There isn't anyone up to date who believes in 'Global Warming'. Even its supporters know it isn't true so now they terrify you with words like 'Climate Change'. Would someone out there quantify Climate Change? Define it clearly enough so that we can test it. I lived in a small town and there were some kids who believed in the 'Boogy Man' who lived under the bridge. I lived not too far from that bridge and being the naive little kid that I was went down there many times to see what this Boogy Man looked like. Never did see that man but I did see young lovers down there. Do you think someone started that rumor to chase us pests off? However, I had several friends who say they saw that Boogy Man even into their teens.
You see it boils down to this. If you make up a lie a certain percent of the people will believe it. Now if an official of the government helps that lie along even more people will believe it. If unscrupulous but seemingly authentic experts support it then even more people will people will believe it. Hitler and Stalin brought this lying to a fine art or an exact science, if you will. Hitler laughed about it and stated in his book Mien Kampf "if you repeat a lie often enough and loud enough the masses of the people will believe it." This science of lying is used by propagandists and admen alike to this day and the same percentage of people fall for it. People on Madison Avenue make a living making you feel better about using a certain product even if it isn't any better than another.
People still belonged to the Flat Earth Society even after a picture of Earth taken from a spaceship was shown to them. And that was how many years after Galileo?
Even Abraham Lincoln knew about this exact formula when he said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." But these Hucksters like Al Gore keep trying because they unquestionably get rich by lying to us.
For me, this is probably the question that divides AGW supporters and skeptics.
There is (or should be) no disagreement on some fundamentals...
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Humanity is emitting A LOT of CO2, and some of this is accumulating in the atmosphere.
The temperature rose dramatically 1970 to 2000.
The problem I have is getting from the idea that, 'anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing warming', to, 'human emissions have really serious consequences and we must do something about this'.
On the first part (co2 emissions are causing warming) I find myself asking, 'yes, but how much?'. Finding a solid answer to this has completely evaded me. I have not yet seen anything that definitively identifies what part of recent warming is human caused, and what part is natural variation. I simply don't know how much anthropogenic co2 causes how much warming.
The next part is, IF I accept that human co2 is causing significant warming, then how do I know this is serious? It is absolutely true that 'warmer' is, in general, more beneficial to humanity than 'cooler'. So 'some' warmth is good, only 'too much' is detrimental. I have never seen that delineation defined. I have never been presented with the information that says 'our study shows that the optimum global mean temperature for the success of humanity is "x" degrees. Without this, how do I recognise at what point global warming is even disadvantageous, let alone harmful?
Even if i know the 'optimal' global mean temperature for humanity, then I still don't know if increasing emissions will cause us to ultimately exceed that temperature. How not? The climate system does not a have linear cause/effect relationship to changes in forcings. Our global temperature is held in its temperature range by competing, yet completely inter-related forces. As something moves to change the earths temperature, something else moves to moderate it's influence. That is why we have this persistant odd temperature on the planet. It is a robust, not fragile mechanism, that has endured despite enormous external variation.
Finally I get to this. IF I accept that human emissions are causing significant temperature increase AND this exceeds the earths ability to moderate it AND the temperature is exceeding the point that it is beneficial to humanity, then what can we do about it?
At this point a pragmatic understanding of global politics kicks in. People in the Western democracies won't support policies that will economically disadvantage them for the purpose of making them colder, and people will not vote to economically disadvantage themselves to make life easier for people living somewhere else. And ultimately, we 'western'. countries can't stop global emissions growing anyway! Even if we make substantial changes to the way we live in our individual countries, our efforts are completely overwhelmed by China's advancement from poverty.
"The biggest contributors to global emissions in 2011 were China (2.5 PgC, 28%), the United States (1.5 PgC, 16%), the European Union (EU27; 1.0 PgC, 11%), and India (0.6 PgC, 7%). Contributions to global emissions growth in 2011 were largest from China (0.226 PgC above 2010 levels, 9.9% growth) and India (0.043 PgC, 7.5%). Emissions from USA were down by 0.028 (-1.8%) and EU27 down by 0.029 PgC (-2.8%)." http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbo... (See 'Regional fossil fuel emissions')
China's emissions grew 10.4% in 2010 and 9.9% in 2011. Emissions from the USA and Europe have stopped rising. Voters will resist further personal economic disadvantage because they will think 'we've done our bit... It's up to someone else now.' The tide has turned politically.
It all leaves me here.
Is human caused global warming real? Probably.
Is human caused global warming dangerous? Probably not.
Can we change human caused global warming? No, not at this time.
Man-made Global Warming is not a threat and isn't happening.
If anything we should be more worried about cooling.
"Global warming" is a hoax perpetrated by Al Gore, arising from his bitterness in losing his bid for President. He's just a sore loser, and is taking it out on the rest of the world.
It is a long term threat, this meaning that it will take a long time to become a serious consequence. Global Warming is basically the 'warming' of the atmosphere, though it isn't significantly noticed in weather yet, it is gradually making weather more 'severe'. (One of) The consequence of having a warmer atmosphere is that the ice in Antarctica can break off, adding significant mass to the ocean, so if the atmosphere continues to warm, the ocean will rise, covering islands, and perhaps destroying cities?
Climate change is not a real threat, however in the long run if temperature keeps increasing little by little, it will cause a big problem in our atmosphere and worldwide, however we will not see real threats for a couple decades from now.
Dave H. says it all a complete, thorough, unbiased answer.
I always hear about people talking about man made global warming and how we need to act but how much could the temperatures really rise from c02
besides all shows that talk about the history of the earth talk about multiple ice ages and multiple worldwide droughts I am not sure that I am totally buying this man made global warming
