Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Why do cons continue to deny the scientific consensus on man made global warming?
Where is the logic in siding with a handful of invidual scientists who have doubts over well established scientific organizations (each representing tens of thousands of scientists)?
Please cons, don't come here with your youtube videos, editorials from poltical and media websites, copy and pastes from wikipedia, and propaganda. For examply linking to an MIT article about how Pluto is warming (trying to convince people its the sun) without mentioning the fact that the scientist cited in the article says it has nothing to do with the sun.
IF YOU CAN CITE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS AGAINST MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING, WHEN THEY WERE FOUNDED, AND HOW MANY MEMBERS THEY HAVE, BRING IT ON.
1) THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, FOUNDED IN 1876, OVER 160,000 MEMBERS
"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century."
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSC...
2) THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, FOUNDED IN 1888, OVER 20,500 MEMBERS
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.
3) THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGY SOCIETY, FOUNDED IN 1919, OVER 11,000 MEMBERS
"Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond."
4) THE U.S. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE (ALONG WITH THE NAS OF THE G8 NATIONS), FOUNDED IN 1863, OVER 2,000 MEMBERS, OVER 200 NOBEL PRIZE MEMBERS
"There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.
http://www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/textes/...
5) THE AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, FOUNDED IN 1919, OVER 45,000 MEMBERS
"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.
6) THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, CREATED IN 1988, HUNDREDS OF SCIENTISTS FROM OVER 130 NATIONS
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (defined in footnotes as greater then 90% likelyhood) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns"
7) THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, FOUNDED IN 1848, SERVES 262 AFFILIATED SOCIETIES AND ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE FOR A TOTAL OF 10 MILLION INDIVIDUALS
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."
8) THE NOAA'S NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER PALEOCLIMATOLOGY PROGRAM, FOUNDED IN 1992, HAS THE LARGEST ARCHIVE OF CLIMATE AND PALEOCLIMATE DATA
"Many scientists have now concluded that global warming can be explained by a human-caused enhancement of the greenhouse effect. It is important to remember both that the greenhouse effect occurs naturally, and that it has been intensified by humankind's input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
9) THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, FOUNDED IN 1960, OVER 120 MEMBERS, SERVES OVER 62 PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING UNIVERSITIES AND RESEARCH CENTERS
"Together, these data show that Earth's surface air temperature has risen more than 1.1°F (0.7°C) since the late 1800s. This warming of the average temperature around the globe has been especially sharp since the 1970s. Global models at NCAR have simulated 20th century climate and found three main factors at work:
1) Solar activity contributed to a warming trend in global average temperature from the 1910s through 1930s.
2) As industrial activity increased following World War II, sun-blocking sulfates and other aerosol emissions helped lead to a slight global cooling from the 1940s to 1970s.
3) Since 1980, the rise in greenhouse gas emissions from human activity has overwhelmed the aerosol effect to produce overall global warming."
10) THE NASA'S GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES, FOUNDED IN 1961, SPECIALIZES IN SPACECRAFT OBSERVATIONS AND GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS
"A new NASA-funded study used a computer climate model to simulate the last 50 years of climate changes, projects warming over the next 50 years regardless of whether or not nations curb their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions soon. If no emission reductions are made and they continue to increase at the current rate, global temperatures may increase by 1-2º Celsius (1.8º-3.6º Fahrenheit). But if the growth rate of carbon dioxide does not exceed its current rate and if the growth of true air pollutants (things that are harmful to human health) is reversed, temperatures may rise by only 0.75C (1.35F)."
genny,
The scientific consensus is based on the facts:
- temperature records
- balloon measurements
- satellite measurements
- ice core data (going back 1 million years)
- ocean sediment samples
- tree rings
- radiocarbon dating
- advanced climate models using the basical laws of physics run on supercomputers
and
- PEER REVIEW
working,
The only views that count are those who are doing the actual science. The vast majority of scientists support the scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that man is the main cause. A small minority has doubts.
Bluesteel,
Thank you for proving me right. You cited editorials, individual scientists, and political websites. The conservative book club?
19 Answers
- ?Lv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
Why do you continue to refuse to provide scientific proof, to wit:
1 - What percentage of global warming is man-made, and what percent is due to natural variation of the sun?
2 - How do you validate temperature estimated pre-1700?
3 - Why do global climate models predict future warming, even when *RANDOM* data is input for past temperatures?
- berenLv 71 decade ago
In the cons defense, scientific consensus has been wrong before. Many scientists in the early part of the 20th century believed in the ether which they thought was needed to propagate light. Indeed there are scientific theories that are "accepted" now that are based on questionable science. Dark matter and String theory are two examples.
Regardless, this problem has consequences which are just too grave to be taken lightly. It is not a debate that will end up in academic embarrassment. It is the fate of human kind that is at stake. We could very easily enter a point of no return in which the results would be catastrophic.
Blue Steel....ummm your first, second and fifth links are all about the same Russian scientist: Khabibulo Absudamatov, who is actually an astronomer, not a climatologist. Sorry you will have to do better than that.
- 1 decade ago
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
Go to the site to read the research and the petition. Google the scientists' names to see if they are legit or not. They are all listed by name (not just the nebulous "all scientists agree" with no actual names argument that you make). This is a pretty in depth and well cited website, but I bet you won't read it anyway. So here's a Summary:
PS. Do any of the models you cite take into account water vapor? Nope - Look it up. Water vapor is approx. 95% of the greenhouse gasses and we don't effect water vapor. Also, set your baseline for CO2 to 1940 and the whole CO2 cause of global warming falls apart. You should stop believing politicians
Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University
Listed below are 17,200 of the initial signers of a petition discrediting the theory that man made CO2 emissions cause global warming.....
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Wow that was a lot of stuff! I believe in Global Warming and I am a Conservative… I am going to go out on a limb and say something, there are Democrat Conservatives and Republican Conservatives and finally Independent Conservatives. My point is every stop saying cons this and cons that blame a party not an ideal!
Global warming is real but people have right to disagree with it without being thrown in jail. But I will say this the Kyoto Protocol is a binding socialist plan and should never be signed.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- ?Lv 57 years ago
"The vast majority of scientists support the scientific consensus" It takes all the scientists to have a "consensus", not just the majority. In fact, even a majority, or a consensus" can be a sharing of ignorance, not a fact. Global Warming is political and has little to do with science.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Mother Earth has gone through thousands of cycles before arrogant little men began to walk its surface. Written history amounts to a grain of sand on a huge beach when compared with the history of the Earth. Man's impact is a relative "drop in the bucket." I must say, the continuous burning of the Brazilian rainforest is a real drag. Brazil will pay a heavy price (arrogant and stupid little men).
How about a few good volcanic eruptions? Think they have had a small impact on climate change in the past, Einstein?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Scientific consensus is an oxymoron.
At one time the "scientific consensus" was that the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the cosmos. Only a hand full of scientist believed otherwise.
So you don't want the cons to come here and answer your question by doing the very same thing you did, interesting.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Russian Scientist Predicts Global Cooling in 2012:
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/02/06/globalcold....
Global Cooling in 6-9 Years:
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/25/globalcooli...
Global cooling predicted in 1975:
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Global Warming can cause Global cooling:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/news/freeze.html
Another Russian Scientist predicts Global Cooling:
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2006/08/25/ru...
The politically incorrect guide to global warming:
- 1 decade ago
Basics.
wasnt there an Ice age before?
did cavemen drive suvs?
how did the ice age end?
global warming hippocrates, want to by some carbon credits I have for sale?
I hope you are running your computer from a windmill because if your not how you are contributing:)
- BrianLv 71 decade ago
I still don't see why there would be an assumption that Global warming was man-made. The Earth just came out of a cool period in the 19th century which followed a warm period that ended in 14th or 15th century, when Greenland was actually green and good farmland. It makes sense that we would continue warming as a natural cycle