Why are there arguments about climate change?

Answer 1

The debate is really over among the atmosphere scientists, who believe the globe is warming up on the long term average; but the Propaganda machine paid for by the oil industry seeks to maintain that there still is a debate, which helps their profits.

Answer 2

While most climate scientists concur humans are predominantly responsible for current measured trends in global warming, there remains considerable debate in the political arena, largely among people ideologically opposed to the scientific claim humans have the capacity to significantly alter their environment. The scientific debate was largely settled about three decades ago.

There is always the possibility someone might discover something entirely new and unexpected, but that grows smaller and smaller as time marches on.

Answer 3

There may be a huge debate about global warming because if there isn't a serious change all over the world a good fraction of our whole country can end up underwater.

In the 1950s Charles Keeling developed a method for making very accurate CO2 measurements, and began making a continuous record from the top of Mauna Loa, an extinct volcano in the Pacific. This site was chosen because there is no vegetation near the summit, no farms, cities, or animal life to throw off the measurements. By the time air circulates to this remote island mountain top, it is thoroughly mixed, and the CO2 abundance should reflect quite closely the actual background abundance.

If you ever read "Moby Dick," the guy in the mizzen was pleased that his air was the freshest possible air of all--no one had breathed his air for thousands of miles in any direction. Mauna Loa is like that.

In the early 1970s there seemed to be a global decline in temperature, and some researchers became concerned earth might be headed into a sudden new ice age. None of these researchers could uncover a cause for the temperature decline, aside from particulate from smokestack emissions that had been increasing since the 1960s. Smokestack scrubbers and other devices installed to reduce particulate pollution consequently halted the slight temperature decline, and by the late 1970s most of these same researchers changed their minds. Meanwhile, the majority of climate researchers figured any human impact on climate would most likely result in warming.

By the 1980s it was clear the general trend was upward, and the primary cause was the increasing levels of CO2. Eventually polls revealed 97% of climate scientists had become convinced human activity was the primary factor driving climate change.

There is always debate. Even general relativity and quantum mechanics, two extremely robust theories, contain minor points of contention within them. Things that could be one way or the other. Politicians don't debate points of general relativity because these matters have little economic impact among their constituents. The debate on global warming, on the other hand, has moved out from climate scientists and into the political arena. Most of the people arguing about it are NOT scientists but politicians, many of them with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry. They have a vested interest in decrying scientific results. And they ironically charge climate scientists as standing to turn huge profits off the findings of their research.

Answer 4

There are arguments about climate change because some people do not believe in science or in scientific findings. For a long time there were people who believed the world was flat. For a long time there were people who argued that smoking cigarettes had nothing to do with lung cancer. These are the kind of people who argue about climate change.

Answer 5

In the scientific community - especially the climatology field - there is no controversy.

Elsewhere, there is plenty of controversy I suspect because it has become such a political issue. My opinion is that many people, especially conservatives, feel that this is just another political issue where the left espouses the environmentalists point of view, and that they are wrong simply because that is their political prerogative to make such claims. Others don't believe it is possible that humans could be influencing something on such a scale as global climate, despite the evidence that easily says otherwise. Still others don't want to make changes to their lifestyle, or even admit that they might be a part of the problem.

Whether or not you want to or will choose to make any change whatsoever to your life, the scientific facts are there in favor of humans causing changes to the climate system.

Answer 6

Too many greenhouse gases. For example:

- Methane Gas: Released via cattle and rice farming..

- Carbon Dioxide: As a result of human activity (burning fossil fuels.)

Answer 7

Some people accept that a consensus of scientists know what they are talking about.

Other people are deeply suspicious, especially when they are asked to make some changes in their lifestyle.

Answer 8

Most (over 80%) of scientists in general concur that the evidence confirms global warming is occurring and that human activity (the burning of fossil fuels) are largely responsible for it. Over 97% of scientists directly involved in climate research agree with that general consensus. Most of the remainder (under 3%) think the evidence is not sufficiently good that we can yet draw that conclusion. They tend not to be the ones involved in the controversy.

A small handful of scientists, largely financed by the fossil fuel industry, dissent with the general consensus. For the most part any controversy among actual scientists can be attributed to interference by the fossil fuel industry, and to a lesser extent political infighting.

Another View:

Doctor Roy Spencer is only one of thousands of climate experts that daily study the issue of climate change. He is aware that the planet has indeed seen warming since the last ice age which hit the lowest temps in the mid 1800's. He believes, as many others do, that this warming is natural in nature and explains why the total warming trend started thousands of years before man started using fossil fuels and why, despite increased use, we do not see a direct correlation between warming and CO2 levels.

Doctor Spencer was in charge of the launching of our NASA weather satellites that monitor the climate changes and despite very skeptical about man induced climate change, he has never worked for the fossil fuel industry or had an interest in politics.

The reason for most of the controversy is not a funding issue and is really not a political issue either. The reality is that until very recently, we have not had much data to actually work with in terms of climate change.

Until 1979, the temperature data is, at best shaky. If we look back at what historic CO2 levels were, the consensus of 1900 era science experts was around 400 ppm, slightly higher than today's current belief.

Good people can agree to disagree on topics that have no complete data and both parties are honest and genuine. The data is honestly far from complete and the causes far from certain. Because of the lack of honest and complete information, the topic is open for multiple theories. While politics would prefer "the end of the debate" honest science demands the debate continue.

Even political groups, such as the United Nations, IPCC is willing to admit that there are still holes in their concepts. Should science people be less open than political groups?

We do know that models are not following predicted paths and that areas, such as the Antarctic and Himalayas are not losing ice overall, as the IPCC predicted they would. Until we actually have an understanding of the issue and working models, good science people will be open to honest debate on this issue. Is there global warming? Probably, but is it man? We just do not know.