The facts are that 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 it is obvious by the replies from the climate change deniers that many are either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists, further confirming this study.
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.
The claim "It's cooling" Is denier myth number 5 on Skepticalscience dot com a useful site that keeps a list of the more common denier claims and debunks each and every one of them.
It is only a big issue because it is a big lie. It is a method of controlling us regular peons.
The temperature of the earth started warming around 1650. According to the 1990 UN-IPCC report it climbed 0.7 degree C by 1990. That is the big issue. 0.7 degree C in 350 years. I bet you can't control any room in your house that closely.
So if you ever heard the expression, "making a mountain out of a mole hill," that fits this environmentalist movement to a tee.
The only big issue is the TAX: we are being conned.
The politicians love this, and obviously 'fund' research grants to 'REVERSE ENGINEERED TAX', and provide data that fed into their COMPUTER MODELLING ALGORITHMS, produce the ANSWER they want to justify the TAX.
Just like SURVEYS - can be doctored to produce any result you need, by using the appropriated questions or data... and ignoring anything that might contradict that data.
Who produces the Data?
Who paid them for the Data?
Who wrote the algorithms to analyse that data?
Why was this data not quantified, by qualified - independent analysts, that we the people approve of, not some bunch of shonkey politicians.
Its effecting all of us in one or other way. Thats why this issue is concern for all. Only we can do to solve it.
Global warming has been changed to "climate change". The only thing that can be done to change it is to stop cutting down all the trees & dispose of all the humans on the planet, that's the only way - as long as there is a human alive there will be planet degradation.
It's only an issue because it's the theorectical vehicle chosen to coerce the world population into actually creating some binding treaty to enforce the non binding UN agenda 21 adopted in 1992 though fear and intimidation. This would create the new world order under a single all powerful government full of unelected elitist politicians that would create a society that would make George Orwell's distopian 1984 look like a kindergarten sandbox game.
Wow you sure got a plethora of DA deniers that don't know JACK about global warming
Basic explanation http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
Reliable sites http://nasa.gov http://noaa.gov
Monthly synopsis of weather for US or global http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2...
Answers to the DA deniers claims 173 debunked so far http://skepticalscience.com/
There are 2 sides to this issue. On the one side there are about 40,000 other scientists and generally intelligent people (one doesn't need to be a climate scientist to understand things) who understand that humans add less than 1% to the Greenhouse Effect and that "Natural Climate Variability" causes over 99% of the warming and cooling on this planet.
The other side (Climate Realist, Big Gryph, Jungle Jim, and the like) have come to a 90% certainty that man has been causing a warming of 0.75 C in the past 140 years of this planets history. 0.45 C of that warming happened before 1940 when fossil fuels were barely being used. The Globe then cooled for the next 35 years when CO2 output tripled all over the world. It cooled about 0.1 C. Since 1975 the world has warmed another 0.4 C and this is what we are spending billions of dollars on. Researching climate change.
Here's where they are having problems in proving the other 10%:
1) Past temperature data. Inferences about climate and atmospheric composition extending back as long as 400,000 years. These and other proxy data indicate that the range of natural climate variability is in excess of several degrees C on local and regional space scales over periods as short as a decade. Their case is based on a 0.75 C rise in temperature and most of that occurred before 1940 when CO2 was barely an issue. Temperature variations at local sites have exceeded 10°C (18°F) in the past. It is more difficult to estimate the natural variability of global mean temperature because large areas of the world are not sampled and because of the large uncertainties inherent in temperatures inferred from proxy evidence.
2) Water vapor in climate models and the "largest source of uncertainty" for AGW supporters to prove man-made climate change. The responses of atmospheric water vapor amount and clouds probably generate the most important global climate feedbacks. The nature and magnitude of these hydrologic feedbacks give rise to the "largest source of uncertainty about climate sensitivity", and they are an area of continuing research. Climate science base the idea of man-made "Global Warming"/"Climate Change" on climate models but they can't replicate clouds in these models which makes them completely useless. Their 90% certainty falls to 0 here (in my opinion).
3) Ocean circulation. Climate also responds in a systematic way to climate forcings, but the response can be slow because the ocean requires time to warm (or cool) in response to the forcing. The response time depends upon the rapidity with which the ocean circulation transmits changes in surface temperature into the deep ocean. If the climate sensitivity is as high as the 3°C mid-range, then a few decades are required for just half of the full climate response to be realized, and at least several centuries for the full response. Such a long climate response time complicates the climate change issue for policy makers.
I think it's easy to understand why the temperatures are going down ("Natural Climate Variability"), but the warmists will drag this out for another couple of hundred years if they can.
It is not a big issue, the Earth is not warming, but using up all our oil and gas is a big issue how do we live when it's gone.
Climate change is a natural occurrence, it is happening now as it has been happening for billions of years. Humans do contribute to this but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Trees love carbon dioxide they will flourish.
its not a issue
buy blocks of ice and place them throughout your neighorhood
It's not.
Nothing.
stop using fossil fuels
Carnt do nothing
