Hi, I am 21 and am interested in reading about the weather and am very interested in weather global warming is real or not.

Some people say the polar ice caps are melting and there are videos of them melting.

But then there are some people that are saying that global warming is a political scam!

But if global warming isn't real, then why are there more natural disasters now than ever? And why are the natural disasters bigger also? Or maybe I have the wrong information.

So anyone with any info on this can reply.

Thanks!

Global Warming is real

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_359/1233241380WohN84.jpg

Global Warming is real

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_359/1233241380WohN84.jpg


Is this a serious response or a joke?

Not trying to be an a-hole, just asking.  :)

You might be better off discussing this on a science discussion board such as http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl in their Climate Change board

The issues are too complicated to get just a simple yes or no answer.  Too many people have an agenda or a pet theory when it comes to iscussing this topic.

You might be better off discussing this on a science discussion board such as http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl in their Climate Change board

The issues are too complicated to get just a simple yes or no answer.  Too many people have an agenda or a pet theory when it comes to iscussing this topic.


Thank you!

Is this a serious response or a joke?


A little bit of both :D


You might be better off discussing this on a science discussion board such as http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl in their Climate Change board

The issues are too complicated to get just a simple yes or no answer.  Too many people have an agenda or a pet theory when it comes to iscussing this topic.


This is true yes.  No one seems to pin point direct facts, as it's mostly theories.  It is known that the Ozone is wearing thin, and NASA is working on an answer if there can be life beyond earth so humans will have a place to be once the day the earth stands still :O

I believe global warming to be real....but as to the cause I am still open. Could be a cyclical event that ocurs beyond our present recording period (e.g. every 500 years??). I would love to know exactly what extent humankind has contributed...

The greenhouse gas theory holds some merit and the effects can be proved scientifically. However, the term Climate Change seems more appropriate of late as all these record cold spells (in Europe and the U.S.) have come at the wrong tome for the Global Warming industry....and unfortunately, there seems to be an industry forming around all this.

It would be really nice if one group od scientists (without any agenda whatsoever) could prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt. Meanwhile, many will err on the side of caution and try to reduce the emissions etc.

Until something is proven conclusively, I'm not too certain I want a world authority to force my country to abide by anything or have the power to impose large financial penalties etc...

A little bit of both :D

This is true yes.  No one seems to pin point direct facts, as it's mostly theories.  It is known that the Ozone is wearing thin, and NASA is working on an answer if there can be life beyond earth so humans will have a place to be once the day the earth stands still :O


Ha ha.

Anyways, I never knew that truth could be so hard to find! Lol. Especially when no one knows the clear truth.

I believe global warming to be real....but as to the cause I am still open. Could be a cyclical event that ocurs beyond our present recording period (e.g. every 500 years??). I would love to know exactly what extent humankind has contributed...

The greenhouse gas theory holds some merit and the effects can be proved scientifically. However, the term Climate Change seems more appropriate of late as all these record cold spells (in Europe and the U.S.) have come at the wrong tome for the Global Warming industry....and unfortunately, there seems to be an industry forming around all this.

It would be really nice if one group od scientists (without any agenda whatsoever) could prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt. Meanwhile, many will err on the side of caution and try to reduce the emissions etc.

Until something is proven conclusively, I'm not too certain I want a world authority to force my country to abide by anything or have the power to impose large financial penalties etc...


The reason why I am asking this is because if global warming is true, than we should do something about it!! I think truth is important sometimes, lol.

Personally I think many people could do more to be 'green'.  Global warming may or may not be happening but it is clear that we are using up non-renewable resources very quickly.  Therefore if we all tried to reduce our energy usage, reuse and recycle more it would help that and it might also have a positive effect on the greenhouse gases.  Certainly can't make things worse.

Personally I think many people could do more to be 'green'.  Global warming may or may not be happening but it is clear that we are using up non-renewable resources very quickly.  Therefore if we all tried to reduce our energy usage, reuse and recycle more it would help that and it might also have a positive effect on the greenhouse gases.  Certainly can't make things worse.


No wonder why gas prices aren't gonna be 90 cents any time soon!  ;D

Personally I think many people could do more to be 'green'.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_JjljCcugWZE/SrhXe9AOiqI/AAAAAAAAA2U/0jpZb2IW5PY/s400/kermit-it-aint-easy-being-green.gif


The reason why I am asking this is because if global warming is true, than we should do something about it!!

It may be that nothing can be done.  Who knows how the world will be in the future.  The best we can do is make do with what we have until the many scientists of the world figure out a solution.

Suppose it isn't real.  Would it then be okay for us to keep dumping garbage into the environment?

Would it then be okay for us to keep dumping garbage into the environment?


Many of today's music artists have been doing it vocally for years :D

I'm not sure if global warming is actually real, but I do know know that over the last five years, during the summer time, my electric bill has increased from me needing to run the fans and A/C longer and longer.  ???

I am firmly in the "it's cyclical" camp.  The earth warms, it cools.  I believe in recycling, though.  Nothing wrong with taking care of the environment.  I would rather not be able to see the air I breathe.

Suppose it isn't real.  Would it then be okay for us to keep dumping garbage into the environment?


Oh no, I'm not saying that at all, but I know what you're getting at.

Some people think they can do anything they want with their trash, it's horrible! AND it adds up.

Actually, I have never dumped any garbage on the ground or put trash at a park/lake randomly in the grass. I am very caring of the environment. But I wouldn't call myself a humanitarian either.

I am firmly in the "it's cyclical" camp.  The earth warms, it cools.  I believe in recycling, though.  Nothing wrong with taking care of the environment.  I would rather not be able to see the air I breathe.


Yeah, I probably have the same belief as you. But I am still deciding.  ;)

Many of today's music artists have been doing it vocally for years :D






I hate to admit it, but all this weather change is kinda scaring me! But, can you blame me?

I started noticing the weather going all haywire around 1999, so the past 11 years the weather has been strange.

I don't think it's global warming, but I do think the earth is repeating some cycle. But still, it is kinda unnerving at times.

I personally think, when it comes to climate change, that we can do very little about it. Volcanos emit so much rubbish into the air when they errupt, surely they must account for some of it? I have also heard that cycles happen in the weather so these extreme weather circumstances happen naturally (e.g the ice age).

However, I believe things like deforestation and (I wish I could remember the term) the consumation of resources (like fish) to such a degree that they are running out and so we need breeding programs *breathe, lol* impact on how we live our lives.

I personally think, when it comes to climate change, that we can do very little about it. Volcanos emit so much rubbish into the air when they errupt, surely they must account for some of it? I have also heard that cycles happen in the weather so these extreme weather circumstances happen naturally (e.g the ice age).

However, I believe things like deforestation and (I wish I could remember the term) the consumation of resources (like fish) to such a degree that they are running out and so we need breeding programs *breathe, lol* impact on how we live our lives.


Whoa, I never thought about volcanos' affect before!

Let's not confuse "the planet" with our ability to live on it.  As the late George Carlin said 20 years ago:

"The planet isn't going anywhere, we are!  Pack up your sh*t folks, we're goin' away!"

I'm getting sick of hearing it from both sides.  I'm sick of the self-appointed ecology cops nagging me about recycling and the paid-off pseudo-scientists saying it's all in God's plan and so is Exxon-Mobil's profit margin!
>:(

From about 1975 the average global temperature has been trending up. So yes, there is global warming.

If you're asking if humans are the cause, I don't have an answer.

From about 1975 the average global temperature has been trending up. So yes, there is global warming.

If you're asking if humans are the cause, I don't have an answer.


The cause situation seems to be six of one and half a dozen of the other. I think it depends on who's side you are on, financial motives seems to shroud this argument, whether you are a company director working on air turbines or whether you are a company director working in the oil business.

"Climate is just liberal weather."

--Stephen Colbert

A hot issue indeed.

Who can deny it ?,
the earth is warmer every day.. I see the ply of ice decrease day after day.

Much or little, we have something to play in this game of global warming.

As much as engines increase, humanity grows, and people need cold in summer and warm in winter, light up their nights and tones of energy to cope with their daily routine, we're gonna help nature to warm up the earth,

I have no doubts

I never did very good in the sciences while in school, but one thing I do remember from those classes is that the earth does indeed go into cycles.  Are we experiencing the beginnings (or endings on how you look at it I suppose) of one, could be?  I'm sure the earths population has contributed to it in some capacity.  Is it humans fault entirely and can we do anything to stop it completely, I can't get on board with that as some things are completely out of our control.  The population of the world does need certain things and those certain things will cause some unwanted side effects.  Now I'm not saying coal energy plants should be left unabated in producing electricity and factories just be able to dump by products haphazardly into the environment, because enforcements are in place to get rid of waste as best they can.  Now is it the best way to get rid of waste products, probably not, but like everything things are used on a trial and error basis.  What looks like a good thought at the time, it isn't so much later on so improvements need to be made on the improvements, then later on improvements made on the improvements that are already made. 

Starting school at the end of the 60's and graduating in 1980, the environmental doomsday scenario's were in force then.  Maybe because the "Cold War" from the 1950's was beginning to thaw ever so slightly and somebody somewhere needed something to keep the public scared of something, I don't know.  Anyway at least once a year while I was in grade school we were treated to the PSA film on pollution and the damage it was causing.  I remember watching them and scaring me thinking by the year 2000 the air was going to be pitch black with smog, there wouldn't be a decent ocean to swim in from all the garbage that was being dumped into it and the parks would be littered with old newspapers, pizza boxes and pop cans.  I don't know if pollution was going that unchecked back then, I lived in a small rural community miles away from the likes of Los Angeles and New York and we were basically pollution free, but maybe it was beginning to be awful in those parts of the world, I don't know.  I do know I began to see the garbage barrels along our rural highways as part of the campaign to fight pollution.  People were suppose to stop and throw their garbage they would accumulate in their car in these garbage cans instead of tossing it in the ditches.  Novel idea, I think it lasted all of five years then the barrels disappeared.

Another campaign that started back then was to save the ozone layer and was succesful in accomplishing it's task was the aeresol can.  Deodorents and hairsprays were responsible for causing the ozone to thin and I remember the huge campaign in getting these banned or at least reduced in use because if we didn't again by the turn of the century the world would be heated so much the entire earth's climate would be changed forever.  Well thinking 30+ years later on it, the hairspray industry was probably on it's last legs anyway with womens hairstyles changing from beehives to more natural looking looks so the hairspray wasn't what it once was.  As far as deodorents go I think too the areseol was being rapidly replaced by sticks and roll ons.  Now I'm not big into conspiracies, but it's quite a coincidence these companies needed a more creative way to sell their brands to a new age of customers so lets make the old products bad and promote our new products big time as save alternatives.  What better way than to use the environment as platform for these changes. 

Another product that came on the market back in the 1970's that I gave no thought of until I read the Coor's biography a few years ago is the little pop top on the soda an beer cans these days.  For those that don't remember, the pop top used to be a removable device, extremely sharp with a ring on it, (you see Matthew Broderick using it in the film "War Games" to hotwire the phone in the phone booth) that was usually tossed aside.  I guess to help save the enviroment back in the 70's Coors were the people that came up with the little gizmo that we see in use today on cans.  Was it purely an enviromental issue with Coors, I don't know. 

Are disastars worse today than they were from last decade or several decades ago or hundreds of years ago, I can't say for sure.  With more population on the earth than ever before, chances are greater a person is going to be killed or valuable property destroyed by a natural disastar.  Where tornadoes once touched down on farmland, now lay blocks and blocks of houses.  More and more people living along coastlines and in canyons will suffer greater damage from hurricanes and out of control brushfires and mudslides because of it.  I couldn't say if the natural disastars are more intense, but I will say there are  more people are in the way of them because of the population.  To me that's common sense then that millions of dollars in property will be destoyed and more lives lost because of a natural disastar, but I don't think it's a sign of gloom and doom.

As somebody already mentioned, the people that are shouting from the pulpit on both sides of this arguement clearly have agendas behind their "causes".  Like everything else it's become to political and while either party has money to promote their cause we'll see things to scare us or the other side making fun of the ones who is scaring us.  But let me say this, a few years after Gore got the attention on his efforts, we saw everyday some PSA on environmental damage, funded by somebody.  The one that I remember is the oncoming speeding train headed for the little girl then everything goes black.  Those people had loads of funds to produce that and buy airtime.  Where is that PSA now?  Does a cause only last as long as the funds are there?  I don't know, I'm just a simple guy muddling through this world.

But anyway just one man's two cents worth.

This was the editorial of our local paper this morning.


Defending science


Published: March 5, 2010

Science is under attack, and the consequences for human civilization could be catastrophic.

An article in The New York Times on Thursday described how pressure is building in some states for schools to undermine the teaching of the science of climate change as they have sought to undermine the teaching of evolution.

The effort comes in the name of academic freedom, with advocates suggesting they are seeking merely for science teachers to present all sides of an issue. It is really an effort to discredit the idea of climate change, as they have tried to do with evolution, by requiring teachers to tell students that evolution and climate change are "only theories."

This attack on science is based on a misunderstanding of how science works. Almost everything in science is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Relativity is a theory. The big bang is a theory. It is only to state the obvious to say the idea of human-caused climate change is a theory.

The test of any theory is whether it is backed up by data. Scientists advance theories about everything from nuclear particles to human genetics, and then they test them again and again against the data. If theories turn out to be good tools for explaining the world, then the theories become established tenets of science. It is impossible to teach biology (or to combat evolving flu viruses) without teaching evolution. It is impossible to teach climatology or geography today, or even biology or oceanography, without taking into account climate change.

There are powerful forces with an interest in undermining our understanding of climate change, including international corporations that deal in fossil fuel and conservative political parties that seek to exploit the issue for their own gain. These forces were quick to portray recent small errors in the scientific community as cracks in the edifice of our understanding of climate change.

As Al Gore noted in a recent op-ed piece in The New York Times, these errors consisted of an overestimation of the melting rate of glaciers in the Himalayas and partly inaccurate information provided by the government of the Netherlands. Also, scientists in Britain may have inadequately followed Britain's freedom of information law.

These are small mistakes when lined up against the massive evidence compiled over decades by scientists all around the globe. Of course, there have been other mistakes that fall the other way: Underestimates of the rate of the melting of the Arctic ice cap and of the speed of glacial melting in Greenland and Antarctica. Scientists are the first to admit that their main job is to test their theories against the facts. Till now the facts about climate change have proven to be more worrying than they anticipated.

Those who wish to exploit the issue for political purposes tend to celebrate their own ignorance. Thus, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma helped his grandchildren build an igloo in Washington at the time of the big snowstorm last month as a way to mock the idea that the atmosphere is heating up.

He ignored that fact that the snowstorm fit the pattern of a warmer climate: Warmer temperatures cause greater evaporation, which leads to larger snowstorms.

But it is not enough to mock the proudly displayed ignorance of people like Inhofe. People who sincerely doubt the science of climate change may believe they are being mocked, too. What is needed instead of a war of mockery is aggressive, serious education in science — not phony science that discredits itself, but science that makes clear to students what a theory is and how it is tested against data.

The data about climate change are overwhelming, and climate change deniers occupy the merest fringe of the scientific community. Deniers claim that they are being silenced by a code of political correctness, but this is not accurate. They are increasingly being ignored because of their own scientific irrelevance, like flat-earthers who demand that their theories challenging the roundness of the world be heard. The difference is that climate change deniers have powerful economic and political interests behind them who are ready to distort the teaching of science to advance their interests.

Fighting ignorance with science is an old story, but today that fight has much in the balance.


http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100305/OPINION01/3050311/1038/OPINION01




Cat

This was the editorial of our local paper this morning.


Defending science


Published: March 5, 2010

Science is under attack, and the consequences for human civilization could be catastrophic.

An article in The New York Times on Thursday described how pressure is building in some states for schools to undermine the teaching of the science of climate change as they have sought to undermine the teaching of evolution.

The effort comes in the name of academic freedom, with advocates suggesting they are seeking merely for science teachers to present all sides of an issue. It is really an effort to discredit the idea of climate change, as they have tried to do with evolution, by requiring teachers to tell students that evolution and climate change are "only theories."

This attack on science is based on a misunderstanding of how science works. Almost everything in science is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Relativity is a theory. The big bang is a theory. It is only to state the obvious to say the idea of human-caused climate change is a theory.

The test of any theory is whether it is backed up by data. Scientists advance theories about everything from nuclear particles to human genetics, and then they test them again and again against the data. If theories turn out to be good tools for explaining the world, then the theories become established tenets of science. It is impossible to teach biology (or to combat evolving flu viruses) without teaching evolution. It is impossible to teach climatology or geography today, or even biology or oceanography, without taking into account climate change.

There are powerful forces with an interest in undermining our understanding of climate change, including international corporations that deal in fossil fuel and conservative political parties that seek to exploit the issue for their own gain. These forces were quick to portray recent small errors in the scientific community as cracks in the edifice of our understanding of climate change.

As Al Gore noted in a recent op-ed piece in The New York Times, these errors consisted of an overestimation of the melting rate of glaciers in the Himalayas and partly inaccurate information provided by the government of the Netherlands. Also, scientists in Britain may have inadequately followed Britain's freedom of information law.

These are small mistakes when lined up against the massive evidence compiled over decades by scientists all around the globe. Of course, there have been other mistakes that fall the other way: Underestimates of the rate of the melting of the Arctic ice cap and of the speed of glacial melting in Greenland and Antarctica. Scientists are the first to admit that their main job is to test their theories against the facts. Till now the facts about climate change have proven to be more worrying than they anticipated.

Those who wish to exploit the issue for political purposes tend to celebrate their own ignorance. Thus, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma helped his grandchildren build an igloo in Washington at the time of the big snowstorm last month as a way to mock the idea that the atmosphere is heating up.

He ignored that fact that the snowstorm fit the pattern of a warmer climate: Warmer temperatures cause greater evaporation, which leads to larger snowstorms.

But it is not enough to mock the proudly displayed ignorance of people like Inhofe. People who sincerely doubt the science of climate change may believe they are being mocked, too. What is needed instead of a war of mockery is aggressive, serious education in science — not phony science that discredits itself, but science that makes clear to students what a theory is and how it is tested against data.

The data about climate change are overwhelming, and climate change deniers occupy the merest fringe of the scientific community. Deniers claim that they are being silenced by a code of political correctness, but this is not accurate. They are increasingly being ignored because of their own scientific irrelevance, like flat-earthers who demand that their theories challenging the roundness of the world be heard. The difference is that climate change deniers have powerful economic and political interests behind them who are ready to distort the teaching of science to advance their interests.

Fighting ignorance with science is an old story, but today that fight has much in the balance.


http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100305/OPINION01/3050311/1038/OPINION01




Cat


A really interesting article. Thank you!

I never did very good in the sciences while in school, but one thing I do remember from those classes is that the earth does indeed go into cycles.  Are we experiencing the beginnings (or endings on how you look at it I suppose) of one, could be?  I'm sure the earths population has contributed to it in some capacity.  Is it humans fault entirely and can we do anything to stop it completely, I can't get on board with that as some things are completely out of our control.  The population of the world does need certain things and those certain things will cause some unwanted side effects.  Now I'm not saying coal energy plants should be left unabated in producing electricity and factories just be able to dump by products haphazardly into the environment, because enforcements are in place to get rid of waste as best they can.  Now is it the best way to get rid of waste products, probably not, but like everything things are used on a trial and error basis.  What looks like a good thought at the time, it isn't so much later on so improvements need to be made on the improvements, then later on improvements made on the improvements that are already made.   

Starting school at the end of the 60's and graduating in 1980, the environmental doomsday scenario's were in force then.  Maybe because the "Cold War" from the 1950's was beginning to thaw ever so slightly and somebody somewhere needed something to keep the public scared of something, I don't know.  Anyway at least once a year while I was in grade school we were treated to the PSA film on pollution and the damage it was causing.  I remember watching them and scaring me thinking by the year 2000 the air was going to be pitch black with smog, there wouldn't be a decent ocean to swim in from all the garbage that was being dumped into it and the parks would be littered with old newspapers, pizza boxes and pop cans.  I don't know if pollution was going that unchecked back then, I lived in a small rural community miles away from the likes of Los Angeles and New York and we were basically pollution free, but maybe it was beginning to be awful in those parts of the world, I don't know.  I do know I began to see the garbage barrels along our rural highways as part of the campaign to fight pollution.  People were suppose to stop and throw their garbage they would accumulate in their car in these garbage cans instead of tossing it in the ditches.  Novel idea, I think it lasted all of five years then the barrels disappeared.

Another campaign that started back then was to save the ozone layer and was succesful in accomplishing it's task was the aeresol can.  Deodorents and hairsprays were responsible for causing the ozone to thin and I remember the huge campaign in getting these banned or at least reduced in use because if we didn't again by the turn of the century the world would be heated so much the entire earth's climate would be changed forever.  Well thinking 30+ years later on it, the hairspray industry was probably on it's last legs anyway with womens hairstyles changing from beehives to more natural looking looks so the hairspray wasn't what it once was.  As far as deodorents go I think too the areseol was being rapidly replaced by sticks and roll ons.  Now I'm not big into conspiracies, but it's quite a coincidence these companies needed a more creative way to sell their brands to a new age of customers so lets make the old products bad and promote our new products big time as save alternatives.  What better way than to use the environment as platform for these changes. 

Another product that came on the market back in the 1970's that I gave no thought of until I read the Coor's biography a few years ago is the little pop top on the soda an beer cans these days.  For those that don't remember, the pop top used to be a removable device, extremely sharp with a ring on it, (you see Matthew Broderick using it in the film "War Games" to hotwire the phone in the phone booth) that was usually tossed aside.  I guess to help save the enviroment back in the 70's Coors were the people that came up with the little gizmo that we see in use today on cans.  Was it purely an enviromental issue with Coors, I don't know. 

Are disastars worse today than they were from last decade or several decades ago or hundreds of years ago, I can't say for sure.  With more population on the earth than ever before, chances are greater a person is going to be killed or valuable property destroyed by a natural disastar.  Where tornadoes once touched down on farmland, now lay blocks and blocks of houses.  More and more people living along coastlines and in canyons will suffer greater damage from hurricanes and out of control brushfires and mudslides because of it.  I couldn't say if the natural disastars are more intense, but I will say there are  more people are in the way of them because of the population.  To me that's common sense then that millions of dollars in property will be destoyed and more lives lost because of a natural disastar, but I don't think it's a sign of gloom and doom.

As somebody already mentioned, the people that are shouting from the pulpit on both sides of this arguement clearly have agendas behind their "causes".  Like everything else it's become to political and while either party has money to promote their cause we'll see things to scare us or the other side making fun of the ones who is scaring us.  But let me say this, a few years after Gore got the attention on his efforts, we saw everyday some PSA on environmental damage, funded by somebody.  The one that I remember is the oncoming speeding train headed for the little girl then everything goes black.  Those people had loads of funds to produce that and buy airtime.  Where is that PSA now?  Does a cause only last as long as the funds are there?  I don't know, I'm just a simple guy muddling through this world.

But anyway just one man's two cents worth.


Judging from that long comment you wrote, you should've done better in science in your youth.  ;D

No, but seriously, those are some interesting things you wrote that made me think.

I never did very good in the sciences while in school,


How good did you do in grammar?
???

Oh self editing always sucks as my eyes are seeing one thing and my brain is telling me something else.  Sorry for the vocabulary mess ups.  :o

Oh self editing always sucks as my eyes are seeing one thing and my brain is telling me something else.  Sorry for the vocabulary mess ups.   :o


I understood your comment 100%. No need to apologize.