Do we believe scientists on global warming? Are they too all over the place to be believed?
"Isaac Newton had something to say about all this: In his seminal “Principia Mathematica,” he noted that if separate data sets are best explained by one theory or idea, that explanation is most likely the true explanation." READ:http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...
Does most global warming denial violate the first law of thermodynamics?
The first law of thermodynamics essentially states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings. Therefore since the amount of energy in the Earth system is increasing (both observed indirectly through the average global temperature increase, and directly by satellites), we know there's more energy entering the system than leaving it. The current favored denier explanation for global warming is 'natural cycles'. When pressed to explain specifically what natural cycle is to blame, the few deniers who even attempt to answer generally offer ENSO or one of the other natural oscillations as their explanation. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... However, these oscillations don't add any energy to the Earth's system; they merely move it around between oceans and air. They're not capable of causing a long-term global warming trend. There are also deniers who blame the Sun, yet the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun has not increased on average in over 50 years. What do you think - does most global warming denial violate the first law of thermodynamics?
What is the Science consensus / official position on global warming climate change? Truth or Hoax evidence?
I’m curious, if anyone can find the answer to this. I want to know, not just what the consensus is, but what the official position is by the global/world body of Science on recent Climate Change (or Global Warming). If I may add... this question is more about who do you trust, and if it is not the experts in the field, who then? Are scientists not yet good at spending all their time on a question and coming up with an answer? Are Science journals reliable sources? So please... whoever you are... I'm not asking for your opinion or some journalist, or politician, or screen writer's adaptation of what they believe the truth to be. I only want to know what, literally, all the major bodies of Science believe. I wonder if that's important (submissable in court even); what makes that different today from when they agreed on something 30, 100 or 300 years ago (which many things are different now). And if you agree with that or not (I definitely want to know why if not)... thanks
Which of the following statements pertaining to global warming to you agree with and why?
I'm trying to get an understanding as to what reasons people are 'skeptical' of anthropogenic global warming. Which of the following statements to you agree with and why? 1) We don't have sufficiently good data to even know if the planet is warming to begin with. 2) Global temperature changes are mainly caused by natural cycles which we don't understand, including over the past 50 years. 3) Global temperature changes are mainly caused by changes in solar activity, including over the past 50 years. 4) Global warming has stopped, therefore it's nothing to be concerned about. 5) Warming of several more degrees would be beneficial to humans. 6) The climate isn't very sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2, so even though humans are the primary cause of the current global warming, it's nothing to worry about because the planet won't warm very much in the future. 7) Climate scientists as a whole are so dishonest that I just don't know what to believe. 8) I'm going to die before global warming is a major problem anyway, so I don't really care. If you feel that none of the above statements are true, or want to provide another explanation please do so.
If every person on Earth believed in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, would it make it scientifically true?
_There is no science behind climate alarm. Just the world’s stupidest people being funded by the government to push propaganda. Anthropogenic CO2 climate change is a lie, and no amount of consensus will alter nature’s judgement. “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” • Galileo Galilei “Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.” • Michael Crichton “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.” • Michael Crichton