is this "Man-made global warming hoax" thing correct?
i already watched the youtube videos (global warming doomsday called-off, global warming swindled) and i was quite convinced. but how would i know if it is also one of those persuasive videos out there just to confuse our mind and gain popularity?
i am really confused right now and i want your help! please brilliant people! no trolls! i need this for the sake of my country.
2012-04-30T11:15:24Z
oh god this made me more confused. more answers please. make my life easier.
2012-04-30T13:02:06Z
thank you guys. i am doing a little bit of research myself. i will just wait for more reactions and answers. i hope more geniuses will give a f**k on my question. and more links please. and no troll! thank you and stay smart!
Trevor2012-05-05T19:15:54Z
Favorite Answer
Okay, so both sides of the global warming debate will try to persuade you that they’re right and the other side is wrong. To this end they’ll use all manner of questionable tactics to try to win you over to their side.
But science isn’t about taking sides, it’s not about proving one person right and another person wrong.
Science is the intellectual and systematic study of the natural and physical world. It doesn’t come from blogs, YouTube or the media, it comes from the world of academia and the minds of those who have sufficient comprehension of a subject to genuinely understand it (and not simply repeat what others have already said).
So let’s dispense with taking sides and drawing conclusions based on ideals and opinions and instead look at the science behind global warming.
When we do that we find that the existence of global warming is consequent to the most powerful and successful of all scientific laws – quantum mechanics. It’s governed by laws that are universal and invariable. No matter what we think, do or say, we’re never going to change them.
It’s just as well that global warming is real, if it weren’t then we wouldn’t be here.
The atmosphere retains heat because of the presence of greenhouse gas molecules. Most of these occur naturally and it’s this insulative property that provides Earth with a climate capable of supporting life. Remove the greenhouse effect and we lose our ability to retain heat, were that to be the case then Earth would be so cold that it would be frozen solid and no life could ever have evolved.
Greenhouse gases are greenhouse gases, it makes no difference where they come from. If they’re in the atmosphere they’ll retain heat. Today, due to our industrial lifestyles, levels of these gases are higher than they’ve been for at least 15 million years. In terms of carbon dioxide alone, we release more than a thousand tonnes of this gas into the atmosphere every second (33 gigatonnes per year). With ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gases, the atmosphere will inevitably retain more heat.
We can also look to the natural world for evidence that the planet is warming. Every year nearly a trillion tonnes of polar ice is melting, half of all glaciers outside the polar regions have already melted and almost all the others are melting. Plants and animals are responding to the changing climate, growing seasons have extended, birds migrate earlier in spring and later in autumn, spring flowers are appearing earlier.
We can also see from the weather that there’s been a significant change. We now have five times as many floods as we did 50 years ago, the number of heatwaves has doubled, for every cold weather record that’s set there’s seventeen hot weather records. Floods used to be the number one weather related killer, nowadays it’s heatwaves.
It’s also worth considering that almost every climate scientist in the world accepts that global warming is real. Also, there isn’t a single scientific organisation on the planet, either national or international, that disputes the fact that humans are influencing the climate.
As with pretty much any subject, be careful who you get your information from. Climate change is a very complex subject, it’s way beyond the comprehension of all but those who have studied it in detail. In this respect stick to getting information from reputable scientific organisations as opposed to blogs and videos.
PS – If you want verification of any of the statements made please ask.
Many distinguished climate scientists disagree with the consensus view of global warming, to varying degrees. Much of the disagreement is in the details. Some believe extreme weather will be the more costly problem, while others believe invasive species will be the more costly problem, for instance. A tiny minority of scientists even go so far as to suggest greenhouse gases are caused by warming and not the other way around, which would suggest mankind is not completely to blame for global warming.
But these are genuine scientific disagreements based on differing interpretations of data. To call it a hoax is something else entirely. Calling it a hoax implies a vast, international conspiracy of scientists, universities, governments, and other organizations, to fabricate multiple independent lines of data.
All climate scientists agree global warming is happening for one reason or another (and the vast majority believe the reason is human activity). Some people really, really want global warming to not be true, but the only way for it to not be true would be a massive conspiracy just like that. So, people who don't want global warming to be true must reject multiple independent lines of data; the only way to do that is to buy into the conspiracy theory, regardless of the total lack of evidence such a conspiracy exists.
Meanwhile, here in the real world, even in the wake of the Climate Research Unit e-mail thefts (so-called Climategate), no legitimate investigation of climate research has ever uncovered evidence of wrongdoing. The only appearances of wrongdoing are in the eyes of journalists and documentarians who do not understand how science works. For example, "Swindle"'s Martin Durkin often, instead of doing his own original research, takes data out of other scientists' research then comes to different conclusions than the researchers, although he does not have a background in science so is not particularly qualified to be second-guessing the people who know the research best.
See below for a partial list of -real- investigations into the matter.
This global warming thing made up to get Ignorant people to vote for the Democrats. About 10 people made at least $400,000,000 on this nonsense lead by Al Gore. Not one bet of truth coming out of these freaks mouths. The are stealing all they can carry off.
If you like YouTube videos instead of reading actual science journals, then I'd suggest that you check out these two channels. They very effectively refute just about every denier lie and myth... Denier Crock of the Week [greenman3610]: http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610/videos Potholer54: http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/videos
[re: Maxx's answer] >>I am by far the biggest promoter of those two videos on this board.<< Yes, your spamming ridiculous. Also the lies about the accuracy of those videos are pretty brazen...
[re: Ian's answer] >>It is a hoax.<< That's stupid.
>>If you look at actual FACTS presented by skeptics<< Yes, but all means, do *NOT* look at the facts presented by anyone who accepts AGW!
>>you will see that there is no runaway greenhouse effect<< I don't think anyone is saying there is a runaway greenhouse effect. Is that straw in your hair?
>>and that all predictions made by the brainless alarmist zombies have been proven false.<< Which predictions are those again? Um... Isn't all that straw in your pants itchy?
>>You can easily differentiate between a skeptics argument against CAGW and an alarmist argument in favour of CAGW.<< Yes, you usually can. The 'skeptic' feverishly calls those who accept AGW names and lies and makes false claims about what they are trying to say while the 'alarmist' tries to rationally explain the science behind the theory and gives reliable sources to back up their argument.
>>Skeptics use facts.<< I see no facts in your argument...
[re: jim z's answer] >>Ian is correct.<< No, he's not.
>>I would just add that they don't simply redraw the line and make another prediction.<< When new evidence arrives, predictions have to change. It's simple really.
>>Alarmists exaggerate any evidence which suggests humans have caused the warming.<< Human's *have* caused warming. Denying it won't make it stop...
>>They exaggerate the supposed consensus and what it really means.<< No, Deniers exaggerate a reliance on a consensus and what it means.
>>They exaggerate their knowledge<< Unlike a certain believer in squatch's...
>>and any one that calls them on it is called a denier.<< No, we call those who deny AGW despite all the evidence that supports it. BTW, denial means that you are certain that AGW is not real or a hoax with no doubt that you are right. That is not how a skeptic thinks...
>>An inconvenient truth literally contained a lie or exaggeration in just about every sentence.<< Totally unlike the posts here you see from deniers, including your own... lol
>>He bought a sea shore mansion<< See? That's a lie. You know very well that the property isn't on the ocean, but only has an ocean-view...
[re: Fred's answer] >>Note that "an Inconvenient Truth" was ruled as not being factual by a UK court and can note be use as educational material.<< And that is an exaggeration... It wasn't ruled as not being factual and *can* be used as educational material.