makes me wonder about the rest of their "data".
BTW, what ever happened to the "Global Cooling" warnings (another ice age is coming!) so prevalant in the '70's?
Bones
"Taking responsibility for your actions will enrich your life."
I actually have researched the literature; like I said, I've been studying it for the past semester.
The global temperature difference between the last ice age and now is only a matter of five or six degrees Celsius--imagine what might happen if the thermometer creeps in the opposite direction. Global cooling is a phenomenon which could occur if the ice sheets in Greenland melt. This would overflow the Gulf Stream with freshwater, which is less dense than seawater, thus upsetting the overturning of the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream deposits heat in Western Europe, and if this cycle stops working, it could cool the climate of this region.
The Medieval Warm period was a .5 degrees Celsius increase in Europe only, and drought in what is now the American southwest. It should not have been excluded from the models you speak of, but including it does not account for what we're going through now.
If you read the IPCC report, which is a consensus document compiled by thousands of scientists, the certainly with which it makes its climate change claims is generally very high. I think the alarm has been rung.
Assuming that we agree that the earth is warming, and considering the studies you have made, what would you consider to be the cause? Normal warming and cooling cycle, or man made emissions, or a combination of both?
Bones
"Taking responsibility for your actions will enrich your life."
These are just normal cycles that have been going on since the beginning of time...we just now have mankind adding a minute amount to the cycles, but not enough to freak out like Gore and everyone else is saying we should.
I think we are undergoing both natural changes and anthropogenic changes. Climate change isn't just about temperature. It is about the oceans becoming more acidic; it is about the carbon cycle between atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial sinks being off-kilter; it is about the strange weather patterns and extreme weather we've been seeing.
If you read the IPCC Working Group I report's Summary for Policy Makers (http://www.ipcc.ch), you'll find a graph that accounts for natural and anthropogenic climate forcings that made a lot of sense to me.
I think Gore was successful in educating the general public about what is going on with our climate and how we've affected it. Some say his science was flawed, but his message is important. Our actions harm the planet in more ways than the climate changing. We have affected things a lot more than a minute amount.
You use the IPCC as a source of information, but this organization is highly biased and another example of wasteful UN spending. The IPCC claims to be an international panel that will have a determining say in the matter by having top scientists and political figures from around the world. If the IPCC is trying to get a final consensus on climate change, why have they continued to refuse the access of credible scientists who disagree with the theories of climate change and global warming. That sounds quite biased to me and for good reason. Imagine what would happen to all the funding put into to that panel if they actual considered the views of those disagreeing with them: that money would go to waste. You cannot trust the information of the IPCC and it is another example of the bias in this debate led by glorious Al gore and his leftist-media hordes.
if you have watched al gores movie, theres one part where he has a chart showing the "natural cycles" of warming and cooling, and then he shows the part of today, and the line just skyrockets up!!!!!!! this is not a natural cycle!! we in a hundred years have skyrocketed the natural cycle!!!
What do you suggest to do to punish cruel humanity jalepmo? It just gives me the shivers thinking about how bad people are and how I hate humanity so much like you. why dont we reverse all progress that has been made, such as getting rid of automobiles, planes, and trains. And while we're at we might as well get rid of modern medicine and sanitation and all that stuff that helps humanity. After all, we should be punished for releasing CO2 into the atmosphere since there's an unproved theory stating this warms the planet a bit
Right. Um, see above? I'm saying that natural warming is occurring, but that it can't account for what we're experiencing. So yes, a small amount of global warming can have natural causes, but human beings have contributed most of it.
--------
ce.apocryphalpublishing.com
I'm gonna have to say you wasted your time that semester.
Global warming is a constantly changing cycle that is not going to hurt the world.
I wrote a paper on this subject. It goes in to detail on why global warming is all media based (:
Tegan.
Global warming is the next war radical environmentalists are waging against humanity. Is it so hard to see that these people hate the existence of humanity and actual progress in the world. They have no regard for those who may be adversely affected by "fighting global warming." Has anyone seen the cover of that Times Magazine with the soldiers of Iwo Jima raising the tree instead of the American flag! These people have no respect for those who died fighting against a physical threat for the good of our nation. Instead, they supplanted that flag with a friggin tree and claiming that this was a new war. Well I disagree along a good amount of decent scientists who are standing up to the mainstream leftist-media and Al Gore's army. Why do you think some noteworthy scientists were denied access to the International Panel on Climate Change? Because these scientists could actually argue against the bigots of environmentalism. A good video to watch which shows Bill Nye under the influence of Al gore and his biased media is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McsZ1U20W0M