Thread: Man-Made Global Warming - Is it or not?

I know this was discussed pretty throughly a month or so ago, but more and more people are changing their minds and saying it's not an exact science.
First, from KEVIN Trenberth the head of the large US National Center for Atmospheric Research and one of the advisory high priests of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He says now that, in a remarkable contribution to Nature magazine's Climate Feedback blog, that GCMs cannot predict future climate and claims the IPCC is not in the business of climate prediction. This might be news to some people. http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21977114-27197,00.html
Trenberth asserts ". . . there are no (climate) predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been". Instead, there are only "what if" projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.

Meanwhile, others are saying, "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), which represents most scientists, stated earlier that the increase in global temperatures is 'very likely due to the observed increase of man-made greenhouse gas concentrations'. http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=AY2638954S&news_headline=three _quarters_believe_global_warming_a_natural_occurre nce

Now who's right and who's wrong? Did you notice that both people mentioned or quote are top players in the IPPC? Strange that the public has this misimpression that the IPCC predicts future climate, isn't it?

Meanwhile, a recent poll shows that 71% of people don't believe green house gases are responsible for globel warming. This goes against the views of the vast majority of scientists who believe the rise in the earth's temperatures is due to pollution.

And 65 percent of the respondents think that scientists' catastrophic predictions if pollution isn't curbed are 'far fetched'.

Anyway, the links mentioned are a couple if interesting reads if this sort of thing interests you.

Not this again.
Who cares?
It's either anthropomorphic or natural.
Either way we have a responsibility to society to try to do something about the situaton.

The world has to end sometime, so don't even worry about it.

"BadlandsViking" wrote:

The world has to end sometime, so don't even worry about it.

Sounds like something a caveman would say.

"Prophet" wrote:

Not this again.
Who cares?
It's either anthropomorphic or natural.
Either way we have a responsibility to society to try to do something about the situaton.

I vote for natural as I don't know what the hell anthropomorphic is without going to the internet to find out and not look stupid.
;D

Natural warming phase enhanced by human activity sounds good to me.

But I don't really care that much

What I find interesting is that so many people are convinced think they are right and everyone else is wrong -- on both sides of the question.
Personally, I think the whole thing is going to cost a lot of people a lot of money and make a very few very rich.

There is no way to know for sure, which means that there is no way to disprove the other's ideas.
Hence both sides remain convinced that they are right.

I would be willing to bet that the actual answer lies somewhere in the area of Mr Anderson's answer Natural warming phase enhanced by human activity sounds good to me.

I think it will take a long time for global warming to cause most of us any real discomfort. What will happen far sooner is the Peak Oil Crisis. Here is a website that explains it very well. Here is a link, It is very long but very interesting and will answer many of the questions that you might have.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

If you've been wondering why the Bush administration has been spending money, cutting social programs, and starting wars like there's no tomorrow, now you have your answer: as far as they are concerned, there is no tomorrow.

Somebody please go back in time and explain to the dinosaurs how greenhouse gas' effect global warming.
I'm sure they'd be tickled pink.