Hypothesis for global warming? | Yahoo Answers

The 97% consensus on global warming - Skeptical Science


How is it an argument from authority? It is an example of a world leader speaking truth to lies about climate change. It is not an argument about climate change at all. See my remarks above about how a person can be wrong in one are of science policy and not in another.

Of all the research I’ve seen (especially on the relevance of a geological time scale) pertaining to global warming, this is simply the best.


The planet didn’t experience “oblivion,” as the Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon, suggested at the Bali conference on climate change in 2007. It’s curious that not one of the thousands of so-called climate experts at that conference saw fit to educate Ki-Moon on the geological facts before (or, apparently, after) his speech.

Scientists are still debatingthe heating of the planet.For now, there is no concensus on a theory for the warmingof Earth.

Among all my liberal and leftist friends (and I am certainly one of those), I know not a one who does not accept that global warming is an event caused by mankind. I do not know one geologist who believes that global warming is not taking place. I do not know a single geologist who believes that it is a man-made phenomenon.

Because the idea here, I think, is to show that global warming and it’s impacts on biosphere are “hyped” one way or another.

Climate change: Learning to think like a geologist

I don’t think KenH is commenting on Prince Charles’s expertise in climate science or medicine. I believe that he is referring to Charles’s ability as a well educated layman to assess if there is a scientific consensus in a particular scientific field and if so what it is. I think that the scientific consensus is very strong in climate science but even stronger within the medical science community that homeopathy is bunk! In my view this shows that Charles’s ability to determine scientific consensus is roughly that of a stopped clock – occasionally correct but not to be relied on.

Global Warming: Will Human-Induced Climate Change …

This scenario was all very well with carbon dioxide concentrations as they were
before global warming became noticeable, but with continually increasing carbon dioxide concentrations, there gradually became enough gas present, in spite of the very low absorption cross-sections, for some additional absorption, and consequent warming, to occur. This has been apparent from about 1960 onwards, and has continued until about 1998, when the “pause” started.

The Goal Is Power: The Global Warming Conspiracy - …

There is a simple explanation for the pause in global warming, and it depends on the Greenhouse Gas Effect. Energy emitted from the surface of the Earth is absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and so causes a rise in temperature of the Earth. The principal gases are carbon dioxide and water vapour. However, in the pre-industrial period there was so much carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere that nearly all the emitted energy was absorbed, and so no further temperature rise occurred.

A major cause of global warming is the attitude of mankind to Nature

“…whenever a conflict arose between his scientific training and the interests of business, he would discard the science. Ignoring hundreds of scientific papers which came to the opposite conclusion, and drawing instead on material presented by a business lobby group called the Institute of Economic Affairs, he argued that global temperatures have scarcely increased, so we should stop worrying about climate change(4). He suggested that elephants should be hunted for their ivory(5), planning laws should be scrapped(6), recycling should be stopped(7), bosses should be free to choose whether or not their workers contract repetitive strain injury(8) and companies, rather than governments, should be allowed to decide whether or not the food they sell is safe.(9) He raged against taxes, subsidies, bail-outs and government regulation. Bureaucracy, he argued, is “a self-seeking flea on the backs of the more productive people of this world … governments do not run countries, they parasitise them.”(10)”