Climate Change global warming graph

Published on April 23rd, 2009 | by ziggy

66

Scientific Proof of Global Warming

global warming graph

Despite any confusion that you might be facing, the facts on global warming are not up for debate.

–> Highly recommended: What is Causing Global Warming?

It is true that there are some natural causes of global warming. However, there is no doubt amongst the world’s leading experts that the current dangerous warming trend is primarily caused by humans.

Update (2012): This article was written a couple years ago. The links above and below contain some recommended updates on this matter (also check our sidebar and on new articles for more climate science stories):

  1. What is Causing Global Warming? Human versus Natural Causes
  2. 119 One-Liners to Respond to Climate Science Myths
  3. Humans Cause Global Warming: 10 Indicators
  4. 255 Leading Scientists, 11 Nobel Laureates Write Letter Supporting Climate Scientists & Climate Science
  5. 17 Nobel Laureates Call for “fundamental transformation and innovation in all spheres and at all scales in order to stop and reverse global environmental change”
  6. Yes, Climategate was Science Denier B.S.

Proof From the Experts

Human activities are most likely causing global warming according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. The results of this report are significant since the IPCC is the leading group of scientist that evaluate climate change-related research.

There’s no reason for you to doubt the scientists. There are some people who will attempt to confuse you by claiming that the idea that humans cause climate change is “just a theory” and therefore shouldn’t be taken seriously. But this is a dangerous misrepresentation of how scientists use the word ‘theory’.

The evidence is overwhelming in its support of the theory that humans cause climate change. The most important piece of evidence for you to understand is the direct correlation between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and global average temperatures. As carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased, so has the average temperature on Earth. In fact, many of the activities you do every day contribute to this problem.

You need to understand the basics of scientific theories

You’re probably used to using the word ‘theory’ to indicate that you are uncertain about something. When scientists use the word ‘theory’, they mean it in a different way than you are probably used to using it in casual conversation.

Scientific theories are like facts. Scientific theories are well-tested and generally believed to be true by the scientific community. You don’t doubt the scientific ‘theory’ of gravity because the evidence so overwhelmingly supports it, and popular culture has come to accept it as a fact. However, scientists wouldn’t consider gravity’s existence a fact because they always leave open the possibility that new evidence will lead to a new theory.

Global warming is as accepted as gravity in the sense that human-caused global warming has been researched extensively and almost all scientists believe it is happening.

Are Catastrophic Effects Around the Corner?

There are many dangerous effects from global warming that have the potential to cause the extinction of humanity. Fortunately, there is still time to reduce these effects, but you must take action.

You should start by making sure that everyone has access to good information. That is why it is critically important that you learn to share this proof before it’s too late.

Related Articles:

  1. How Do Humans Cause Global Warming
  2. How to Prevent Global Warming with Straw Bale Construction
  3. Decrease Your Carbon Footprint Living in a Tiny House

Image Credit: AttributionShare Alike Some rights reserved by mattlemmon

 




Tags: , , , , , , ,


About the Author

I'm a 26-year-old currently living at Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage in northeast Missouri, an intentional community devoted to sustainable living and culture change. Things you might find me doing here (other than blogging) are building with natural materials, gardening, beekeeping, making cheese, candlemaking, and above all else, living simply. You can read about my on-going natural building projects at: http://www.small-scale.net/yearofmud



  • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

    Yes, Bruce, it’s called a straw man.

    You are bringing up one point that is irrelevant to the other to try to act as if the second is not valid.

    If you’re interested, here’s a piece by a physical chemist on the issue: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/12/31/207268/the-physical-chemistry-of-carbon-dioxide-absorption/

    And here’s an actual climate scientists talking about the matter: http://planetsave.com/2011/12/19/radiative-properties-of-greenhouse-gases-video/

  • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

    Bruce, you turned the world of physics on it’s head! You proved something known for over a century wrong! Quick, go and publish your research in a scientific journal and claim your prize!

    Oh,.. nvm. :D

    (Yes, I removed your website link — spamming our site by putting your website in tons of comments is not accepted.)

  • http://Web Ben Gray

    EVERYONE in the world now seems to think he/she has a PHD in climatology! Has there ever before been so many uninformed opinions proclaimed so loudly? Do you tell the mechanic to F. off, he don’t know squat about engines? Do you send the surgeon away I know what I’m bloody doing, here hand me my filleting knife?

    Why does joe average seem to know more about climate change than someone who has been studying it their whole adult life? Yeah sure there are some scientists out there on payrolls with their own agena, but you can’t tar all of them with that same brush.

    Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that a theory is exactly that, a likely explanation given the evidence but not 100% sure because there is no way to be sure. Yet science and technology has always forged ahead regardless of the lack of undisputed truth because all there is to go with is a best guess. Climate change deniers however are 200% certain that it’s all a load of BS and why? because there is absolutely nothing scientific in their thinking.

    PERHAPS my great grandchildren one day might ask me why we did nothing back when we could have, PERHAPS they will peer out from their grass hut at war and famine all around them and feel sick when my answer is “Well darling, we weren’t 100% sure…”

    The key word above is PERHAPS! If we act on climate change and it does in fact turn out to be false, then what’s the worst that could happen? We delay the inevitable depletion of non-renewable energy resources, sweet! We chop down the carbon sequestering plantations and roast some marshmallows! Yeee Haaaw!

    STOP SEEKING OUT THE MOST UNINFORMED OPINIONS ! !

    • http://www.zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      Ben Gray, wonderful points. thanks

      • http://Web Ben Gray

        Thanks Zachary, be careful about statements like “..there is no doubt amongst the world’s leading experts..” because technically that’s untrue. We don’t need to fuel the fire of the vocal ignorant!

        Keep up the good work!

  • http://co2u.info Bruce A. Kershaw

    Mankind is responsible for 1/37th of the CO2 in the Air today, CO2 was Patented to carbonate drinks in 1897, and patented as a refrigerant in 1924, all the O2 we breathe came from CO2, CO2 is the cause of all carbon based life on this planet, the human body is water, 20% carbon, and we breathe Dioxide, the first atmosphere was water vapor and carbon/Dioxide, just like the all carbon based life.CO2 is still a proven Refrigerant for the last 175 years.

    • http://www.zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      @Bruce: yes, all organisms are made of carbon. this is nothing new for climate scientists. must Nature has been absorbing less and less of the carbon in the atmosphere (percentage-wise) due to the overabundance of the substance. carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas — this has been known for over 50 years. meaning that it traps heat on Earth. more CO2 means a lower temp. upper atmosphere and a higher temp. down here where humans live and operate.

  • Pingback: Global Warming News of the Week – Planetsave

  • http://co2u.info Bruce A. Kershaw

    $25,000 Reward for the proof.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      If you could evaluate it, you obviously wouldn’t be offering that.

  • http://www.co2u.info Bruce Kershaw

    All the Lungs on the planet produce more CO2 than all the cars.

    Mankind is resposabal for less than 5% of all the CO2 in the air.

    CO2 was patented as a refrigernt in 1897 after 62 years of study.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Bruce, that doesn’t change any of the science clearly showing that the burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming.

  • Jesse B.

    About Al Gore’s movie… you know the part where he talks about “The correlation between CO2 and temperature change being complicated?” And he doesn’t explain what the complication is? Well, if you look at a graph about it, you can see that when temperature changes, CO2 levels change too. Just about 800 years later! It is obvious that CO2 is NOT causing temperature change! And that just about throws the THEORY of Global Warming out the door.
    See ya!
    greatglobalwarmingswindle.com
    See if you can find this film on garagetv.com
    It is great!

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      haha, you’s going to try to debunk over a century of climate science with that film?! :D

      for a great look at the swindle that is “great global warming swindle,” check this out: 

      woops, this one isn’t cheating!

  • Keith J. Schiller

    I set myself a task.

    What would be the effect of “Global Warming” on the Winter side of the earth. Warming could be expected, logicaly, to expand the atmospheric envelope on the warm side.
    And So…

    On the winter side one could expect to see upper level phenomena aproaching the surface. As the recent east coast storms.
    Any denial?

  • Rob

    “Scientific theories are like facts”
    My theory is that you don’t know what a theory is.

  • dr. wooly nippls

    christian licks dirty butt holes and eats poopy dingle berries off of asians asses

  • kevin

    Through reading this site, it seems to me most people believe there is global warming. The question seems to be if it is man made or not. I have not done much research myself, but seems to me that there may be a political agenda. I will investigate further but I cant see any reason to change technology to help mother earth and retain her beauty.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      here you go, a more recent post since your comment: http://planetsave.com/2011/10/28/yes-global-warming-is-real-and-caused-by-humans/

  • recon

    if you are going to post somthig on the internet that is this exstreem and closed minded do some resarch on your own and agree whit what you copy and paste and post and dont read 2 sentenses and agreee and think this guy is right do some f***ing resarch you tree hugger

  • Brian

    Proof From the Experts
    Human activities are most likely causing global warming

    I am not expressing any opinion on the Global Warming issue, just on your writing…

    “Proof” and in the next sentence “most likely causing”??? You have to see how rediculous that is!!!

  • Enquiring mind

    > Tom said on April 23rd, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    > “There are plenty of reasons to doubt the scientists starting with the simple and absolute fact that they do not have a perfect track record and if anything quite far from it. Scientists were once convinced the earth was flat. They were convinced for some time the Sun revolves around the Earth. They have manipulated data throughout history. …”

    Tom you are obviously confused and/or intentionally spreading falsehoods.

    Scientists were never convinced that the earth was flat; although ancient peoples often assumed that it was. Numerous scientists, philosophers and astronomers were persecuted for promoting the idea that earth is a sphere.

    More recently; scientists, including most notably Galileo, were persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church for publishing his theory that earth revolves around the sun … and not the other way around.

    Although he was persuaded to recant by the RC Church, he re-published his theories in 1632 and was found guilty of heresy, and placed under house arrest under orders from the Pope and died of heart and other disease 10 years later, still under house arrest.

    In short, your statements are not only absurd, but utterly false and in fact diametrically opposite to the truth.

    You are obviously not a scientist. In science, theory has a quite different meaning that compared to the way a police detective uses the word theory.

    In science, accepted theories are as good as facts. They may not be the final and ultimate truth, but they are far from being suspect or false.

    Take for example, the theory of general relativity, which, amongst other things, defines gravity.

    I don’t think there is anyone who doubts gravity exists, even if we don’t (yet) fully understand what it is and how it works.

    There are numerous other “theories” which are accepted canon and are beyond dispute. It just means that we still have more to learn, it does not mean that the accepted theory is possibly false or wrong, just that we still have more to learn.

    In terms of global climate change, there is overwhelming evidence from literally hundreds if not thousands of accredited and reputable research facilities that concur that global climate change is real and it is happening already.

    While these different teams use different methods and techniques and their results and predictions are not always identical, the conclusions are all essentially the same.

    In predicting the future, there is always uncertainty and so it should not be surprising that different researchers reach different conclusions, but rarely if ever do they contradict each other.

    If you look at the whole body of research, there is overwhelming evidence for global warming in general and climate change and climate instability in particular.

    This is why we are seeing an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events (could be hot or cold) including cyclones (hurricanes, typhoons, etc.)

    While it is impossible to link any specific event to global warming (such as Hurricane Katrina), events such as this are exactly what climate change theory predicts.

    ~~

  • Enquiring mind

    > Fred said on August 2nd, 2009 at 10:39 pm

    ‘…I see:
    “Human activities are most likely causing global warming according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.”

    “is primarily” and “most likely” are opposing statements which means:
    We do not know. So, how can any government base sound policy on inconclusive science?
    …’

    How on earth (pun intended) do you come to the conclusion that”

    “is primarily” and “most likely” are opposing statements

    … these are entirely consistent with each other and are not at all opposing statements.

    It is true that there is a lot we still do not know, but the bottom line is that we know far than enough to be sure that mankind is making a profound impact on the global climate.

    This is not to say that natural forces have ceased to act … but what it does mean that mankind’s activities are no longer insignificant on the global climate scene.

    We don’t exactly know what the future climate will be, but we sure it will be generally hotter, more unstable and unpredictable and also we expect to see significant increases in sea level that threaten most coastal and even many inland cities.

    Never mind Tuvalu, many other countries are threatened, including The Netherlands (much of which is already below sea level), Florida, Bangladesh, Manhattan, City of London … the list goes on.

    If these cities, states and countries disappear below the waves, the economic and social costs are utterly unfathomable.

    While it is true that there is no certainty exactly what will happen or how soon, we know the direction we are heading.

    It is true that it was hotter before with much higher CO2, but that was in the early history of this planet when the atmosphere was toxic to life as we know it today. Do we want to re-create a toxic atmosphere?

    The reason that the atmosphere is no longer toxic is that early life forms and microbes consumed the toxic CO2 and other gases and sequestered these gases underground as oil, gas and coal.

    If we continue to liberate these fossil fuels that took literally billions of years to sequester hamlessly undergound, then we are on track to recreate a primordial atmosphere that will destroy life as we know it.

    It is insane to argue about the minutiae of details, the big picture is that we are heading into a period of rapid, man-made, climatic uncertainty.

    It is like building a house of wood in a fire zone or a house on sand dunes by the beach … you cannot “prove” when the fire will strike or when a storm will wash your house into the sea, but you know its going to happen sooner or later … those are the risks.

    Those who demand absolute “proof” are playing with fire. We can’t prove exactly what will happen, but we know more than enough that civilization is at great risk of catastrophic change.

    We also know that there are ways to reduce the risks and to adjust to the inevitable change. Obviously, the sooner we act the better.

    If we wait till every last soul on this planet accepts that climate changes is upon us, it will be too late.

    ~~

  • Enquiring mind

    To “Dr. R B Snyder” … based on your writing, it seems quite doubtful you have an education beyond high-school. Certainly, your own word make it clear that you do NOT have a Ph.D.

    No self-respecting post graduate fellow would write such drivel as “I have a PhD and am a Dr.” … a Ph.D. confers the title “doctor” so it is clear that you are neither.

    Q.E.D.

  • Enquiring mind

    Bill Pulman asked what happened to the “Law of Gravity” this is more accurately called “Newton’s law of universal gravitation” … however that has now been replaced by “Einstein’s general theory of relativity”.

    However, unless you approach the speed of light, Newton’s Law is an excellent approximation. These days, scientists rarely, if ever, call their discoveries “Laws” because they recognize that, sooner or later, someone will come-up with a deeper and more comprehensive understanding.

    That does not mean that Newton was wrong, just that he didn’t fully understand what was later discovered by Einstein. Einstein also understood that while his theory was a great improvement on Newton’s “Law” … it was not the final solution, in fact he spent the rest of his life trying to get to a deeper understanding. Now scientists have string and other theories that reach beyond Einstein’s discoveries.

    And so it goes in science. A theory caries great weight and should not be dismissed as just a whim as some would think.

    With climate change, there are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of scientists who accept that this is real and that it is man-made. These are people who devote their lives to science, not because their is money in it (generally there is not), not because of profits (rarely there is) … and certainly not because they would not have a job if climate change was not happening. They would be doing it regardless.

    However, there are many entrenched interests whose historical profits were as a direct result of exploitation of fossil fuels and environmental damage to the public good. Understandably, these interests are worried about if and how they can adapt to the new reality.

    There will be winners and loosers. Those that insist on continuing to plunder the eath’s limited resources will loose. Those that adapt to sustainable business practices will prosper.

    However, we cannot afford to take any more risks with our planet. If we screw-up, the economy will become irrelevant because the whole eco-system will change more rapidly than it has ever before, and far to fast for plant and animal life as we know it to survive. Do you want to gamble with your children’s and grand-children’s future?

    Yes, we can adapt and evolve, but that is a painfully slow process and the rates of environmental changes that are projected are far faster than natural evolution can cope with.

    We have no choice, we have to change.

    And that is not a theory or law, it is a fact of life … we cannot afford to take any more risks.

    ~~

  • Dilby

    How is it that I can really find no scientific evidnce on AGW? The author of this article sprooks scientfic proof, then his proof is we should just believe “the scientists” he does not even reference which scientists to believe, just says that we should and that it is fact. There are so many simlar articles around, but no real proof. Why is it that the masses are dipped so easily? Or is it just our leaders that are dipped easily, nobody really thinks polliticians have may brains anyway, and then all th other clowns follow? The only proof I have been able to find is the guys that have been manipulating graphs to show what they want people to see. The majority of opinion that I have came across is that there are fluctuations and no science is certain.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      here you go: http://planetsave.com/2011/10/28/yes-global-warming-is-real-and-caused-by-humans/

  • George Postin

    In the last 50 years how many terrible things has been thought up that is going to bring havoc to this nation and the world, that hasn’t happened! Does anyone know how we can retrain these sooth sayers for a job more in line with their IQ’S

  • Bill Pulman

    Hey, what is the theory of gravity? I learned about the law of gravity in science and my teacher told me the difference between scientific theories and laws. I thought it was the law of gravity. What do I know I’m just in 6th grade.

  • Dr. R B Snyder

    I listen to NPR radio. I listen hard for the proponents to present ANY facts. Instead they sound like PR people with sound bites. Never any proof of man’s ownership of the global warming trend. No doubt temp’s are going up. but doesn’t earth respond to all massive changes? has so in the past. granted they took centuries and maybe this time it’s a faster change. but a response will occur. more rain, more snow, something. there will be a response.
    now when the scientists get some facts together and subject them to the scrutiny that we all expect, then and only then is it appropriate to demand action. don’t give me that crap about it may be too late.
    it’s never too late to produce the facts. one of the NPR commentators was a prof at Penn State named Mann. Not one time did he present a fact. only his opinion. that’s not the way to win the argument.

    and finally, I have a PhD and am a Dr. I fully know what a scientific theory is and know it’s not proven. but i have seen no evidence that shows anything but temp’s are rising. so what? wouldn’t it be better for NYC to have Virginia like temperatures? would be for me.

    thanks for reading.

    take home point: need the facts doc’s. just the facts. not the opinions.

  • calco

    FACT: most scientists believe in global warming and they belive it it caused by humans

    FACT: methane in the atmosphere has increased 145% in the last century

    FACT: there are ignorant assbags who try to deny all the proof that global warming is real. they are too lazy to try to change their ways to be a more cleaner generation. they dont care for their children and grandchildren. partly because of the above reasons, partly because they are lonely and
    wont ever get married.

    the ignorant idiots are either stupid or retarded. there is so much proof its impossible to ignore it all. whether u believe it or not, its your desision. and for the people who say g warming isnt real and havent visited any sites: YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY “global warming isnt real because i dont think it is. drrrrRRrrRRRRRrrrRR.” stop being so biased. have any of you visited at LEAST 1 reliable site? have you watvhed 1 reliable movie or read and article? no? then please stop making yourself look like a dumbass. i like good, smart arguments, unlike what i see here. it makes me wonder. if you care at all, i put some good sites

    http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article516033.ece

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming
    /science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html

    QUESTION: do u at least think we should change our ways? suppose g warming isnt real. should we at least stop burning fossil fuels and stop wasting energy?

    oh yea and you can be a christian and still believe in global warming. i am one. :P

  • Jeffy

    “You need to understand
    the basics of scientific theories”
    Just read your article. it’s a shame to talk like you do. Where are the proof?
    How can you pretend a theory is a fact ? you are just a stupid retard.
    Of course scientifics had to doubt about gravity you dumb fuck.
    That’s how quantum physics was born. In QP gravity does not hold and to reach this conclusion, they had to DOUBT THE THEORY.
    you are just a shame to yourself

  • Dee

    I’m a scientist, and I’m not convinced. I need to see the actual data analysis, not what you’re writing here. In fact, I’m disappointed in this site because the above article sounds more like a chain letter, effectively saying, don’t doubt us, and make sure you quash any independent thought by your friends “before it’s too late.”

  • cheri wells

    We just want the facts! Proof! So far not one shred have I seen from any source. When you have actual facts please let me know. 1 degree in ocean water does not make a fact! Temps fluctuate and are normal.
    Of course we should recycle and keep air clean. But I see more products made in the course of so called global warming and not improvement. Stop pollution and government corruption that’s all we ask.

  • Jack Feeney

    I guess I have a comment or a question. What exactly is the theory? It sounds like the theory states that with more carbon dioxide in the air the warmer the temperature becomes. Ok, if that is true then why did the temperature drop last year. I find it hard to believe that we have put less carbons in the air especially since population continues to increase. I don’t want to be ignorant but the facts of global warming are just not making sense. Is it that the communications are not very good right now? I keep trying to read about it and I just can’t seem to find anything that actually makes sense…scientifically.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      the 13 hottest years on record were in the last 15 years — FACT.

  • ScienceGuy

    Look up the scientific community’s view on the relationship between correlation and causation. The two concepts are not interchangeable. The only instance where correlation=causation is when appropriate controls of other confounding variables are taken into account. When you can find a study that rules out these variables as causes of global warming then I will say you have given me proof of global warming.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      this issue has been studied from many different angles using just about every method in the book. there are now about a dozen clear lines of evidence pointing to the established fact that humans are causing global warming: http://planetsave.com/2011/10/28/yes-global-warming-is-real-and-caused-by-humans/

      • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

        or just read the IPCC’s report

  • Fred

    On this page I see:

    “It is true that there are some natural causes of global warming. However, there is no doubt amongst the world’s leading experts that the current dangerous warming trend is primarily caused by humans.”

    And then I see:
    “Human activities are most likely causing global warming according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.”

    “is primarily” and “most likely” are opposing statements which means:
    We do not know. So, how can any government base sound policy on inconclusive science?

    In addition, is there any scientific data, not emotional or images, that directly correlates “climate change” to “human activities”? There is none.

    Cimate change always occurs. To blame it on the human race and to ignore nuclear power reeks of politics, i.e., I’d rather worry about nuclear waste that get incinerated by too much solar energy.

  • Robert DeJean

    I am a member of the “choir” that believes that we humans “are” big contributors to global warming and we better stop now or very very soon.

    Problem is, many others don’t want to believe it because they enjoy what they do and are too lazy and selfish to do otherwise, even a the perile to their children and grandchildren.

    I try to convence relatives and friends but they typically say some scientist are not convienced that human activity contributes very much to the globnal warmning problem and that it is a natural situation beyound our control. This is like smokers and alcoholics that are in denial and are hooked.

    Having a list of the percentage of scientist that agree or disagree on the human to global warming debate would help us in the “choir” to back up our claim that humans are causing global warming and need to stop and how soon. I know there are many (30, 50, 75, 99%???)scientist who know the truth is, but a comprhensive list would give us sorely needed ammo to make our case as solid as possible.

    Does this list exist and if not, could one be made?

    Thanks for your work and help, and best of luck to all of us who care and future generations.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      i think since you posted this it has been established that the % is about 97% — debunkings of the remaining 3% are all over this site: 
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/

  • Bill Zimpfer

    This is ridiculous. God’s said in His Word that the world will end when Jesus Christ comes back and not before. I cannot believe that God who made, formed and created man to breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide would want the world to end before its time. If scientist would just corroborate what the Word of God says you wouldn’t have all these ridiculous guesses which is what a “theory” is. I wonder what their theory will be when they stand before the judgment seat of God Almighty. No theories then cause the judgment of God is just

  • alexander cooke

    just look AT VENUS!!!!
    IT’s hotter THEN MERCURY!!

    THE MAIN RASON WHY IT”S SO HOT IS BECAUSE OF IT’s Atmosphere.

    co2 cause global warming

  • Nancy Garling

    Al Gore is right. Have any of you seen the movie “Inconvenient Truth?” Probably not.

  • Rj

    Wow, this is a great example of your typical global warming wacko. No facts, just correlations that mean nothing. Junk science. Also, your description of scientific theory as fact is absurd. The “theory” of gravity as you say, was disproven by Einstein years ago which is why it is just a theory and not law

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Gravity no longer exists, eh? Just a theory

  • Joel H

    Brian, read your own column. You don’t even believe it completely. “Human activities are MOST LIKELY causing global warming.”

    Oh, and great illistration for your article. I am guessing your a college student majoring in advertisemnt.

  • CarlF

    Very humorous post, Brian. You claim to understand science, yet you reach the wrong conclusion. You have been brainwashed.
    It’s too bad the alarmists have resorted to lies and distortions in an attempt to create fear to convince us that people cause climate change. And calling CO2 a pollutant only weakens their credibility.
    Al Gore, when asked if he got rich off the global warming scare, got really indignant and never answered the question. He said he had the right to engage in free enterprise. But he manipulated the market by spreading lies and promoting panic. Now, he sells carbon credits, which are exactly like the churches in the Middle Ages selling pardons and penances. He is an old time snake oil salesman, and had done a great job of self promotion. In the past, he would be tarred and feathered.
    It is not entirely clear to me why alarmists continue to deny the truth, that climate change happens and there isn’t much we can do about it. The alarmists are now the deniers. Do a Google search on Antarctic Ice Melting. Despite the fact that the Antarctic ice pack is growing, not melting, you will find many sites from supposedly reputable organizations that claim that melting is happening, and that it is rapid and increasing.
    The cap and trade plan that Obama is pushing has the potential to destroy our economy. Are you prepared to pay, on average, another $3,100 a year for power? That’s what MIT researchers say it will cost, although they downplay the impact by claiming that only the rich would pay. Obama wants billions for health care, and intends to get it from cap and trade, so it’s not true that all the money will be given back to the consumer.
    In conclusion, I have to agree with Brian Liloia. We need to share the proof before it’s too late.

  • John Levett

    I read through expecting a punchline but I’m forced to conclude that the author is serious.

    Silly boy.

  • Autumn

    I am a student required to do a research paper on global warming. I’ve read hours and hours of information point/counterpoint on this issue. I wanted to share this tiny point I discovered in my research. I found that all the information attempting to “debunk” the global warming propaganda movement had the author’s name and reputation at the top of the page and I researched every individual that wrote an article and most if not all were PHd’s and scientists.. While the proponents of the g.w. movement published articles that were vague at best with regard to the author. If there was a name cited, it was usually written by someone not even associated with the scientific community. All this has led me to believe that, as usual, the motives behind this are money and power…

    I lived in Germany for 10 years and they are all about the planet and recycling and observing a respect for nature and attempt to assimlilate within it. I believe we have an obligation as a species to stop using the planet as an expendible inexhaustable resource for our pleasure, comfort and livelihood and try and be more observant of the right to life for everything – flora and fauna – on the planet that we share.

    It is a shame that the motives of a global awareness that we need to change our ways and become more “green” if you will, is power and greed and the outcome is hysteria.

    Fact is, we do need to be less disposable in all our lives endeavours. Science is a blessing and keeps us from becoming mindless acolytes to whatever dogma is fed to us by the government.

    AND WHO IS THIS GUY ANYWAY… HE DOESN’T EVEN SHOW UP WHEN YOU GOOGLE HIM AS A WRITER/SCIENTIST WHAT?

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      I’m sorry, but what kind of research were you doing? If you’re doing research and you’re getting your info from blogs, you are WAY lost.

      97% of climate scientists conclude that humans are causing global warming. nearly every overarching scientific body in the world agrees:

      Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
      The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that “most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”:
      American Association for the Advancement of ScienceAmerican Astronomical SocietyAmerican Chemical SocietyAmerican Geophysical UnionAmerican Institute of PhysicsAmerican Meteorological SocietyAmerican Physical SocietyAustralian Coral Reef SocietyAustralian Meteorological and Oceanographic SocietyAustralian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIROBritish Antarctic SurveyCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesCanadian Meteorological and Oceanographic SocietyEnvironmental Protection AgencyEuropean Federation of GeologistsEuropean Geosciences UnionEuropean Physical SocietyFederation of American ScientistsFederation of Australian Scientific and Technological SocietiesGeological Society of AmericaGeological Society of AustraliaInternational Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)International Union of Geodesy and GeophysicsNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationRoyal Meteorological SocietyRoyal Society of the UK
      The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
      Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)Royal Society of CanadaChinese Academy of SciencesAcademie des Sciences (France)Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)Indian National Science AcademyAccademia dei Lincei (Italy)Science Council of JapanRussian Academy of SciencesRoyal Society (United Kingdom)National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
      A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
      “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
      The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
      African Academy of SciencesCameroon Academy of SciencesGhana Academy of Arts and SciencesKenya National Academy of SciencesMadagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and SciencesNigerian Academy of Sciencesl’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du SénégalUganda National Academy of SciencesAcademy of Science of South AfricaTanzania Academy of SciencesZimbabwe Academy of SciencesZambia Academy of SciencesSudan Academy of Sciences
      Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
      Royal Society of New ZealandPolish Academy of Sciences
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm 

      • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

        sorry, that didn’t come through very well — check it out here:  http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

  • YourMisInformed

    There is no direct correlation between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and global average temps. there is no empirical eveidence point to any correlation to carbon dioxide and global warming there is no historical climate data to support it. Only recent data is even available and humanity has nothing on volcanoes and biological piles of decomposing matter on earth and by far an away the problem would be methane but no one want to forgo beef and pigs.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      there are about a dozen lines of evidence, PLENTY of empirical evidence, saying you are wrong: http://planetsave.com/2011/10/28/yes-global-warming-is-real-and-caused-by-humans/

  • realist

    There is no science in that article. The author says there is proof, then offers NO PROOF.

    In fact there is no proven link between CO2 and global warming, none. If there is, please show it.

  • Tom

    There are plenty of reasons to doubt the scientists starting with the simple and absolute fact that they do not have a perfect track record and if anything quite far from it. Scientists were once convinced the earth was flat. They were convinced for some time the Sun revolves around the Earth. They have manipulated data throughout history. There is no reason whatsoever for me to consider them as somehow being better than the rest of us and incapable of being corrupted or manipulative or just plain wrong. I not only have to continue to doubt them but I also have to continue to consider them human beings like the rest of us – no better and no worse.

    Trying to portray theories as “like facts” is just beyond the pale. A theory is a really good starting point for trying to determine facts. A theory is an idea and facts are what we are left with if and when the theory is tested and if right proven to be true. Theories and facts are clearly two different things. In terms of gullible warming the theory just as clearly has not be proven to be true. Theories are not proven to be true by taking a poll. Consensus is not good science – it is a poll. You don’t get facts that way – you get opinions.

    You cannot mix 1% falsehood with 99% truth and still have the truth. You have a lie at that point whether you like it or not. Gullible warming simply has too high a percentage of lie to be considered absolute truth as you propose.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      http://planetsave.com/2011/10/28/yes-global-warming-is-real-and-caused-by-humans/

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm 

      http://planetsave.com/2011/10/06/global-warming-videos/

      look into it, 97% of climate scientists conclude humans are causing global warming based on the obvious evidence, as well as these scientific bodies:

      Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
      The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that “most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”:
      American Association for the Advancement of ScienceAmerican Astronomical SocietyAmerican Chemical SocietyAmerican Geophysical UnionAmerican Institute of PhysicsAmerican Meteorological SocietyAmerican Physical SocietyAustralian Coral Reef SocietyAustralian Meteorological and Oceanographic SocietyAustralian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIROBritish Antarctic SurveyCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesCanadian Meteorological and Oceanographic SocietyEnvironmental Protection AgencyEuropean Federation of GeologistsEuropean Geosciences UnionEuropean Physical SocietyFederation of American ScientistsFederation of Australian Scientific and Technological SocietiesGeological Society of AmericaGeological Society of AustraliaInternational Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)International Union of Geodesy and GeophysicsNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationRoyal Meteorological SocietyRoyal Society of the UK
      The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
      Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)Royal Society of CanadaChinese Academy of SciencesAcademie des Sciences (France)Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)Indian National Science AcademyAccademia dei Lincei (Italy)Science Council of JapanRussian Academy of SciencesRoyal Society (United Kingdom)National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
      A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
      “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
      The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
      African Academy of SciencesCameroon Academy of SciencesGhana Academy of Arts and SciencesKenya National Academy of SciencesMadagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and SciencesNigerian Academy of Sciencesl’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du SénégalUganda National Academy of SciencesAcademy of Science of South AfricaTanzania Academy of SciencesZimbabwe Academy of SciencesZambia Academy of SciencesSudan Academy of Sciences
      Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
      Royal Society of New ZealandPolish Academy of Sciences

  • tehdude

    Einstein did indeed question the theory of gravity, against the overwhelming consensus of his day. He won.

    Then Hawking questioned the theory of gravity, against the overwhelming consensus of his day…

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      And does gravity not exist now?

  • http://planetsave.com/blog/2009/04/23/scientific-proof-of-global-warming/ AntonioSosa

    More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3562/218/

    Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…” http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

    “Progressive” (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the United Nations and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes and increase the cost of energy, which will limit development, destroy our economy and enslave us.

    If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers (Gore and Obama’s Wall Street friends), increase the power of the United Nations and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.

Back to Top ↑