Scientific American, in May of 1997, cited that climatologists strongly favor the statement that global temperatures have increased on the average of about a half a degree Celsius in the last century, according to the article "The Coming Climate" by Thomas R. Karl, Neville Nicholls, and Jonathan Gregory. This research paper illustrates that the changes in the Earth's natural climate controller, the greenhouse gases, will have an effect on many aspects of daily living such as:
- Intense heat waves
- Change in rainfall, either decreased or increased
- The inconvenience to everyday activities as a result of a planet getting warmer.
Unfortunately these kinds of statements cause the alarmists to over exaggerate what this increase in global warming actually means and this is pointed out in an anti-global warming research paper. Another confusing factor is that for as many scientific journals stating the inescapable consequences of global warming, there are the same number stating that evidence is either inconclusive or inadequate to support any consternating claims.
For instance, to go back to the origin of the global warming ringleader, scientist James Hansen has since conceded that the observed climate changes in the past century have been too insignificant to arouse the interest of anyone. He also states that the Earth is getting greener from increased carbon dioxide, not hotter (Michaels, see bibliography for citation). What then do these declarations mean for the debate on global warming? When scientists change their opinions back and forth as to the credibility of a scientific claim, the result can be nothing short of a hot debate, exactly what has taken place with issues on global warming. This takes the credibility of science intelligence away for aiding in the debate.
Examples of reports that are supposedly scientifically based have surfaced across the nation and the world and unfortunately are not always accurately informed. For instance, a lobbying group from New Hampshire, Physicians for Social Responsibility, published a report recently on global warming that was overflowing with inaccuracies and exaggerations. Their proof of scientific data was taken from various other organizations and governmental lobbyist group's web pages. How factual can these statistics be considering they are coming from groups with their own agenda on global warming? Reports such as these are taken by the general public to be scientifically correct because they appear to speak with some form of authority (World Climate Report, see bibliography for citation). Once again, it is groups of individuals that want to use the topic of global warming prevention as a tool for their own personal gain that gives science a bad reputation on unraveling the debate over global warming.