Global Warming hype.....?

Anthropogenic Global Warming-AGW, a.k.a. Global Warming is not called that anymore because we are experiencing a cooling trend now. So instead of calling it Global Cooling, like they should, the IPCC and others now call it Climate Change.

Here you have the opinion of 2 PRO-AGW members contradicting each other:

frflyer says "What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions".

Dana says "Scientists have examined both natural and human factors and concluded that natural forces can't explain the recent warming. Humans are responsible for the current global warming".

Well, if we start from the fact that in science a theory must be proved through a scientific method, we can obviously eliminate Dana's answer, because Climate is not a school test where scientists can approve it or not, just because they concluded so.

frflyer is right about the "no opinions", thus he is disagreeing with Dana's answer as well. But "scientific findings and data" as frflyer mentioned, could be meaningless if they are not used to feed a scientific method to prove a theory.

AGW believers ignore that warming started after 1860 (the end of the Little Ice Age), but CO2 emissions didn't really quick till 90 years later, so what did humans do to cause global warming before man made CO2 emissions?

Global warming could also be from the moon retreating away from the earth. Every year the moon receded 1 1/2 inches away from earth. The further it goes the more the earth's axis is changed. If the earth were to spin 1 degree off its axis right now the weather changes would be very DRAMATIC! At one point the earth will actually lose the moon, but that is far from now.

Simple answers.

"If Global warming is Man made, then Why did it happen before?"

Simple Man made global hasn't happened before. There are a number of natural causes of climate change, that doesn't mean we can artificially cause one of those effects by releasing large amounts of c02 into the atmosphere.

"Why is it happening on Mars?"

Simple again, it isn't, outside of denier sites you won't find science pushing such a theory, even the National geographic link deniers used to push this theory by a Russian scientist, if read in full it is dismissed by a number of leading scientists.

That is the problem. How can one say this warming is unnatural, when in the past we had natural warmings? They is why there was a concerted effort to get rid of MWP.

Dr. David Deming (University of Oklahoma)

“ Around 1996, I became aware of how corrupt and ideologically driven current climate research can be. A major researcher working in the area of climate change confided in me that the factual record needed to be altered so that people would become alarmed over global warming. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

I think it's just a normal cycle. The cycles could be thousands of years long, and there is no way for us to know real temperatures way back then. We couldn't even measure temps accurately until computers and lasers were invented. And, in the middle ages when temps were way higher, nothing bad happened and the growing season allowed a lot more food to be grown. It's nothing to worry about.

Global warming/cooling is a naturally occurring phenomenon that has been made exponentially worse by humans releasing ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. It will occur in natural cycles, but not to anywhere near the extent it does with human intervention.

Those are indeed simple questions with simple answers.

1) Humans are obviously not the only possible cause of global warming. There are 'natural' factors as well, such as variations in solar output and the Earth's orbital (Milankovitch) cycles.

Scientists have examined both natural and human factors and concluded that natural forces can't explain the recent warming. Humans are responsible for the current global warming.

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-a...

2) I assume by this question you're suggesting that both Mars and Earth are warming due to the sun (which is the only thing they have in common). In which case you should ask why is Uranus cooling? Why are most planets and moons experiencing no significant temperature change?

And most importantly, why is solar output not increasing?

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/...

To specifically answer your question, Mars is probably warming due to dust storms darkening its surface. For further details, see Myth #4 here:

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-m...

Randel is correct. There is nothing in the recent trends that isn't consistent with historic changes. There is no indication that recent warming is going to lead to anything significant or harmful. It certainly has been generally beneficial.

Those don't necessarily that it's not man-made this time.

But they do mean that we can't just infer that it's man-made this time.

And that inference is their entire case.

There's no direct proof of man-made global warming - despite tens of billions being spent specifically TO prove it.

Are you confused about global warming? Are you a skeptic? Chances are that you have read or heard stories in the media about the number of skeptical scientists. Senator Inhofe R-Oklahoma has stood up on the senate floor with a list of over 400 "promintent scientists" who were skeptical of the theory of man made global warming, or anthropogenic global warming(AGW).

Or maybe you read the article in the Wall St. Journal with headlines declaring "Science Has Spoken, Global Warming is a Myth".

You may have heard of "scientific conferences" like the one held in New York where hundreds of skeptical scientists met.

Recently, the no. 2 executive at GM claimed to know of 32,000 leading scientists who don't believe in the AGU theory.

Sounds like convincing evidence that there really is no scientific consensus on global warming, doesn't it? Well it may sound that way, until you read between the lines.

Here's what oceanographer Joseph Romm says about Senator Inhofe's list.

""As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus."

"But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does "think global warming is real"). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea."

"What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm

What about that Wall St. Journal article?

Let's first look at how science is done. Any scientific theory must pass peer review by other scientists before it can be published in scientific journals. Any science that can't pass that test is not considered legitimate science. The two scientists who the WSJ quotes never had their work peer reviewed. Instead of presenting it to real scientists for peer review, they went through the main stream media, the WSJ, to influence the public, rather than convincing scientists first, that their work was valid. And the ultra right wing WSJ was more than happy to print any story discrediting the AGW theory.

Here's one climate scientist's take on the article.

"The conclusions reached by Robinson et al., upon which The Wall Street Journal news item was based, in my opinion and that of my class, cannot stand the scrutiny of objective peer-review. Our judgement notwithstanding, The Wall Street Journal presented an unpublished manuscript as actual science to a gullible business world. Giving support and credence to an unpublished manuscript certainly reflects poorly on The Wall Street Journal and its standards of reporting and objectivity. We know The Wall Street Journal’s science reporting cannot be trusted if they don't know the difference between opinion and science, or worse, if they do know the difference, then they're just dishonest."

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...

And those "scientific conferences" with hundreds of skeptics? These aren't real scientific conferences, they are propaganda events. They are hosted by right wing propaganda mills like the Heartland Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, who offered $1,000 per speech and $10,000 per manuscript to skeptical scientists. The Heartland Insitute is largley funded by Exxon/Mobile. These are both right wing propaganda mills, and are definitely not scientific organizations.

Another climate scientist comments:

"Keep in mind that with the tens of thousands of climate change skeptics on the planet if only 1% of them are corrupted by the $10,000 payment (or bribe) currently being offered by Exxon through AEI then you will have at minimum 200 skeptics/deniers. So far 200 skeptics/deniers have not turned up."

http://environment.newscientist.com/

As for the new claim of 32,000 leading scientists who are skeptics, unless you are using some very broad measure of what a scientist is, that is impossible. What I mean is that there aren't enough climate scientists in the world for that to be even remotely true. What are they including as scientists, doctors, engineers, psychologists? They couldn't possibly be climate scientists, other than a handful. The numbers just don't add up.The claim is rediculous.