Is Global warming a myth? Arguments for both sides:
Global warming%26#039;s a myth: Temperature have fluctuated like this in the past and it has always turned out ok.
Global warming%26#039;s real: CO2 emission have been linked to increases in temperature.
Just wanting to see how many people can think of an intelligent argument. An opinion supported with facts will win best answer.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

There%26#039;s a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

%26quot;There%26#039;s a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can%26#039;t find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away.%26quot;

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

By the way, when temperatures fluctuated a lot in the past, nomadic people folded their tents and went somewhere else. That%26#039;s not really possible today. People fleeing from global warming will be a big expense in rich countries, and the cause of wars in poor ones. Which is why the IPCC and Gore got the %26quot;Peace%26quot; Prize.

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...
http://www.realclimate.org
%26quot;climate science from climate scientists%26quot;
http://environment.newscientist.com/chan... 40% 2 Votes

We know it%26#039;s warming, and we%26#039;ve measured how much:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science...

Scientists have a good idea how the Sun and the Earth%26#039;s natural cycles and volcanoes and all those natural effects change the global climate, so they%26#039;ve gone back and checked to see if they could be responsible for the current global warming. What they found is:

Over the past 30 years, all solar effects on the global climate have been in the direction of (slight) cooling, not warming. This is during a very rapid period of global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/62902...
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

So the Sun certainly isn%26#039;t a large factor in the current warming. They%26#039;ve also looked at natural cycles, and found that we should be in the middle of a cooling period right now.

%26quot;An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that %26#039;Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.%26#039;%26quot;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitc...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

So it%26#039;s definitely not the Earth%26#039;s natural cycles. They looked at volcanoes, and found that

a) volcanoes cause more global cooling than warming, because the particles they emit block sunlight

b) humans emit over 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes annually

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man....

So it%26#039;s certainly not due to volcanoes. Then they looked at human greenhouse gas emissions. We know how much atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased over the past 50 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna...

And we know from isotope ratios that this increase is due entirely to human emissions from burning fossil fuels. We know how much of a greenhouse effect these gases like carbon dioxide have, and the increase we%26#039;ve seen is enough to have caused almost all of the warming we%26#039;ve seen over the past 30 years (about 80-90%). You can see a model of the various factors over the past century here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clima...

This is enough evidence to convince almost all climate scientists that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming. 20% 1 Vote 0% 0 Votes
http://blog.acton.org/archives/1992-Glob...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...
http://www.lifestyleextra.com/ShowStory....
etc, etc, etc. This is enough to keep people busy for a while.

What seals the deal for me is the way the sides address the issue. The AGW fanatics call people names, refuse to debate in public, rely on %26quot;consensus%26quot; as scientific evidence, speak in absolutes, fire scientist for speaking out, lie about their studies, hide the details of their studies, refuse to admit once they are caught lying in their studies, ignore any differing evidence, and use Al Gore%26#039;s movie as %26quot;evidence%26quot;.

The AGW %26quot;skeptics%26quot; welcome open debate, present their studies for peer review, do not speak in absolutes, use science, not %26quot;consensus%26quot; for evidence, stand up to ridicule by main stream media, have courage to present ideas that could get them fired.

In my life experiences, anyone who acts as the AGW fanatics do are hiding something or out right lying. 0% 0 Votes

Global warming is true, man-made global warming is a theory at best.

When it comes to man-made GW, it is neither myth or fact, it is a theory. It is not a fact because it is not 100% proven, it is not a myth because it is not 100% proven that it is not true. The supporters on this site post the same sites [Realclimate.org, ipcc.org or com, wiki (this site should never be posted, it has no validity because the public writes the information onto the site), and NASA (it is clear which side Hansen is on)].

All of the supporters on this site make claims that any evidence disproving AGW is false without any real scientific support. They just post what the above stated sites claim. Most of these supporters claim to be scientists, yet they do not discuss the information at hand with any kind of scientific vocabulary. (At this point they will post %26quot;we state the material in these terms so the general public can understand.......blah blah blah) Posting wikipedia and realclimate.org are 2 sites that have been discredited (wiki because the public owns it and realclimate.org because the scientists on realclimate.org are geologists and according to the zealots on these boards, Don Easterbrook is not qualified to discuss global warming because he is a geologist. In fact, most of the people who run that site are climate scientists by training. Which means they have no formal education about sciences).

The alarmists have a powerful enemy to fight against, that enemy is time. Time will tell whether they are telling the truth or not. Most climate scientists think we are heading into a cooling period for the next 30 years. So they have to fight against time which will most likely disprove their claims. I say most likely because the theories supporting or denying global warming can be proven false at any moment. Mainly because neither of them are a fact. 20% 1 Vote

It is not a myth because it is happening. Yes it is a %26quot;natural%26quot; cycle, but CO2 emissions and other pollutants have been increasing the rate the temps rise. 0% 0 Votes

The two areas where the public displays it%26#039;s utter contempt for science is global warming and evolution. Evolution is far more of a pat case than GW, yet about 50% of Americans don%26#039;t believe it. AGW has become a pretty pat case even though all the details are not worked out, and even China has vowed to cut 20% of it%26#039;s CO2 by 2010.