Global Warming research essay?

I'm afraid that answers like ez80227 are about all you can expect from deniers, links to denier blogs etc etc, the one real link supplied (sciencedaily) doesn't really support the denier claims in anyway.

Then of course the reference to "email cover up" I assume that is the so called "climategate" talk about beating a dead horse. The inquiry into the CRU emails concluded that the scientists had not been engaged in any sort of cover up, many deniers have now switched to the stock standard, 'the inquiry' is part of the conspiracy, to be expected really it's classic denial.

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2010/04/cr...

Deniers and all their blogs and websites have had some influence on the public, but then the same could be said for those who are convinced about UFO abductions, the Bermuda triangle or Elvis still being alive.

But they have have had no influence on the scientific community for a very good reason, Deniers have presented nothing that can pass scientific scrutiny, and they know it.

PR hype may influence some of the public and a few politician's but it has no effect at all on glaciers, temperatures or sea level, which are respectively shrinking, rising and rising.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

I think you have the necessary information in front of you to answer the question. On the one hand you have your professor and a scientific book – both are professional sources and both are able to provide you with the facts and figures to back up the claims.

On the other hand you have the word of journalists who are not professional scientists and who have to demonstrate impartiality by presenting both sides of the argument.

In the 180 years before global warming became a political issue there wasn’t a single paper published that doubted that mankind was influencing the climate (global warming has been a scientific issue since 1811). Once it became politicised and the big oil and power companies got involved the skepticism began.

You’ll find that almost invariably any ‘scientific’ study that refutes global warming can be traced directly back to the oil companies. This is something we’ve seen time and time again in the media and on Answers.

At the end of the day, global warming is governed by quantum mechanics (how things behave at the atomic level). This is the most powerful of all scientific laws and is something we can’t change in any way. Like it or not, global warming is an inevitability.

PS – Don’t abandon your research topic, to ensure it’s accurate please obtain your information from credible scientific sites.

Blaming human beings for causing Global Warming (or even Global Cooling) is not correct! If there were NO human beings on Earth we would still have GW and GC! In the time before (before lies about climate change) our Earth had climate changes by the thousands all without any help by man because man either did not exist as we know it or were so few that they didn't matter!

Take the humans off our Earth and we would still have GW and GC - in other words climate change would take place without any help from man! Blaming human beings for climate change shows a very narrow self centered method of thinking that is more based in politics and profit from "green" fixes for man's follies!

Human beings do not cause Global Warming! In our past we have had tens of thousands of Global Warming periods all without any help from man! Global Warming is going on now on Mars - as far as I know we have no humans on Mars to cause this phenomena - how can this happen????

I just hate it when "know it all people" want to blame humans for something that has been happening off and on for millions and millions of years!

Dude - an English research paper on Global warming? Shouldn't that be physics?

Your cover story is weaker than an IPCC conclusion. Anyway..."are you saying that all the geologist and atmospheric scientists are wrong on their conclusions?" No - they are saying it themselves, just not in public:

"Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports: He says "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t!"

I think you've pinned down the biggest difference.

'Physical Geography 9th edition and he talks about how global warming is happening and how emprical evidence shows that manmade emissions are the main culprit.'

'I turn on the TV and hear people saying global warming is nothing more than a natural cycle and that manmade global warming is a hoax and they cite evidence and tell the global warming alarmist to go to college'

Personally, I think academic textbooks are probably more reliable than what you hear on the TV. The second part is remarkable, considering that the more educated someone is, the more likely they are to believe global warming is human caused (in the US, at least), and that amongst climate scientists the support for the theory is greatest of all.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.p...

The evidence speaks for itself. The TV people rely on misrepresentation and lies for the most part. Here's evidence of human causes (some may not be in the textbook, it relies on quite recent papers):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-...

And here's estimates of climate sensitivity; if it's above about 1C per doubling of CO2 (most scientific works estimate 2-4.5C) then human caused global warming is real and noticeable.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-lit...

This global warming issue presently is in coma, world leaders knew that this issue is not about science or peoples future but it's all about carbon trading.

And that carbon trading has nothing to do in solving the problem because there's no such problem. This is a product of an imaginary problem to justify the cause.

Yes and no. Global warming is a natural occurrence. However, the amount of greenhouse gasses being pumped into the atmosphere is appalling and it is elevating global warming more than necessary. Greenhouse gasses come from many things, cars, even cows! Cows are actually a huge contributor to global warming. If people became vegetarians, less cows would be needed and bred and thus global warming wouldn't be as severe...but here I am launching into another topic. Anyways, global warming and cooling happens on Earth from time to time but at the moment global warming is at least 90% human cause.

There are lots of people who want you to be afraid so they can manipulate your behavior.

Human beings are too small to effect the climate.

There are 830,000 tons of atmosphere per person.

The heat sink of the oceans is 310,000,000 cubic miles. The weight of all the people on earth is less than the weight of 1/9th of a cubic mile of seawater.

Man made GW is a myth. There is no consensus of the total scientific community that it is caused by man. The planet's climate has always changed over time gradually. The Glaciers have not just begun to melt, this is a continuation of a process that has been occurring for thousands of years. The biggest unspoken lie regarding this issue is the notion of a steady state Earth. Our Planet has never and cannot achieve a steady state due to our orbit and axial tilt.

problem is, empirical evidence shows it's been debunked much more than it's been proved...

not to mention the email cover up suggesting that they needed to delet the emails which suggested doctoring thdata, as well as the fafct that we've only been her for a few millenia and the actual recvord isn't even 200 years, only the geoligical record, which isn't very acurate and very subjective is all there is.

it really seem s you want others to do your research for you rather tahn spend 30 seconds doing an internet search.

no one wants to look at the thousands of volcanos and all the 'greenhouse gasses' the exude ot the thousands under the ocean which affect the temps as well as the ocean floor and thus the sea level. basic reasoning will help lots in this front.