Customer Discussions > An Inconvenient Truth forum

Conservative rejection of global warming


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 68 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 26, 2007 1:01:37 AM PST
John says:
Why do most Republicans and people on the far right always reject global warming and anything to do with the environment? Usually it seems most people like this don't care to do any actual research on it and don't even understand the basic facts of it, it's like they just hear someone on Fox (Faux) news say it itsn't happening, and then it's like some kind of religious article of faith. This might not apply to all global warming deniers, so I apologize; no offense was intended.

If you have any idea, feel free to answer regardless of whether you're on the right, left, or neither. Shouldn't a scientific issue threatening all of humanity by everyone's concern?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2007 6:04:44 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 27, 2007 8:27:11 AM PST
Jim Harrigan says:
John, I think that the difficulty comes from the fact that they've spent so much time and money convincing themselves that it isn't true. ExxonMobil spent a tremendous amount funding the research of global warming skeptics. Fifteen years ago we actually did need more research to bring us to a conclusion about the depths of the problem and ramifications that we would be faced with.

Second, science has advanced a great deal in a short span of time. In the 60's we were thinking that the Milankovitch Effect would drive us cooler, and in fact it would had not global warming taken effect. Solar flares and sunspots are a second component that has short term effects adding mystery to the puzzle.

Now that the need for more research has begun to focus on solutions and everyone including ExxonMobil and the President knows the truth there are still a few who can make money skirting Kyoto guidelines. They can quote ten-year old calls for more research that actually have many names of scientists without disclosing the age of the work, much of it done by former tobacco and asbestos attorneys looking for work.

Finally, science doesn't always appear to agree with tradition, and the unfortunate circumstances causes large areas of doubt in the minds where they may be personally affected. For example, people focus on differences between evolution and creation rather than allowing themselves to admit there aren't enough facts on either side to attempt a conclusion. People have a specific problem with too little facts and are limited by their imagination when it comes to what simple statements can mean.

The only way to be clearly convinced is to learn science... Why polar molecules reflect IR (inorganic chemistry). What infrared radiation is, and how it is converted to from other forms of energy (wave theory). How streams of air in the atmosphere shift due to external causes (climatology).

Predictably, there are a growing number of conservatives seeing the light. James Lovelock's book The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity is probably a good example.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2007 9:52:05 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 31, 2007 10:55:42 AM PST
Bugs says:
Jim, good points, but a note about Lovelock's book: he recommends reinvigorating the nuclear power industry to lesson our dependence on fossil fuels. This is tantamount to trading one level of insanity for another.

Lovelock was one of the creators and proponents of ozone depleting CFC's and has never been apologetic about their use or devastation to the environment, yet, he applauded and agreed with "Greens" for demanding a world-wide ban on production and use of CFC's. Funny character he is.

His brilliant and beautiful dissertation on the workings of the Earth's biodynamics, "Healing Gaia: Practical Medicine for the Planet", is second to none and should be required study in Earth sciences for everyone on the planet. Global warming is covered in detail including the sunlight reflecting or absorbing phenomena he calls "Daisy World".

Ironically, this book and a few others of his, has helped the cause of environmental awareness tremendously by advancing the knowledge of how the Earth (Gaia, to him) works and supports life with it's highly regulated, interconnected nutrient and atmospheric cycles and requiring human's to be good "shop stewards" and protectors of Earth's natural energy systems, yet he shakes off the notion that he is an environmentalist, in fact, dismisses environmentalism in general.

In his autobiography "Homage To Gaia", Lovelock gives readers a fascinating, no holds barred look at his personal life and scientific genius, yet downplays the significance of much of his work. His quirky personal background- sometimes, more than one would want to know about him is none-the-less, interesting. Sadly, he took a highly inaccurate and possibly unintended swipe at Rachel Carson's expose' of chemical contamination of the environment in her famous book "Silent Spring". Although he admired her, he felt some of her warnings were miss-guided, ie., he dismisses her claims of pesticide poisoning to all life-forms as merely "habitat destruction". I interpreted this to indicate that he may have a huge guilt complex due to his involvement with dangerous chemicals and would prefer to use a dab of denial for conscience soothing.

Ironically, Carson used Lovelock's supper-sensitive electron capture device (ECD) to detect and show chemical concentrations in the environment of such chemicals as the now U.S. banned pesticide DDT and world-wide banned CFC's. Variations of the ECD are now being used all through science, including astrophysics to determine chemical constituents in far reaching space objects.

Back on Earth, the ECD has proven to be an invaluable tool for detecting and measuring global warming contributing chemicals and to think it all started with the need for a device to detect what was eating the ozone layer!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 9, 2007 12:13:59 PM PST
octopibingo says:
The more people pile on to this latest 'End of the World' scare, the more I am convinced it's baloney.
Now we have people trying to legislate debate on the issue. So much for unbiased views and critical thinking.
So many of these 'scares' have one underlying common thread: A hatred for people and mankind.
Oh, don't think so? Overpopulation, 'decimation' of the rain forest, 'extinct' species, global cooling and now global warming. "This would be a great place if not for people." Ever hear that? Sure. We're just visitors on this Big Blue Marble, and we're destroying it for Halliburton. Pure hatred of people.
There's an underlying cause for that, as well.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 9, 2007 2:16:06 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 9, 2007 2:18:05 PM PST
Alex Green says:
"The more people pile on to this latest 'End of the World' scare, the more I am convinced it's baloney."

I am convinced it's not a baloney because I look at what the majority of scientists say and the data they rely on. It has nothing to do with emotions like "hatred" or "love".

If you look above at this thread, you will notice that people are discussing the scientific evidence, not whether they love or hate the mankind.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 9, 2007 2:44:18 PM PST
And if you liked that... here is some more end of world stuff to chew on.
----------------------

From Reuters:
Rising temperatures will leave millions more people hungry by 2080 and cause critical water shortages in China and Australia, as well as parts of Europe and the United States. ...

By the end of the century, climate change will bring water scarcity to between 1.1 and 3.2 billion people as temperatures rise by 2 to 3 Celsius (3.6 to 4.8 Fahrenheit), a leaked draft of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report said.

The report, due for release in April ... said an additional 200 million to 600 million people across the world would face food shortages in another 70 years, while coastal flooding would hit another 7 million homes.

It was the Australian newspaper The Age that appears to have first obtained the early draft. One of the authors of the draft, Dr. Graeme Pearman, has been cautioning the media that "the projections in the report that comes out this week are based on the assumption that we are slow to respond and that things continue more-or-less as they have in the past." And a Part 3 of the panel's research, "Mitigation of Climate Change," due out in May, is designed to deal with just how such dire outcomes might be avoided - or at least lessened.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 9, 2007 3:18:12 PM PST
Alex Green says:
John: That is changing. Even Bush and his administration praised the latest IPCC report and its findings. They don't have much of a choice because the top U.S. scientists are saying that doing nothing about greenhouse gas emissions will have serious consequences.

The oil ang coal companies though continue to fund lobby organizations that try to manufacture "scientific debate". One look at exxonsecrets.org tells a story. Most "right-wing" organizations, media included, are funded by big oil, so as the old saying goes "look at who will benefit" from this debate.

Many people of course fall for this "debate" simply out of their emotions. They hear "liberal conspiracy" or "hatred for mankind" and they run with it without even checking the facts.

The funny thing is that, apparently, we haven't learnt much from our history. All one has to do is to look back into the "debate" on whether tobacco is harmful for health and see that exact same big tobacco tactics are now employed by the big oil. Even funnier, exact same "scientists" and lobby groups are involved -- take Dr. Singer ("there's no evidence of smoking harming health" scientist) who has suddenly became a "respected climate scientist" who doubts global warming can have devastating consequences.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 5, 2007 4:03:14 PM PDT
bleutz says:
I'm not conservative and I think Global Warming is a lie.

I'll believe it when it stops snowing in Utah. We've surpassed record COLD temperatures where I live, for the past THREE years. There has also been record snowfall.

Besides, I grew up repeating this nonsense to my parents, back when I was in elementary school they told me that I would have to graduate high school in Montana because Nevada and Utah would both be below sea level.

2001 came and gone...and I graduated in Ogden, Utah, in perfectly dry ground.

I was told as a kid Vegas would be underwater by the time I turned 15. Alas, its still above ground, and the casinos are open for business!

That's why I don't believe in global warming.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 5, 2007 5:46:12 PM PDT
Jim Harrigan says:
I was told some fairly ridiculous stuff as a kid too. The difference between this and the other stuff is the number of credible sources.

You probably aren't hearing about the cases that have proven true, such as the ozone hole caused by CFCs in spray bottles. The ozone hole disappeared shortly after CFCs were removed.

It seems there is a big problem in rating the quality of science when science is published. I can actually see why you might be having problems with this.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2007 4:05:43 PM PDT
Did you ever hear of the ice ages? How did they melt? Man made emissions? Its called C-Y-C-L-E-S!! The earth has been doing this for many, many years. It will cycle around again until we even cool again. You believed in global warming before you even saw Gore's film. YOU need to do the research. Again I ask, what about the ice ages, how did they melt?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2007 4:20:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 7, 2007 4:28:08 PM PDT
Corey:

Quote: Did you ever hear of the ice ages? How did they melt? Man made emissions? Its called C-Y-C-L-E-S!!
-----------------------------

While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural -- or even mostly natural -- have two challenges.

First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause.

Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?

The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed, internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions. Where is the skeptic community's model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?

LINK: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm

Is the LINK to the above graph a candidate for explaining today's warming? A naive reading of this cycle indicates we should be experiencing a cooling trend now -- and indeed we were gradually cooling over the length of the pre-industrial Holocene, around .5C averaged over 8,000 years.

Not only is the direction of the change wrong, but compare the speed of those fluctuations to today's changes. Leaving aside the descents into glaciation, which were much more gradual, the sudden (geologically speaking) jumps up in temperature every ~100,000 years represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower what we are currently witnessing.

So could current changes be part of a natural cycle? Well, no natural cause has been identified. There is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. And natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we're now witnessing.

In short: No.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2007 8:42:36 AM PDT
Global warming is happening, the argument is whether man is the sole proximate cause or if we contribute at all. The rise in global temps of d egrees celsius over the last hundred years took place mostly in the first 40 years of that period- does that make sense if humans are the cause. Major indutrialization took place after that period.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2007 9:13:16 AM PDT
William:

Quote: "The rise in global temps of d egrees celsius over the last hundred years took place mostly in the first 40 years of that period- does that make sense if humans are the cause. Major indutrialization took place after that period."
----------------------------

The reliable instrumental record only goes back 150 years in the CRU analysis, 125 in the NASA analysis. This is a simple fact that we are stuck with. 2005 was the warmest year recorded in that period according to NASA, a very close second according to CRU. Because of this limit, it is not enough to say today that these are the warmest years since 150 years ago, rather one should say 'at least':

LINK: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
LINK: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

There is a great deal of scientific data that suggests that we can reasonably believe it is warmer now than at any other time in at least the last 10,000 years.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2007 10:32:39 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 8, 2007 10:35:56 AM PDT
The reason the only people that buy into global warming are lefties is bc what they dont tell you is that the sun has been getting hotter over the past 30 years and that the polar ice caps on mars are melting just like on earth. if you can explain how our greenhouse gases on earth are affecting mars, i'd listen. And the hole reason Al Gore is so commited to this crap is bc this is the only thing people have listened to him on. Oh and one more thing, yes some of our polar caps are melting in some places, but what they dont tell you is that in other places they are expanding greatly. On a side note we do know that the earth has had at least 2 or 3 major ice ages... how did that ice melt? how did humans cause that by burning fossil fuels when we weren't burning fossil fuels.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2007 12:42:47 PM PDT
Daniel:

You've been listening to some bad "Righty" information again, havn't you?

Quote: "The reason the only people that buy into global warming are lefties is bc what they dont tell you is that the sun has been getting hotter over the past 30 years"
----------------------------

It's true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation, so if the temperature is going up or down, the sun is a reasonable place to seek the cause. However, it's not true that the sun has been getting hotter over the past 30 years.

Turns out it's more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. Detectors on the ground are susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere -- after all, one cloud passing overhead can cause a shiver on an otherwise warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the output of the sun -- versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface through clouds, smoke, dust, or pollution -- is by taking readings from space.

This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.

There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century, which coincides with the warming from around 1900 until the 1940s. It's not enough to explain all the warming from those years, but it is responsible for a large portion.

LINK: http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

LINK: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

Quote: "if you can explain how our greenhouse gases on earth are affecting mars, i'd listen."
-------------------------------

Warming on another planet would be an interesting coincidence, but it would not necessarily be driven by the same causes.

The only relevant factor the earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related, that would be the logical place to look. As it happens, the sun is being watched and measured carefully back here on earth, and it is not the primary cause of current climate change.

As for the alleged extraterrestrial warming, there is extremely little evidence of a global climate change on Mars. The only piece I'm aware of is a series of photographs of a single icy region in the southern hemisphere that shows melting over a six year period (about three Martian years).

LINK: http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/CO2_Science_rel/

Here on earth we have direct measurements from all over the globe, widespread glacial retreat, reduction of sea ice, and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere up to the stratosphere. To compare this mountain of data to a few photographs of a single region on another planet strains credulity. And in fact, the relevant scientists believe the observation described above is the result of a regional change caused by Mars' own orbital cycles, like what happened during the earth's glacial cycles.

Turning to the outer reaches of the solar system: in the icy cold and lonely Kuiper Belt was observed a difference in Pluto's atmospheric thickness, inferred from two occultation observations 14 years apart. But a cursory glance at Pluto's orbit and atmosphere reveals how ridiculous it is to draw any conclusions about climate, much less climate change, from observations spanning less than even a single season, let alone enough years to even establish the climate's normal state.

Anyone trying to draw conclusions about what is happening here on earth from all this might as well be from another planet.

Back to Mars for a quick summary:

On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers worldwide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice sheets melting, and stratospheric cooling, all of which leads us to believe the earth is undergoing global warming driven by an enhanced greenhouse effect.

One Mars we have one spot melting, which leads us to believe that ... one spot is melting.

As recently as last week there has been a report about Mars warming.

Quote: LINK: http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/sciencetech/homepage/article_1643955.php
---------------------

Global warming has hit Mars, but the shifting winds and swirling dust that scientists theorize power climate changes there bear no relation to the heat-trapping gases that concern the people of Earth.

Researchers studying images of the Martian surface taken by generations of orbiting spacecraft have found that the planet's most prominent features have darkened and lightened in recent decades, altering the way sunlight reflects from its sandy soils, its rocky heights and its deep craters.

The result, say the scientists, is that average global ground temperatures on Mars have risen by more than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit during the past two decades, while the surface air temperature has risen by a little more than a degree in the same period.

That level of climate change, extended over a century, is well within the ballpark of the 5 degree warming trend on Earth forecast by the International Panel on Climate Change for the end of this century.

The causes of global warming on Mars - still not entirely understood, Fenton said - are not only far different from those on Earth, but so are the temperatures.

According to Fenton and her colleagues, the global average ground temperature on Mars measured by Viking's instruments was about 97 degrees below zero. When Mars Global Surveyor took measurements 22 years later, it had heated to 95 degrees below zero.

Whether warming persists depends on where and how the winds whirl the sands around and change the planet's albedo from bright to dark or back again, Fenton said.

Quote: "Oh and one more thing, yes some of our polar caps are melting in some places, but what they dont tell you is that in other places they are expanding greatly."
---------------------------

I've replied to this argument a few times before.

There are two distinct problems with this argument.

First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.

In the case of this particular region, there is actually very little data about the changes in the ice sheets. The growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet indicated by some evidence is so small, and the evidence itself so uncertain, the sheet may well be shrinking.

But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be current. Some recent results from NASA's GRACE experiment, measuring the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated that on the whole, ice mass is being lost.

LINK: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html

Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees -- say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C -- would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn't melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass.

While on the subject of ice sheets: Greenland is also growing ice in the center, for the same reasons described above. But it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km3 of ice annually, doubled from just a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to changes in the Antarctic -- around three orders of magnitude larger. So in terms of sea-level rise, any potential mitigation due to East Antarctic Ice Sheet growth is wiped out many times over by Greenland's melting.

Quote: "On a side note we do know that the earth has had at least 2 or 3 major ice ages... how did that ice melt? how did humans cause that by burning fossil fuels when we weren't burning fossil fuels."
--------------------------

See my reply to Corey above and follow the LINKS for the answer to this;... (Milankovich cycles).

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2007 8:37:01 PM PDT
To be honest with you i'm not a "righty." in fact i hate the fundies and the "right", about as much i hate the left. you can quote government reports as you want and thats the problem. you prolly are a "lefty" and even though you most honestly scream about a mass cover up from the right, it is your party that you support that is big government. i am a libertarian at best, both the left and the right make me mad. if you fallow the money behind global warming you will find that they only people that actually believe global warming is man made are the exact people who's grant money will run out if they say that it;s not. you haven't made one ounce of difference in my mind with you little nasa quotes and the such. for i do understand that after the end of the cold war that many anti-capitalist, anti-americans joined the eviromental movement. if you people are that concerend about global warming, why are you not going after Chinga, which has passed the USA in greenhouse gas emmissions this year? why, if Al Gore really belives what he is preaching, doesnt he stop producing more "deadly greenhouse gases" than 100 normal Americans produce in their complete lifetime? And then you have the sugarcane in south america that is "safer" than reg gas to that should be the easy way out of this mess...not so fast. do you have any idea of how many trees are cut down to make the fields of sugarcane which basically is taking out trees that are much more effective of scrubbing our atmosphere from Co2 gases. So even if you all did believe into this crap, the people that actually do believe it and preach it dont do a dang thing to change thier lifestyle to make a difference. you still have not made your case in your long response with government quotes and everything else.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 9, 2007 5:31:17 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 9, 2007 6:39:09 AM PDT
Daniel:

It's obvious that climate change is all about your politics and nothing about the actual science.

"Time makes more converts than reason."
- Thomas Paine

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 9, 2007 8:42:44 AM PDT
Bugs says:
Gary K.

That T. Paine quote is precious! And as the devestating effects of human-caused global warming accelerates, that "Time" is drawing closer.

AND:

"If we do not change the direction we are going, we will end up where we are headed". Old Chinese proverb.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 9, 2007 4:52:41 PM PDT
What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?
There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting. Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years. Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions. Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today. And finally........... On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." 30 years ago it was cooling, now it is warming, and your ever so high and mighty IPCC dropped a bombshell in thier most recent report, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level."

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 14, 2007 5:33:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 14, 2007 6:07:59 PM PDT
Jim Harrigan says:
"30 years ago it was cooling, now it is warming, and your ever so high and mighty IPCC dropped a bombshell in thier most recent report"

What happened was this: CO2 levels increased on the part of mankind, thus disrupting the natural cooling events.

Nobody made a mistake here. The cooling trend would be continuing, but since carbon dioxide pollution has been building we are out of the natural cooling trend completely.

So let's summarize this:

1. You (plural) read a media article and take it as the work of all scientists.

2. Next, you (plural) send up an enormous amount of greenhouse gases into the sky that are known pollutants. A case of planetary-scale vandalism for sure.

3. The natural cooling trend is disrupted on account of your (plural) trash.

4. You finish by blaming the scientists even though it was only the pollution you (plural) created that prevented the scientists projections from becoming real. Yet, you (plural) insinuate that climatologists are in error and cannot possibly know.

The entire argument you are making is that there is something wrong with the most professional climatologists in the world. Dude, you are just wrong here. The best climatologists in the world know everything that is going on. Don't think for one moment you can fool anyone that we do not know otherwise. Don't think for one moment that any amount of denial or wishful thinking can change the science of climatology.

Come on now. You (plural) created this mess we're in. Admit it. There is no blaming concerned scientists for your mistake. That was your trash that caused global warming. Be a man and own up to what you (plural) have done.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2007 3:29:11 PM PDT
For decades, Americans and people around the world have been plagued by the theory of global warming. Millions have been convinced that their own actions could bring the end of the human race. Global warming theorists promise massive floods, severe droughts and famine due to the human pollution of the gas CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) (Bender 143). This theory has been taught in public schools as if it were fact; even the American Pentagon is investigating this theory because of its supposed threat to national security (Vasey). Nothing could be farther from the truth. This theory is only a crackpot idea spawned from shortsighted scientists and extreme environmentalists and politicians. The global warming theory falls apart from even the slightest of scrutiny.

The global warming theory basically states an increase in the greenhouse effect due to human factors. The greenhouse effect exists. It is cause predominantly because of two gases, CO2 and water vapor. These gases occur naturally in the atmosphere. CO2 composes about 0.035% of the atmosphere while water vapor varies between 0-4%. These gases have the unusual ability to trap heat radiating from the earth to further warm the earth. This phenomenon is essential. Without it the earth would be 68 degrees Fahrenheit colder. The greenhouse effect allows humans to exist (Bender 2). The global warming theory states that human activity and the burning of fossil fuels increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This would increase the amount of heat trapped by the greenhouse effect and therefore increase the global temperature, which could melt the ice caps and flood the earth or several other possible negative externalities (Bender 143). This theory was first examined by Svante Arrhenius in the 19th century who stated that the planet should warm 5 degrees centigrade for doubling concentration of CO2 (Winter). This theory died until a revival in the 1970's when scientists realized that the earth had warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century. One of these scientists was James Hansen director of NASA institute for space studies, who claimed the temperature increase was caused by a combination of deforestation and burning of coal and other fossil fuels (Winter). Current EPA and NASA statements estimate an increase in global temperature of about 5-6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. However these statements are misguided by inaccurate, inconsistent and shady evidence (Bender 53).

The problems arise when examining their first statement. This being that the earth has warmed 1 degree in the past century. This cannot be considered credible evidence for the following reasons. Taking global temperature measurements over 100 years old is extremely inaccurate. In the 1800's the only temperature reading were on only 30% of the earth, only on land. Also, these reading were subject to local weather patterns and not averaged correctly (Robinson). The only accurate way to measure global temperature is with a satellite, which can measure temperature from all surfaces of the earth. This technology was not developed until 1960 with the launch of TIROS I, the first satellite that could analyze the earth using infrared radiation (Widger 93). According to William Widger "Infrared radiation can be used to measure the temperature of the earths' surface, atmospheric layers and amounts of various gases" (102). Global temperature reading before this time should not be used to accurately portrait the theory. Also, early readings of concentration of CO2 must be disregarded because of their inaccuracy. These reading are taken for ice core samples in the artic. Scientists drill into glaciers to look at air pockets formed over time. They can analyze these pockets of air and calculate them to a period in time to achieve a streaming graph of the concentration of CO2 for the past 150 years. This is an inaccurate way to measure global gas concentrations. This is because the site of the sample is subject to local weather changes and can only represent the concentration of gases at a very particular area, not world wide. Also these pockets of air can not be decisively pinned to the year of their origin, it's all estimation. In addition these measurements were all at artic areas. These artic areas are extremely dry so they lack the water vapor that would be seen at more tropic areas creating a proportionally inaccurate sample. This method is somewhat accurate in establishing local estimations of artic gas concentrations, but in no way can these be used to measure global gas concentrations (Vasey). Accurate measurements of global gas concentrations can only be achieved by satellite infrared radiation (Hubert 33).

Even if one could disregard the inaccuracies presented with the evidence, their own research doesn't correlate to their theory. One would expect that the largest increase in global temperature to correlate with the greatest period of pollution, but this is not the case. Of the 1 degree increase in temperature, the majority of this increase occurred between 1910 and 1935, a period of little CO2 pollution. Approximately 3/4 of the century's CO2 pollution by humans occurred after 1940 (Winter). If the theory was accurate the largest increase would be after WW2 or perhaps during the 1970's, before many clean air initiatives. Since 1940, global temperature has relatively leveled out after a period of cooling. A recent NASA study of satellite imaging concluded that in the past two decades the global temperature has been declining despite increasing human CO2 pollution (Robinson). These are clear inconsistencies in the global warming theory unexplained by theorists.

Although the theory would have you think otherwise, humans play an insignificant role in the pollution of CO2 into the atmosphere. Human activities and industries have estimates of 6 billions tons of CO2 emissions per year and account for 5% of CO2 in the atmosphere. This may seem extreme if you don't consider the following. According to a documentary on England's channel 4, oceans emit 90 billion tons of CO2 and decaying plants pollute another 90 billion tons (Winter). Human activity is rather trivial when compared with other natural factors, such as volcanoes or natural forest fires. In 1980, Mount St. Helen erupted releasing more CO2 at once than all human activity in the last 100 years (Bender 206). Yet the polar ice caps did not melt, nor did we experience drought. There are hundreds of volcanic eruptions like St. Helens a year.

If human involvement isn't the cause for the rise in temperature, than what is? Theorists often present global temperature graph going as far back as 1850, rarely is a graph presented dating before this time period. The reason for this is because between the years 1350-1850, the earth was experiencing what many have referred to as the "Little Ice Age". During this period, much of the Netherlands region was uninhabitable. The entire earth went into a cooling period (Vasey). Using graphs post 1850 shows a moderate upswing in temperature due to the earths natural regression from the ice age, but cleverly disguised as the end of the earth. These natural cycles have occurring for millions of years, periods of ice age and increased heat. Analysis of ice core and tree rings shows such cycles with extremes averages temperatures of up to 110 degrees (Bender 134). Other natural patterns can explain an increase in global temperature. Recent studies of the sun show that it has been more active now than any other time in the past millennium (Robinson). Periods of extreme solar activity appear in cycles called sunspots. A dark circle can be observed on the sun during such cycles, hence the name. The sun spot activity perfectly correlates to the increase in temperature. The increase in CO2 concentration can be easily explained as well. As the temperature of water in lakes and oceans increases, the solubility of water deceases. This means that water becomes less able to dissolve the gas CO2 as the temperature of the water increases. This is why the atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature seem to correlate (Winter).

Assuming that CO2 levels are increasing leading to rising temperatures, what would the world be like in the future? Al Gore, former vice president and aspiring geologist, describes the consequences of global warming in his book, Earth in the Balance, to be so paramount they would rival the Black Death (Winter). This simply isn't the case. One thing that must be understood while considering this scenario is the history of the earth. The earth is estimated at 4.6 billion years old; humans have been a major ecological factor in the earth for about 3,000 years, fractionally human have been a factor for 1.5 millionth of the earth history. The belief that humans could bring about the end of the earth in such a short time period defies logic (Bender 76). At times in the earths' history, it has been hotter and more concentrated with CO2, yet it still exists as an inhabitable place. The earth has natural balance factors that many scientists believe would take place instead of unavoidable doom. Scientists predict the earth would be slightly warmer and greener if CO2 concentration increases. Because of the increase in temperature water would evaporate and precipitate more frequently. Plants and trees would thrive on the increased CO2 levels, warmth and increased water supply. Because of the increase in plant life the CO2 levels would gradually decrease and the cycle would continue (Robinson).

Even though the feeble evidence, theorists still contend that global warming is real. It would seem that these people are generally independently working for the best interest of our environment, but nonetheless a money trail emerges. Research for global warming and human induced climate change is a billion dollar industry (Vasey). If such research firms declare that global warming does not occur then they would bring an end to their own business. Governments would be no longer interested in paying for research if it was known it was a hoax. Since the 1960's funding for the EPA has more than tripled, coincidently all EPA reports show a link from human activities and rising global temperatures (Robinson). Unfortunately in the society we live in, fear sells. Media sources thrive on stories such as global warming despite there place in reality. It wasn't long before politicians got involved and in 1997 delegates from the world met in Kyoto, Japan to resolve this "problem". The Kyoto Protocol was the result of this meeting, a plan to reduce CO2 emissions that several countries have already ratified. The U.S. Senate refused to ratify it because of its tremendous impact on the economy. By some estimates, the curb in energy production mandated by the Kyoto Protocol would have cause the U.S. GDP to fall by $318 billion and would destroy 3.1 million jobs (Winter). The price to fight this phantom crisis is simply impractical.

Of all the problems people face today, none is more benign and harmless than that of global warming. This theory is nothing more than a bold faced lie. Environmentalists and politicians have successfully used their scare tactics to convince the world of their inevitable demise. To find such a wide scale assault on people emotions is heart wrenching. We may not be safe from extremist environmentalists or ramped government agencies, but we can rest assured that the world we live in is a healthy one, one that will be there for our children, perhaps even more vibrant and beautiful than it is today.

Written by : Greg McLaughlin

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2007 3:29:44 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Apr 16, 2007 3:45:32 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2007 5:25:33 PM PDT
freyw says:
Too many points to refute at once, but I'll take care of two, at least.

"Although the theory would have you think otherwise, humans play an insignificant role in the pollution of CO2 into the atmosphere. Human activities and industries have estimates of 6 billions tons of CO2 emissions per year and account for 5% of CO2 in the atmosphere. This may seem extreme if you don't consider the following. According to a documentary on England's channel 4, oceans emit 90 billion tons of CO2 and decaying plants pollute another 90 billion tons (Winter)."

True, and that would be a good point if not for one thing: the Earth absorbs carbon dioxide as well. Growing plants, soil organisms, plankton, oceans, etc. all absorb carbon, in fact they absorb more CO2 than is emitted by nature. But if you add industrial CO2 on top of that, then it becomes too much. The extra goes into the atmosphere, where it builds up. And we know from isotopic studies that the vast majority of the build up is from human sources (burning of fossil fuels).

"Human activity is rather trivial when compared with other natural factors, such as volcanoes or natural forest fires. In 1980, Mount St. Helen erupted releasing more CO2 at once than all human activity in the last 100 years (Bender 206). Yet the polar ice caps did not melt, nor did we experience drought. There are hundreds of volcanic eruptions like St. Helens a year."

I don't know where you learned this (oh, Bender 206, sorry), but it's not true. Volcanoes emit CO2, but the total worldwide amount of volcanic CO2 in a typical year is 1/100 of the total worldwide industrial CO2 emitted in a typical year. Mt. St. Helens was big for one volcano, but the amount of CO2 it pumped out was miniscule (<0.25%) compared to industrial emissions.

OK, one more.

"By some estimates, the curb in energy production mandated by the Kyoto Protocol would have cause the U.S. GDP to fall by $318 billion"

That is a lot in dollar terms, but that is equivalent to less than 2% of the national GDP. Still a lot, but not so much when you remember that the economy grew by over 3% in 2006 alone. And what, pray tell, would be the cost of doing nothing? A lot more.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2007 5:48:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 16, 2007 6:11:37 PM PDT
Quote: "By some estimates, the curb in energy production mandated by the Kyoto Protocol would have cause the U.S. GDP to fall by $318 billion"

That is a lot in dollar terms, but that is equivalent to less than 2% of the national GDP. Still a lot, but not so much when you remember that the economy grew by over 3% in 2006 alone. And what, pray tell, would be the cost of doing nothing? A lot more.
-------------------------

I'm always somewhat amused by this argument. We will most likely spend a trillion or more dollars on a war in the Middle East that we are getting far less return on.

Surprise, most of the American economy doesn't miss a beat while we're loading the guns.

Oh, and mid century cooling from airborne pollutants is often referred to as "Global Dimming", and Real Climate has a couple of articles on it:

LINK: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105
LINK: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=110

One emerging concern is that as the pollution causing this effect is gradually cleaned up, we may see even greater greenhouse gas warming.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2007 6:43:53 PM PDT
Gary, I have researched your realclimate.com organization, its owned by Fenton Communications. Which if you like to see more I would embarge you to visit http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001123ipccfactsorg_has_it.html

It is a very intersting article about spinning scientific opinion. Secondly, about Fenton, would you please read over http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6958 and let me know what you think. Although my friend I am assuming that you are not a die hard liberal or conservative, that link is a "righty" link. (I am merly forseeing your next post lol.) Turns out Fenton has had much to do with moveon.org, which anyone other than a far lefty knows is a far left group. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenton_Communications or http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pubs/fear_profiteers.pdf. On the side note of the wars in the middle east, I do not support the war in Iraq and I believe it to be a mistake since Iran has now become a bigger issue. You will find me in the Libertarian group.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  26
Total posts:  68
Initial post:  Jan 26, 2007
Latest post:  Sep 25, 2010

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions