Lets look at the facts that are not disputed. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that without greenhouse gases the earth average temperature would be 33C colder (a giant snowball) and that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. There is not one scientist who denies these facts.
On the other hand a recent study has shown that climate change deniers are either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists.
Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.
Well, for me the issue is very simple. Most people have never studied physics or chemistry or meteorology or climatology. Most people can't do calculus let alone program climate models. Most people can't explain the kinetic theory of gases relating the temperature, pressure and volume of a gas. Most people can't explain why CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
So, the question I'd ask is on what basis are many people claiming that global warming is a myth? It certainly isn't a solid understanding of the physics involved. It certainly isn't a result of them performing experiments, modelling data, or running simulations. What it actually comes down to is simply a 'belief' based on no knowledge, experience, or expertise.
Now some might argue that this is 'appealing to absent authority'. No, what it is arguing is that people should keep their opinions to themselves if they don't know what they're talking about. It's very easy to say 'I don't believe in AGW' but to do so you're effectively disagreeing with every national academy of science on the planet and every organisation representing the geosciences.
Why is it that 'global warming' is the issue where people feel they are sufficiently knowledgeable to express an opinion? Why do we never see the public debating the design of the detectors in the Large Hadron Collider, or preferred methods of performing heart bypass operations? The reason is that, in these areas, people would quite openly say 'I've no idea what I'm talking about' but in climate change/global warming people seem to lose all humility and develop rather inflated opinions of themselves and their understanding. It's cool to be a denier, to rail against the Man, to immerse yourself in a subculture and believe you're the lone gunman fighting for truth against a corrupt system. We revel in nonconformity. And yet people fail to ask themselves why, if we train, educate, and provide funding for people who have done all the climatology-related things the general public haven't, it makes sense to then not listen to what they have to say?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, man is releasing CO2 when he burns fossil fuels, and the earth is warming. All true not a myth or opinion, all undisputable facts. Therefore Man is the primary cause of the warming is not an opinon, myth or being really stupid, it's an overreaching conclusion with a huge degree of uncertainty that is popular amoung those who believe Man is out of control.
Calling GW a myth means you are a day late and a dollar short. GW is not a myth, it is indeed a reality and it is here now.
ignore is the core ingredient of the word ignorance. Ignorance is not someone with a low IQ or someone who has the inability to learn, it is having the ability of real thought but failing to use that ability to it's fullest extent. ignoring the truth is not a facet of reality, it is pure and simple denial, just like the flatworlder's were convinced that Columbus would fall off the Earth if he sailed far enough. That same mind set was convinced that the Sun revolved around the earth, primarily because God created the heavens and Earth so there could be no other way than that
Another aspect of labeling GW as a myth is having a limited understanding of science or merely no interest in examining the facts, but even then how can you see that 10 of the last 15 years were the warmest global average recorded in 132 year. This is not based on models, it is based on real time temperature reading around the world. Both the world average temp and the CO2 levels have both been rising for more than 3 decades So how can a rational free thinking person read denial propaganda saying we have had no warming for 16 years and believe it. Only an irrational person bent on a single thought of denial could do this.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/20...
I am a geologist so maybe I see things differently than most others. To me global warming isn't defined. If you mean the warming caused by humans it is a quantity that we don't know. We don't know what the effect our emissions of CO2 have had on the climate. Those who pretend to know don't and often behave more like a cult than science. They believe because it fits their political beliefs. I wouldn't call global warming a myth. I would simply say that those who pretend to know our CO2 emissions have or will cause significant warming don't know. Those who suggest they are on the side of science don't really understand science.
I'll answer this quickly before I go out: NO! It's real Hope you find the answer you're looking for Single but not dating :(!
For the life forms present here, from the fake geologist on down, it's hands down your answer c.
Well if agw were real there would be some evidence for it wouldn't there ?. As there is no actual evidence linking man's c02 to climate then the smart money would be on myth
Global warming is real and natural. Global cooling is also real and natural. Both occured 1000s of times throughout earth's climate history.
AWG is a myth.
Man-made global warming is a myth. Natural climate variability global warming is the truth. CO2 is not a driver of temperature and this has been proven time and again, but you can hold your own view. Just give a real scientist who really knows about the planet a chance to educate yourself :
Dr Ian Clark explains it very well here - http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play...
I see that you are mathematics expert. Then you should understand the math of Global Warming:
Lets start with listing all of the greenhouse gases and their percentages:
Water vapor 96.9% CO2 1.9% Methane 0.6% CFCs 0.4%
1) At any one time water vapor accounts for between 36% - 70% of the total greenhouse gas effects. When clouds are included this jumps to 66% - 86%
2) CO2 accounts for 9% - 27% of the greenhouse effect and man's activities account for 3% of the total CO2
0.03 x (0.09 - 0.27) = 0.0027 - .0081 = 0.27% minimum to 0.81% at the most
CO2 is not a driver of our climate!
The rise in global temperature maxed out in 1998. This was 0.75 C above the established normal global temperature. Most of that increase (0.45 C) happened between 1905 and 1940 when CO2 by humans was still relatively low.
---------------------------------------...
You should believe Climate Realist because he brings the facts. (or does he have any?)
"Global warming ie real.
Source(s):
Reality"
---------------------------------------...
Big Gryph is easily debunked because information is based on false claims that "... but even then how can you see that 10 of the last 15 years were the warmest global average recorded in 132 year." This is factually incorrect. He uses mechanical data sets of which are not reliable. Satellites and weather balloon data are the rule since they are in direct correlation with each other. Since 1998 Global temperatures have been on a decline according to satellite records. The rest of his repugnant Speech is nothing but an elitist's attempt at beating people down with negative comments by calling them stupid. He brings nothing to prove it.
----------------------------------------...
Rolando Prico makes the mistake of blaming CO2 as being the main climate driver. He fails to mention that water vapor is the dominant Greenhouse Gas that controls our temperatures. He adds that deniers are conspiracy theorists which is another attempt to discredit the real science behind any temperature change. Nothing else he says is proof of man-made global warming. It's the same simple rhetoric he's been blathering about since I've been here. He hardly brings anything new.
just being really stupid?
Global warming is real.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
The ten warmest years in history are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Its not a big deal either way.
If its real, its happened before, and will happen again. (life still adapted.)
Ice ages come and go, as well as hotter wetter times.
If we triggered an early warming trend, so be it,
Id rather see a that, than another Ice age anyway.
I'd say it's reality, and you better get one reality check fast.
