<p>The “evidence” of global warming was pulled out of midair. All extremist liberal tree huggers make blatant assumptions about our environment; and ya know what, I have yet to see ANY evidence of global warming except the foolish claims of such by liberal politicians. But of course, most of you could read about the terrible “threat” of global warming in your science textbooks. Government indoctrination, anyone?</p>
<p>As W1cked said, show me some statistical proof other than blatant assumptions by politicians. Thanks!</p>
<p>Also, in 2001 the IPCC assessed the climate issue after looking at all available research, concluding that “Notwithstanding some role for natural variability, humans are almost certaintly heating the planet now through greenhouse gas emissions”</p>
<p>Later in 2001, the NAS’ research confirmed IPCC’s claim. </p>
<p>IASC concluded from research collected in 2004 that human-fueled global warming has had alarming impacts on the Artic region</p>
<p>I mean there is almost unparalleled agreement in the scientific community on this issue. the IPCC, National Academy of Science, American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union have all come to the conclusion that human activity is causing climate change.</p>
<p>As Penn State geoscientist Eric Barron put it, “There are a lot of things that cause climate variability. So, are we unequivocally certain? No. Is every finger pointing at it? Yes.”</p>
<p>Hell even the Bush administration has started to admit it. In 2002 they submitted the Climate Action Report, which was submitted to the UN by the State Department which actually reports the consequences of global warming and accepts the notion that the climate change was caused by humans.</p>
<p>If you would like to look up all of the aforementioned studies, go ahead.</p>
<p>Justinian…go to almost any large research institution in the United States and they will be able to explain all current research into global warming better and in a lot more detail.</p>
<p>Dont just assume that this is a “liberal conspiracy” when there is a great deal of agreement in the scientific community. There was some research done that showed that out of 892 research articles submitted to major science magazines regarding climate change, not one proposed the notion that global warming was scientifically inaccurate.</p>
<p>you must take that with a grain of salt…there is documented proof of scientists who were paid off to publicly announce their disdain for the lack of government action and the increase in global warming and the terrible impacts it has, etc, etc…</p>
<p>that is not to say that the case for global warming is completely without merit…but to think that these matters were not politically motivated in any sense would be foolish to say the least…</p>
<p>there is evidence for both sides… and at this point it’s difficult for any of us to truly understand what is going on…</p>
<p>many can point to increased levels of CO2, CH4, etc…temperature increases… whatever…many decide to link the warmer temperatures to pollution…but fail to recognize the importance of volcanic activity and the impact it has on our global temperature…</p>
<p>personally, i’m far more worried about volcanic activity than any actions done by us humans…</p>
<p>many also claim a relationship between increased hurricane frequency and strength due to global warming…but fail to recognize that interdecadal oscillation evidence exists…and that our planet does go through cyclical changes, which were not able to have been charted and analyzed by our ancestors…they simply did not have the technology we currently have…</p>
<p>people also claim about glaciers melting, less precipitation, etc… when there is clear evidence that evaporation and global warming can lead to the growth of glaciers and increased amounts of snow precipitation…</p>
<p>as i said… we can all go back and forth on this issue… both sides have evidence to prove their point… but it’s so politically motivated now, i fear it will be quite some time before our scientists understand it fully (certainly not during our lifetime)…</p>
<p>Actually Scom, there is a lack of any published evidence on the contrary in any major scientific magazine.</p>
<p>Also, the only 2 vocal opponents of global warming, Lindzen, MIT, and Legates, Delaware, have both recieved over $200,000 in contibutions from Exxon Mobil.</p>
<p>So, there is ALL this evidence supporting global warming, with a few articles that were paid off, or almost NO evidence on the contrary, with the only publishable research being supported by Exxon Mobil. Tough Call.</p>
<p>you know what the first article talking about points made by those who are against global warming is?</p>
<p>lack of “sound science”, involving the use of models by scientists, which apparently cannot be trusted in terms of climate estimations.</p>
<p>also, if all of these points are being made WHERE IS THE PUBLISHED RESEARCH? Where are scientists going through the scientific method, trying to validate a hypothesis and proving that there is no global warming?</p>
<p>Naomi Oreskes examined 928 papers that were published between 1993 and 2003 and discovered “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position [that of the NAS]”</p>
<p>NO research published in major science magazines going against the notion of global warming in the past 10 years.</p>
<p>neverborn is correct to a certain extent…the alarmists were just as bad during the 70’s when the earth was going through a slight cooling period…</p>
<p>And people saying we need the scientific method to prove there is no global warming - NO. You do not prove the negative, you prove the affirmative. The earth is warming up, this is true. Whether it is man-made has not been definitively proven, as the Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles.</p>
<p>Right…but there has been massive amounts of research that has proven that it is man-made…and absolutely none proving other sources of the greenhouse gases. Take the side with all the research and scientists? Or take a side with absolutely no scientific backing?</p>