Global warming misconception? a colleague of mine and I were discussing about global warming this and global warming that, and we came to a section of it, we know that there was an ice age not too long ago, up by the greenland area somewhere there, and nobody survived. We wondered if this %26quot;global warming%26quot; effect is something on earth that is coming back to normal. For example, since there was this ice age some time back, how do we know that we are now returning back to normal temps as the earth should run, and not then? people believe that the temps. back in the day were the temps that we need for it to be in. What if this temp rise over the years isn%26#039;t simply the earth returning to normal temps before the ice age, a thaw effect if you will in a very slow state of time?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_...

2. it really is warmer than it was. if you look at the graph, it%26#039;s really obvious that something is drastically different than has happened before.

3. it really doesn%26#039;t make any difference, that in the last few million years, it%26#039;s been warmer and colder than it is today. today, something like 7% of all the humans who have ever lived on this earth, are alive, wanting to eat, have clothes, have a house, etc. accommodating this unprecedented population explosion is difficult, to say the least.

when we get weather disruptions, we get things like Darfur, where 200,000 are now dead, because global warming caused drought, and drove them from their traditional lands.

btw, when you come up with a new idea, you might check it against these lists. it%26#039;s probably already been thought of, and disproved. http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2...
http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 25% 1 Vote 0% 0 Votes

Until we messed things up.

%26quot;If the Earth came with an operating manual, the chapter on climate might begin with a caveat that the system has been adjusted at the factory for optimum comfort, so don%26#039;t touch the dials.%26quot; 0% 0 Votes
http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-fin...

Nothing else seems to be happening faster (usually slower) than projected (except CO2 emissions).

Everything else frflyer mentions is irrelevant to the actual science. 25% 1 Vote

%26quot;The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact.%26quot;

%26quot;One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term %26quot;consensus%26quot; in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists.%26quot;

%26quot;So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly %26quot;prominent scientists%26quot; who supposedly %26quot;recently voiced significant objections
to major aspects of the so-called %26#039;consensus%26#039; on man-made global warming.%26quot;

%26quot;As it turned out, the list is both padded and
laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren%26#039;t climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus.%26quot;

%26quot;But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does %26quot;think global warming is real%26quot;). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical
oceanography in the Greenland Sea.%26quot;

%26quot;What matters is scientific findings -- data, not
opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed
scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant.%26quot;

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm


http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...
Great site showing overwhelming support for IPCC findings.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparin...
Comparison of IPCC projections and actual observations.

http://www.logicalscience.com/climate_ch...

A handful of %26quot;contrarian%26quot; scientists and public figures who are not scientists have challenged mainstream climatologists%26#039; conclusions that the warming of the last few decades has been extraordinary and that at least part of this warming has been anthropogenically induced. What must be emphasized here is that, despite the length of this section, there are truly only a handful of climatologist contrarians relative to the
number of mainstream climatologists out there.%26quot;

%26quot;There%26#039;s a better scientific consensus on this (climate change) than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton%26#039;s second law of dynamics%26quot;.
Dr. James Baker - NOAA http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...
Debunking of Wall St Journal claim in article

http://www.logicalscience.com/

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.a...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwar...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparin... 0% 0 Votes