If Disaster Capitalism thrives on creating crises should we suspect "Global Warming"

[synapticdistress]

of being just another manufactured "crisis", like the "War on Terror" is?

[Ben O]

I'd be more suspicious of the complete lack of scientific evidence. Global warming is a faith based belief.

[Bob]

No. This is scientific fact. Forgive the length of this answer, the proof is massive, and mostly in the links.

This is science and what counts is the data.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.�

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.


Other sizes: 100, 200, 300, 450, Full Size (500x573, 36KB)‎
Description

Instrumental temperature record of the last 150 years. This data is the same as the black curve in the figure.

Estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the relative importance of various forcing factors since 1750.

This figure, based on Meehl et al. (2004), shows the ability with which a global climate model (the DOE PCM [1]) is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record and the degree to which the associated temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. The top part of the figure compares a five year average of global temperature measurements (Jones and Moberg 2001) to the Meehl et al. results incorporating the effects of five predetermined forcing factors:greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes (both stratospheric and tropospheric), and volcanic emissions (including natural sulfates). The time history and radiative forcing effectiveness for each of these factors was specified in advance and was not adjusted to specifically match the temperature record.
Also shown are grey bands indicating the 68% and 95% range for natural variability in the five year average of temperature as determined from multiple simulations with different initial conditions. In other words, the bands indicate the estimated size of fluctuations that are expected to result from changes in weather rather than changes in climate. Ideally the model should be able to reconstruct temperature variations to within about the tolerance specified by these bands. Though the model captures the gross features of twentieth century climate change, it remains likely that some of the differences between model and observation reflect the limitations of the model and/or our understanding of the histories of the observed forcing factors.
In the lower portion of the figure are the results of additional simulations in which the model was operated with only one forcing factor at a time. A key conclusion of the Meehl et al. (2004) work is that the model response to all factors combined is approximately equal to the sum of the responses to each of the factors taken individually. They conclude therefore that it is reasonable to discuss how the evolving man-made and natural influences individually impact climate. Meehl et al. attribute most of the 0.52 °C global warming between 1900 and 1994 to a 0.69 °C temperature forcing from greenhouse gases partially offset by a 0.27 °C cooling due to man-made sulfate emissions and with other factors contributing the balance. This contrasts with the warming from 1900 to 1940 for which the model only attributes a net increases of 0.06 °C to the combined effects of greenhouse gases and sulfate emissions. The zeros on both plots are set equal to 1900 temperatures.

	Temperature change relative to 1900
1940	1970	1994
Greenhouse gases	0.10	0.38	0.69
Sulfate emissions	-0.04	-0.19	-0.27
Solar forcing	0.18	0.10	0.21
Volcanic forcing	0.11	-0.04	-0.14
Ozone	-0.06	0.05	0.08
Net	0.19	0.17	0.53
Observed	0.26	0.21	0.52

Note that "Net" reflects the model runs with all factors included and is not identical to simply summing the individual factors.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...ttribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4-wg1-spm.pdf

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...t=412&nid=&id=

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us. The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Good websites for more info:

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"
http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462