Is global warming junk science

Answer 1

At present it would be very difficult to answer this question as a yes or no answer. However the science used to prove global warming either way is more geared to proving a politicians point than actually addressing whether a problem exists. Any freak weather can now be blamed on poor science and win votes for politicians doing the job of a scientist. You only have to quote the use of the Kyoto protocol to really see whats happening, the use of 1990 best estimate figures based on 2008 life is a joke! We do not understand IF climate change exists, IF its man made or IF its mearly a natural thing. We are being told Al Gore knows the answers when clearly a simple Google search would tell you different.

Answer 2

There are those (very few) that believe that it is just part of the globe's cycle. In the past the planet has had some hot and cold extremes. Scientists have found that other planet temperatures in our solar system are also heating up and attribute it to just another planetary cycle.

This may have been true in the past, and yes there are planetary cycles (the ice age). But so far evidence has shown through atmospheric gas testing that the percentage of green house gases are increasing exponentially and will eventually reach the point of ending life on this planet. Is this our fault? Most likely. Our throw away anything and deal with it later mentality has brought us to this juncture. We do have the ability and resources to undo our wrongs, but we need will power and dedication from EVERYONE. The biggest threat to our planet is not wars or bombs but our environment. If we approach the environment crisis politically and emotionally as we do a war (because that's what it really is) we have a chance to turn the planet around, but until everyone feels threatened (at that point it may be too late) the environment will continue to deteriorate.

Although controversy has raged about the topic of global warming for decades, it has become increasingly clear that global warming is real, and it is not in any sense junk science. The glaciers are melting. Very few scientists would dismiss the idea that global warming is a reality. The evidence is too abundant.

A:Still if the evidence is all that abundant, why did global warming only start when Ronald Reagan was elected? Jimmy Carter is a big global warming guy. So why didn't he ever mention global warming when he was President? A:Junk science is a pejorative term used in U.S. political and legal disputes that brands an advocate's claims about scientific data, research, or analyses as spurious. So the question asks whether the science of global warming is spurious. If there is sound research based on sound data, then climate science is not junk science. The most basic data used by climate scientists is the aggregation of average global temperatures. This shows that 2010 had the warmest global average temperature on record, fractionally more than 2005 and 1998, but as the difference is slight, the three years are regarded as the equal hottest. The past decade was the warmest since instrumental measurement began in 1850, and the ten warmest years since 1850 have now all occurred since 1998. So, the research is based on sound data. As for whether the research is sound, three independent groups have used varying statistical methods and yet arrived at nearly identical conclusion that the planet's surface, on average, has warmed about 0.75 degree since the beginning of the twentieth century. This should be conclusive evidence that their measurements are accurate and the reseach is sound.

It was not until the 1970s that climate scientists had sufficient information to demonstrate with a high level of confidence that a global warming process was underways, and that it resulted from human activity. As late as 1970, the veteran climate expert Helmut Landsberg thought that the rise of CO2 at the current rate might bring a 2°C temperature rise over the next 400 years. But this pespective soon began to change and during the 1970s, the greenhouse effect became a major topic in many overlapping fields of scientific study. By the 1990s scarcely any expert with a record of contributing to climate science doubted that CO2 and other greenhouse gases were at least partly responsible for the unprecedented warming all around the world since the 1970s.

The presidents of the 1970s, including Jimmy Carter, were simply too early to be able to take the decisive action that we now know is necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change.

A:There is a great deal of evidence that the planet started warming over 10,000 years ago. No science group even debates this issue. The fact is also extremely evident that CO2 follows temperature and does not force the issue. Man certainly had nothing to do with this issue.

If man is contributing to this current cycle is a debatable issue that many political figures (and uniformed people) are pursuing to push agendas like wealth transfer (see Kyoto Protocol).

The science is not exactly junk, just very distorted. Actual science is still working in the issue. You will often see comments like Hurricanes are increasing in size and number. This is a patently false claim that the data does not support. Looking at the data we see that the hurricane cycles are still within the realms of normal. Large storms have decreased. No science group makes the claim of increase either, yet it is often posted as fact. Comments like this are not part of that science though, they are part of a political agenda.

Other issues like the cooling from 1934 until 1979 are part of this science. It is just ignored by Alarmists. The science understands that this is a factual cycle. If the alarmists wanted to be honest, they would point out that there has only been an increase in warming since 1934 of less then 0.2 degrees. They would also point out that 1850 was a low temperature period that actual science groups call the mini ice age. Warming of 0.6 degrees from a low temperature of an ice age is not unexpected.

In short, the actual science is not junk. The political commentary that you often see about polar bears dieing or Antarctic melting are junk politics, not based in science.

A:Substitute global cooling with global warming and you have what the scientist were saying in the 1970s. Don't take my word for it. Just read News Week Apr.28, 1975. They were worried that people would not take global cooling seriously enough, and the world was heading for disaster. Read it for your self.

Answer 3

Global warming is absolutly real.

A big misconception of global warming is that the earth is just heating up, but in fact global warming is the extreme of warm or cold. The weather is changing in areas where it shouldn't be. For example, our tropical rainforests are suffering in loss of rain which that alone changes the world environment. Also areas like New York should have moderate temperatures, but this year there was an extreme amount of precipitation which inevitably is Global Warming( or Global freezing for that matter) :)

Please try to reduce your carbon footprint. our world is slowly but surly degrading and everyone should make a concious effert to do their part in saving it.

Answer 4

No, global warming is not junk science. There is overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is primarily caused by human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. Numerous studies have shown the impact of rising global temperatures on the environment, including sea level rise and more extreme weather events.