Global warming has quickly become one of the most heated issues in America (pun intended). Rising temperatures and melting icebergs are indisputable evidence that the Earth is warming, but is this global heat wave a man-made crisis or just overblown hype?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Well, the overwhelming concensus of scientists say that the earth is getting warmer. It's obviously a crisis, and it seems pretty likely that humans are at the root of it, but I don't think that the scientific community is so unanimous on what's causing global warming, but rather just that it's happening and that it is quite menacing. It's irresponsible to ignore it, whether it is the fault of humanity or not.
- Professor Chris July 11, 2008 5:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
If the overwhelming consensus of scientists is that the earth in warming, then they haven't been reading the temperatures for the past 10 years. In any case, science is not made by consensus; it is made by research. Computer models do not constitute research. And to pick one item, carbon dioxide, out of all the multitude of factors that make up climate and claim that it alone determines everything else would be laughable if there were not so much political control and money at stake.
- Granny A
December 8, 2008 10:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
Either way--the Arctic's are melting, climate is changing, people and animals are suffering and worse. What do we do? Do nothing but argue over the cause or get off our rears and do something?
- Coo July 24, 2009 10:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Despite the inane attacks below on consensus, the fact is that the most recent IPCC report says there is a 95% or better chance that the warming that's been observed is caused.
See this summary of the report posted at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change #IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report:_Climate_Change_2007
I agree, we need to do something about it. If people would stop just looking for semantic arguments and start looking at the solutions, they might realize that transitioning to clean energy economy would almost certainly create millions of domestic jobs, reduce costs for families and businesses, and reduce harmful pollution that causes disease and distress while also driving up health care costs,
- ReEnergize Texas April 30, 2009 3:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Science has nothing to do with consensus, and everything to do with cold, hard reproducible observations.For any claim to be scientific, then its promoters have to be prepared to finish the following sentence:
"I'll admit I'm wrong if I observe..."
GW proponents have never offered up such a test of falsifiability AFAIK.
If you dispute this then I challenge you to state what real world observation(s) would falsify the theory of catastrophic human-induced climate change.
Also see my youtube vid "unscientific" (username stevewrathall)
- Steve Wrathall July 24, 2008 3:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(8)
Side: No
For something to be science, it must be testable based on naturally observable phenomena. If you deviate from that and say, "We can't test our theory, or else all hell will break lose," then you've left the realm of science and have entered the realm of fear mongering.
- F2XL November 14, 2008 9:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
I would agree if the matter of GW is just a matter of scientists which does not concern human life. In such case, being able to falsify is the test.
But in this case? Can our species rely on good scientific rules when it comes to ensuring a future for our children?
Jumping from a skyscraper must be regarded as dangerous. This statement may be easily falsified by someone jumping from a building and surviving.
So, let's give it a try: Take a jump from the top of a high building, and somewhere at the tenth floor you can clearly say: "I falsified it. There is no danger at all."
I am not quite sure if you would be able to finish the sentence. But the falsification would be correct, would be good science.
Don't laugh, this is what humans are currently doing in regards to Global Warming.
When it comes to urgent decision making with an uncertain knowledge base, you have to make assumptions. The assumption "We can change it" should be preferred over "This is not our business" in such a situation.
- Future doesn't happen. It's made. -
- Oliver January 29, 2009 2:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You can't reduce the entire debate which hinges on thousands of pages of scientific documentation to your inability to complete a sentence. Climate scientists have to make numerous falsifiable hypotheses, test those hypotheses, and draw conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence.
The fact that 95% or more of scientific inquiries which asked is climate change happening as a result of human produced CO2 have come back saying yes demonstrates that it's almost certainly happening.
I'll admit I'm wrong if global average temperature trend downward over the study period.
I'll admit I'm wrong if historic periods of warming and cooling fail to align with historic periods of high and low CO2 concentrations (respectively).
See, it's not so hard.
- ReEnergize Texas April 30, 2009 3:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
How does this author explain the scientists who resigned from the IPCC because of the way the final report was polilticized?
See this: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html , for instance.
- Highlander September 10, 2008 8:13AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Not since the flat earth or the steady state universe or the coming ice age, has so little real proof existed, to cause any sort of real consensus. This whole issue is over opinion, and it is opinion alone in which they stand. There are no facts or proof that humans are the cause of anything, or that the warming trend is anything but normal and natural, and likely beneficial.
Quite frankly the typical climate trend and geologic record is that we are in the cusp of a new ice age, and most of the Global Warming Inc. has come out to say that any global warming will likely cause a new ice age, so they can be right, no matter the outcome. I hate to say it about my contemporary scientists, but Global Warming is a short cut to funding, and a job to way too many searching for a way to support themselves. To scientists not involved in the funding chain it is over inflated. If humans could exercise control (or impact) over the weather, then we would have long ago been doing climate modification, so popular in the old science fiction novels. The fact is that we cannot do either. The amount of energy involved is well beyond the capacity for humans to muster in the total combined output of all human activities.
The humor of all the hype for the CO2 goes in the face that this planet used to be quite CO2 rich. Were the greenhouse gas myth be true, this planet would never have cooled down, and could never have scrubbed its CO2 levels to the trace that they are. This planet cooled long before the CO2 was no longer a major component of the atmosphere. Water, H2O is by far the strongest greenhouse gas we have, and is by far the strongest influence on climate. I don't hear of any proposals for covering the oceans to prevent warming. CO2 is a trace gas people. It's quantity is negligible. Even 10 times the amount is negligible. It's a birthday candle in a forest fire. The average geologic temperature for this planet is several degrees lower than it is now.
Ask the simple question of the GW Inc. people as to how much CO2 has to be removed to reduce the temps to whatever level they arbitrarily claim as being normal, and you will find that the numbers are well above the combined human output for the planet. Yes it is backwards from the way they would have you calculate, but it shows how false their "consensus" has wanted you to think about it. We cannot predict a local weather for more than a few days out. What makes you think any climate model is any better at more than a few days much less a few centuries. Traditionally they have predicted the demise of the human race many times over for many decades now, and none of their "predictions" have ever come to pass. I have come to cringe, at every mention of what any "computer model" has ever shown with respect to climate.
Warming is not "obviously" a crisis. Last time not too long ago the planet was much warmer, and the historical record reported it to be a time of plenty. It was the cooling we have undergone since then, that has caused as much misery as any wars. Lets all enjoy the warmth while we have it. The coming ice age as is indicated by the geologic records will surely test humanities ability to survive. Considering how much resources are being siphoned off over global warming when we have real issues such as pollution, that are more real and more pressing, it is enough to drive people to tears. If we would do what is needed for the reduction of pollution, most if not all of the claims for the global warming would be satisfied.
- tomcat2200 September 14, 2008 4:19AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
What does concensus have to do with science? Who ever heard of doing science by concensus? Science is supposed to be about domonstratable, reproducable results. Give me the science, not the concensus.
Concensus is a tool of religon and politics. The fact that the IPCC has to rely on concensus tells me the IPCC is really more about religon or politics than science. I don't care what a scientist believes, I want to know what he can prove, with rigorous scientific demonstrtion.
- thorleym October 16, 2008 1:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
The theory of AGW is supported only by theoretical models that have no basis and can be easily manipulated to show whatever outcome the author desires. Climate is a very complex thing to model.
Here are some important facts.
The warmest year in the 20th century was 1934.
The warmest decade was the 1930s.
Five of the ten warmest years were before 1940 in the 20th century.
Antarctica has 90% of the worlds ice, and in 2008 has the most ice
ever recorded (something the press never mentions)
CO2 is a trace gas, it is less than 4 one hundredths of one percent
of the atmosphere.
CO2 as a percent of the atmosphere has only increased 1/10,000th
since the beginning of industrialization in 1750
1998 was the second warmest year of the 20th century, but it has been
cooler every year since even though CO2 levels continue to increase.
temperatures declined between 1940 and 1975 even thoough CO2 levels
increased.
in 2008 US temperatures, as tracked by the National Climate Data Center
were 0.2 degrees above the 114 year temperature average, there is
no warming.
So what drives the climate, the sun. Its output is not constant. It
caused the warming of the late 20th century and the cooling we now
experience.
See this website for all the answers
www.isthereglobalwarming.com
- geoff January 24, 2009 12:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Warmest Year - 2005
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
Warmest Decade - The last 10 years
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0901-temperatures.html
The press does mention growing ice in Antarctica, as well as shrinking ice in the arctic. Climate scientists who believe human-induced climate change is happening predicted this would happen. It shows that climate change has asymmetric impacts on the planet (overall temperature increases will change the weather, making most places warmer, and some places colder).
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0901-temperatures.html (see comments as well)
- ReEnergize Texas April 30, 2009 3:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
To talk of a global warming crisis when there is no global warming is an oxymoron. Since the middle of the twentieth century there have been only two warming incidents - the super El Nino of 1998 and the twenty-first century high from 2001 to 2007 - and neither was caused by carbon dioxide . The first one really was super - a temperature peak twice as high as a regular El Nino. The twenty-first century high that followed was a period where the temperature stagnated at the El Nino high point. It did not increase as carbon dioxide theory predicted, and eventually came to an end with the arrival of a La Nina cooling period. IPCC model makers do not understand why that warming went away and are going nuts because all their predictions are now coming out wrong. They are coming out wrong because they don't understand what caused of the warming in the first place and are still feeding carbon dioxide into their models. Its cause was temporary injection of warm Indian Ocean water that brought us a supernumerary El Nino in 1998 and the twenty-first century high that followed. But now that it's ended the ENSO system - alternation of warm El Nino and cool La Nina periods - will take over and the carbon dioxide theory of global warming is ready for the ash heap of history. But their models are still churning out GIGO on gigantic supercomputers at Uncle Sam's expense!
- Arno Arrak July 5, 2009 6:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Since the middle of the twentieth century there have been only two warming incidents - the super El Nino of 1998 and the twenty-first century high from 2001 to 2007 - and neither was caused by carbon dioxide ."
This cherry picking ignores the slow and steady warming that occured throughout the 20th Century, as this graph clearly shows:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from :1900/to:2009/plot/gistemp/from:1900/to:2009/trend
"The first one really was super - a temperature peak twice as high as a regular El Nino."
It also had nothing to do with GLOBAL warming, which is long-term. El Nino is a short term and regional event. Please try to learn the difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE, OK?
"It did not increase as carbon dioxide theory predicted, and eventually came to an end with the arrival of a La Nina cooling period."
We certainly did not predict that the Sun's activity would drop after 2005. Did anyone?
"IPCC model makers do not understand why that warming went away and are going nuts because all their predictions are now coming out wrong. They are coming out wrong because they don't understand what caused of the warming in the first place and are still feeding carbon dioxide into their models. Its cause was temporary injection of warm Indian Ocean water that brought us a supernumerary El Nino in 1998 and the twenty-first century high that followed. But now that it's ended the ENSO system - alternation of warm El Nino and cool La Nina periods - will take over and the carbon dioxide theory of global warming is ready for the ash heap of history. But their models are still churning out GIGO on gigantic supercomputers at Uncle Sam's expense!"
That's a lot of assertions and assumptions, but no evidence. And until you completely debunk the heat retaining properties that CO2 has been thought to have with experimenal evidence that any other scientist can understand and duplicate, you will have no evidence!
- Dale Husband July 21, 2009 12:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Dale Husband: You need to read my comment of June 28th (Sorry, but doing voodoo science ...etc) to straighten yourself out about experimental evidence on carbon dioxide . Second, that graph is worthless as proof of anything. Third, you don't know what cherry picking is. I am taking the entire half century, not just delectable fruits from it. Fourth, you should know that El Nino is the warm phase of ENSO and returns every four or five years as it has been doing as long as records have been kept. An exception is the super El Nino of 1998 which does not belong to the oscillating ENSO system. Fifth? Download my PDF from ICECAP. It is an older version lacking some things and wrong on others but it should give you a start. The latest version was too large for them to post.
- Arno Arrak July 21, 2009 9:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
....but calling something "voodoo science " just because you disagree with it is meaningless. You must actually DEBUNK the claims. Global warming denialists ALWAYS emphasize some factor in climate change (such as solar output) while ignoring others. THAT is cherry picking!
Now, I will ask you again: Show me the experimental proof that carbon dioxide has no heat retaining properties that can affect Earth's climate.
- Dale Husband July 22, 2009 12:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
[1] Calling Hansen's claim "voodoo science " is not an opinion. Let's take it from the beginning: (1) He says that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is responsible for causing the warming trend he claims existed at the time (1988). (2) Checking the temperature record put out by NOAA shows that this warming had a definite beginning. (3) Carbon dioxide had been in the air for decades before this warming started. (4) Hansen's claim is equivalent to stating that carbon dioxide which up to that point had not caused any warming whatsoever suddenly changes its behavior and decides that 1977 is a good year to start warming up the world. There is no law of physics that will permit a gas to behave this way, and that is why I call it voodoo science. Someone else like you might want to call it global warming science, but that's OK with me - it is a distinction without a difference.
[2] There is a distinction between the physical properties of carbon dioxide and whether it actually does anything in the atmosphere. All gases have "heat retaining properties," usually expressed by enthalpy or heat capacity. What you should have asked is whether carbon dioxide can act as a greenhouse gas, because that is the issue. The answer to it is yes, we know it is capable of it. My point is that this capability is not expressed to any measurable degree in the real world as the behavior of carbon dioxide in Hansen's case clearly shows. It's pretty obvious that if CO2 wasn't warming the world before 1977 it could not have started to do it then either which makes Hansen's entire case into a pack of lies. I am really surprised that so-called "climate experts" have let him get away with it so long. Part of the problem is that despite available equipment NASA has chosen not to measure the infrared transmittance of the atmosphere in a vertical direction directly. Each of the greenhouse gases has a characteristic infrared absorption spectrum and direct monitoring of it as the balloon or plane ascends would give you a direct measure of how active each gas is at each level. But apparently they don't care for or are afraid of the results of direct measurements. They are dealing with a four hundred million dollar slice of the U.S. Government's yearly climate research money and the only output that I see is a collection of worthless "what if" reports and climate simulations that are nothing more than GIGO.
- Arno Arrak July 22, 2009 3:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
OK, if you insist on completely distorting the issues and not giving me the proof I demanded (experimental evidence that carbon dioxide [CO2] has no heat retaining properties), then I will no longer take you seriously at all. You are a crank.
We know that CO2 amounts have been increasing over the past several decades. It has been a change in the AMOUNT of CO2, not its properties!
No one, including James Hansen, has ever claimed that CO2 wasn't warming the world prior to 1977! Are you serious?!
Ever been to the planet Venus? It atmosphere is full of CO2, which makes it the hottest planet in the Solar System. Even hotter than Mercury (which is closer to the Sun) on its day said, and Venus is even nearly as hot on its NIGHT side, which Mercury is not.
I've written two essays on the subject of global warming . Both of them are applicable to answering your lame B S, Arno Arrak!
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/those-terrible-twins-of-climate-change-co2-and-h2o /
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/carbon-dioxide-and-its-greenhouse-effect /
- Dale Husband July 22, 2009 3:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Stubborn refusal to face the facts.
Looked at your so-called “essays” on global warming . Boy, are you brainwashed! I have seen most of this stuff before which makes me suspect someone’s talking points behind it. Facts cited out of context, not an ounce of science in it, just special pleading. You know nothing about the science of planetary atmospheres but think that you can impress someone by pretending that you do. Trying to relate Venus or Mercury to global warming here and now is a disconnect and unreal. It is not simply stupid but fraudulent to imply that this has any connection with our climate today. Your ignorance of the physics of gases is best demonstrated by your demand to produce “experimental evidence that carbon dioxide [CO2] has no heat retaining properties.” It is impossible to meet this demand because of the nonsensical way it is stated. I am forced to become technical here because of your stubborn refusal to accept simple facts. The “heat” that is “retained” by molecules consists of the kinetic energy of molecular motions. There are three kinds of motions to consider: translational, vibrational, and rotational motions. The energy of an average molecule is equal to kT, where k is Boltzmann’s constant and T the absolute temperature. Equipartition of energy requires that at thermal equilibrium the energy contained in each mode of molecular motion is the same, meaning that molecules gain and lose energy from one another by collisions until each of the modes – translational, vibrational, and rotational – carries about the same amount of kinetic energy as the others do. In your confused way you have been led to think of carbon dioxide as different in some way from other gases, which it is not. What you should know is that the motions involving molecular vibrations and rotations are associated with absorption and emission of infrared radiation. When infrared radiation is absorbed it increases the energy associated with that particular mode of molecular motion. Because of equipartition kT, the average energy of a molecule is raised as gas temperature T goes up. This is what happens when a greenhouse gas like CO2 absorbs infrared radiation emanating from the ground. But absorption is only possible if the gas possesses a vibration-rotation band in the infrared that matches the frequency of outgoing radiation. These absorption bands vary with molecular structure which is why not all gases can act this way. The energy absorbed will eventually distribute itself according to the temperature of its surroundings. And this is all there is to it. There are no other “heat retaining properties” that carbon dioxide or any other gas may have. Now about Hansen. You did not pay close attention to what I said. I said that his claim that the observed warming was caused by carbon dioxide was equivalent to saying that carbon dioxide started his warming career in 1977 when his warming started. Since there was no warming before that time but carbon dioxide was already in the air it follows that it was not warming the air then. What is so hard to understand here? I’ll tell what is hard to understand - it is why all the “climate scientists” have accepted this unfounded, non-sensical, unscientific statement as revealed wisdom from the climate guru of NASA. I will not even talk about the NOAA temperature curve itself which is doctored and bears only an accidental resemblance to real world temperatures.
- Arno Arrak July 23, 2009 10:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
There is something stupid about calling a super El Nino "WEATHER" but that's life. And El Nino, by the way, is not a local phenomenon but raises the world temperature by 0.5 degrees Celsius, and one degree if it is a super El Nino. I am simply pointing out this particular super El Nino as a warming incident that is not part of AGW and yet has a strong climatic influence, along with the twenty-first century high. Hansen and others have tried to hang their model temperature curves to them so that they could say their computer models predicted them. That requires them to fake some temperatures but in the end it is a hopeless ploy because they have no idea of what comes next. What comes next is an ENSO world that existed before 1998.
You also refer to solar activity but I assure you that the sun did not cause the present cooling - it was the La Nina phase of ENSO that caused it. Due to lack of sunspots solar magnetism is at a low level and does not give as much protection against cosmic rays as before. And when more cosmic rays get through they create more condensation nuclei, more cloudines, and hence less sunshine that warms the world. Svensmark came out with that idea in the nineties and Nir Shaviv applied it to ice ages. It may actually have caused the Little Ice Age but I checked the cosmic ray levels in the seventies and could not relate them to temperature. There may be something to it but I am not looking to the Sun (yet!) to do anything spectacular with climate.
- Arno Arrak July 22, 2009 4:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Truly one of the most disgusting things you will ever read - the real smoking gun behind the global warming scam;
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
- agwscam July 23, 2009 1:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This press release from NASA is the kind of hard science that global warming alarmists choose to ignore. The title is "Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low" and the website is :
www.science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm
This is indisputable science from NASA satellite. It is not a questionable computer model like the infamous hockey-stick chart.
NASA disclosed that the solar wind is now "13% cooler." Period. This is a fact. No debate necessary unless you have had your own satellite up there for 50 years taking readings. They disclosed this is a "long term trend." Cooling, not warming.
This explains all the record cold and the growth of the ice caps in 2008/2009.
NASA does not have any explanation for this unprecedented discovery. It's very cold where I live, and I am putting another log on the fire.
Sure , it was warming for a few years there. However, now the planet is cooling despite the 0.038% of our atmosphere that is CO2. The "computer models" were wrong. Climate is always changing, and now the science points clearly to a cooling trend.
- Science Dude
January 19, 2009 4:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This still is no sound evidence that global warming is due to human intervention. It just says that some people agree.
The fact that there are people believing in god, does not prove he exists.
The anti-rational poisoning of green, forces company's to go along with it in order to secure their revenues. Or so they hope.
The environmental movement judged that industry is guilty until proved innocent..
- Ralf Wilmes September 3, 2008 2:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
What if we were studying the effects of the affect of CO2 on its climate. No one is living on the planet and we were just scientists.
Would we create a global warming crises?
Look at the facts as presented by Christopher Monckton
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
- Vizion July 25, 2008 2:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
The problem with The Sierra clubs objections is that it doesn't address the science of the debate but the motives of the objectors, which of course cannot be proven. It seems to me that the Global Warming proponents are every bit as biased and non objective as any Global Warming skeptics. It's a fact that research takes money. The state of climate research has reached a point where global warming proponents and opponents alike must get money from people who support research which has the potential to support their views. The fact that GW researchers who get money from people who support their views does not in any way prove that their research is flawed. The fact that the essay attacks their motives rather than the science is evidence to me that the science must have validity. I'm very disturbed by the emotional and political nature of this debate which has interfered with true scientific debate.
- tbcass July 26, 2008 4:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Did you not read the first argument: "Science is on our side"? That is where they talk about the science - this is a critique of skeptics.
- davisDave August 19, 2008 6:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Since you made no objections to my statements then I have to assume you have no argument against them. My objective was to point out that when you attack the (unprovable) motives of the skeptics rather than the facts you essentially lose the argument. The Sierra Club's argument has no merit. Who is more biased than the Sierra Club?
- tbcass September 4, 2008 4:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You need to mention the late Dr. Sietz and the Oregon Petition. At the site of the petition (petitionproject.org), they claim to have collected over 30,000 signatures. It also claims to be peer reviewed. Who reviewed it? The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Here is what else I found out:
The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.
The complete story includes RJ Reynolds Tobacco, Exxon Mobil and is quite interesting and can be found at desmogblog.com.
- Eva August 19, 2008 8:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Quite honestly I've studied the evidence and find it lacking but, I am in total agreement that we should make an all out effort to find alternative sources of energy. My fear is that when it comes out that the global warming crisis is a sham people will become complacent and go back to their energy wasting way of life. The sense of urgency is sidetracking us to spend money on dead end technologies such as hybrid vehicles instead of Hydrogen Fuel Cells. At the same time many of the Global Warming alarmists oppose nuclear energy which is a proven safe source of clean energy (Europe has no problems).
- tbcass September 4, 2008 4:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
One of the most commonly heard arguments they spit out is that in prehistoric times global temperatures went up first and then CO2 levels followed the temperature increases, therefore CO2 levels rising today are a result rather than a cause of global warming. I frankly cannot understand how anyone would put forth such a rediculous claim. And here's why:
That sequence (first temperature, then CO2) is EXACTLY what is expected from climate change that is entirely natural, that is, the Sun is the forcing agent that starts the process. Quite simply, our greenhouse gas emitting civilization didn't exist back then. So what must have happened was that as the CO2 levels increased, in response to the slightly higher temperatures, it acted as a feedback agent causing the temperature to rise still more. If Earth was locked in an ice age, the feedback loop caused by natural global warming would have overcome the albedo effect of ice reflecting most of the sunlight and thus keeping the Earth cold. If not for the feedback loop involving CO2, then the glaciers would have remained as extended as they were instead of melting back.
CO2 levels today are estimated to be higher than they have ever been over the past half a million years. If CO2 levels are indeed always a result of global warming, then we should have been a lot hotter than we've been in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Quite simply, we are indeed emitting vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and the heat retaining properties of that gas have been understood by chemists for over a century. Unless and until those properties are falsified by the global warming "skeptics", I will lable them what they look like: paid shills for the big oil companies.
- Dale Husband September 19, 2008 12:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
Next to the question is a picture of a polar bear walking through slushy ice. I assume this is to draw attention to it's habitat slowly melting away. If it's true, my question is: So what? There is no rule in nature that states all species will survive. If global warming is occuring, and it's caused by man, then it's a natural event. I don't want to see the polar bears go away but if they do, it won't change my life at all.
Arvinc
- arvin October 1, 2008 5:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
If "it's caused by man, then it's a natural event."
No it is not a natural event. Try reading "The End of Nature" by Bill McKibben. http://www.billmckibben.com/end-of-nature.html We have been dumping massive amounts of CO2 and other pollutants into our atmosphere.
What is alarming right now is the rate of change that is ocurring. We may end up killing off 30% of the earth's species in the next 40 years.
http://www.nature.com/nature/links/040108/040108-1.html
I am sure that some life on Earth will continue. Should it be us?
- dgross July 23, 2009 4:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It is important to point out that there is an intentional public disinformation campaign about climate change being waged by big oil ; similar to the tobacco industry denial that smoking was harmful. It’s sometimes even the same people who claim that smoking is OK that are making claims that everything is OK with the planet.
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
So it is important to check out the credentials of the climate change skeptics. A good website that checks out these claims is Sourcewatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_sceptics
- dgross July 23, 2009 2:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Fine, if you want to declare the debate over, I declare myself the winner, and state, unequivocally, that "man-made" global warming is a complete fiction, that altering any human activities will have no effect on the climate, and these facts will be recognized as the "true" science -
in due course. The truth always wins out.
- Brian Valentine January 28, 2009 12:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Let's start with the basics: carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the cause of global warming . Neither is it the cause of the super El Nino of 1998 nor of the twenty-first century high, a cluster of warm years from 2001 to 2007, which are the only real instances of warming since the middle of the twentieth century. You have probably been told about Hansen's famous testimony in front of the Senate in 1988 which is supposed to have convinced everyone that global warming is happening. He got away with it simply because no competent climate scientist checked his facts. His crucial testimony is marred both by unscientific claims and by dishonest presentation. It is not well known that this was not his first but his second time that he testified before the Senate. The first time was in November 1987, it was cold, no one wanted to talk about warming, and the media just ignored it. Senator Wirth, committee chairman, was not pleased. But if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again, and he sure did. He called up the Weather Bureau and asked them to tell him what the warmest day in Washington, D.C. was. It was June 23rd so he booked that day for a new hearing. And to make sure that the air conditioning was not working properly he sent his staff out at night to open all the windows in the hearing room. It worked: the TV crew, the star witness, and the audience sweated profusely and global warming was on every television screen that night. It was that publicity stunt that made establishment of the IPCC possible. But what did he actually say? He said that we are in a warming trend and that this warming is caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide that we constantly release into the air. What was true was that measurements starting in 1958 showed that carbon dioxide really was increasing steadily from year to year. What was not true was the claim that this carbon dioxide was the cause of the warming. That is because the warming trend that he said we were in was barely ten years old, having a definite beginning about 1977. Prior to that, in the sixties and the seventies, there was no warming whatsoever. I picked 1977 because in 1975 the New York Times could still write that "a major cooling of the climate" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950." Check NOAA’s temperature chart and verify it yourself. But now there is this problem: we know that carbon dioxide was already in the air during that twenty year cool period but had not shown any inclination whatsoever of giving us some warmth. Hansen’s claim that his warming was caused by carbon dioxide is equivalent to saying that in 1977 carbon dioxide in the air just changed its mind and decided it was time to start warming the world. To accomplish this feat takes powerful voodoo but Hansen had it in him. Science it is not, a miracle it is, the one miracle that got that global warming religion started. It is this religion that has brought us the Kyoto Protocol, cap and trade laws, and now the Waxman-Markey bill. It is absolutely amazing that no scientist has called him on his claim. But maybe not so surprising: Göbbels knew about the Big Lie and used it effectively in Nazi Germany. On top of that now even the warming that Hansen said was there at the time is suspect because satellite temperature measurements that are accurate to 0.03 degrees Celsius cannot find a trace of it. Before closing I want to do one more thing for your membership: I want to disabuse you of the thought that carbon dioxide has ever caused any warming at any time. Daniel Rothman’s article “Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years” (PNAS 99:4167-4171)(April 2, 2002) puts it this way: “The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climate variations at tectonic time scales.”
- Arno Arrak June 28, 2009 4:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If it took lawsuits to get peoples names off the list of scientists who agreed with the IPCC, then it probably isn't a report I would rely upon.
- F2XL November 14, 2008 9:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
There is nice online reading of the history of this debate here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate /
- dgross July 23, 2009 4:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The last time I looked outside and saw the sun, it was still pumping thermal energy our way.Only difference, solar flare activity stopped about 10 years ago---takes awhile for the flare heat to dissipate.
Last report I heard, we are now entering a cooling phase.In fact polar ice seems to be growing.some areas in the north report early cold snaps.
huh!! I guess I'm just to humble to believe that crap about manmade calamity on such a global scale---what hubris these people have.Don't get me wrong, conservation can be a good thing if it isn't attached to a global mandate that twists science to promote an agenda.
Follow the money people, you'd be amazed where it will take you, and the things it will make people do and say to get it, and keep it coming.
Oh! by the way, polar bear population is on the increase! Just thought I scramble your inconvenient truth for you.
- wedge October 16, 2008 8:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
This entire argument is based upon the premise that these new "green" jobs will be profitable and effective in the long run. They will not.
Who is to pay all these new employees for their work in green jobs? Certainly not the businesses, companies, or corporations that employ them. These types of ventures will be so expensive to maintain, so ineffective, and so unprofitable that the only conceivable way to maintain them would be via government subsidies.
Who pays for these subsidies? THE EMPLOYEES. Taxes would need to be increased to a much higher level to pay for unproductive ventures such as massive-scale green energy production. Thus in the end, citizens of the United States would not be better off with "green" jobs.
- nickodonnell April 30, 2009 7:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control knows that there is a process likely to be able to stop the statistical increase in climate disasters in short order. This process, known as geoengineering, was mentioned in the back pages of the executive summary of the last mitigation report in 2007 in a rather discouraging way. I'm sure the Environmental Protection Agency is also aware of geoengineering.
In fact, the National Academy of Science. in summarizing the output of a meeting of March 30/31 under the congressionally mandated program America's Climate Choices, said geoengineering is the only approach which can impact climate over the next 2 to 3 decades.
The basis for the suit, is - knowing that there is a probable solution to alleviating the statistical increase in climate disasters, these organizations have not acted to study geoengineering approaches; and so are responsible for untold deaths from increased tornado and hurricane activity, droughts and heat waves around the world. It is as if there were a new disease likely to kill millions of people and the Federal Drug Administration held back on a vaccine which could prevent these (statistical) deaths!!
- Sol Shapiro April 18, 2009 1:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I can't help but question the evidence attached to this argument. This paper, "A Global Warming Primer" prepared by the National Center for Policy Analysis, is focused entirely on economic impact, and recommends just adapting to global warming. Yet, it doesn't address the full economic impact of adapting to global warming. What about the real, current issue of wild fires in California? California has already broken all records for wild fires this year, and the economic impact has been catasrophic for the state. The solution this paper discusses in adapting to global warming is to try to eradicate maleria by using pesticides. Never mind the economic impact of the health problems caused by the pesticides. This proposed solution would be laughable if it weren't so depressing.
- Santa Cruz Mom July 15, 2008 11:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Biased? You decide...
- subgenius July 25, 2008 4:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Research always costs money. Reality that is. Who would be an unbiased provider of funds? I want to know. The government perhaps?? Discussion should be about the results of research not about the funding. That is the way you can find out some more if you're really interested in truth.
- Ralf Wilmes September 3, 2008 2:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I object to the classification of the studies cited above as science. Science tests hypotheses. The studies above were designed to support a position. It is possible to distinguish valid research from advocacy. The scientific method is not some newfangled fad. I agree that funding isn't the issue, but it is fair to examine the methods. The NCPA and Heartland Institute do not use scientific methods.
- Adam Hammond September 4, 2008 8:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I'm gonna take a step back for a moment and ask you to support the statement "The NCPA and Heartland Institute do not use scientific methods" with facts that undeniably demonstrate it, without going into funding and 'likely to be'.
What is the evidence? You might be right but convince me and I will honestly admit that you are right about that particular statement.
- Ralf Wilmes September 4, 2008 10:37AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
You are making a reasonable request, which I am not going to be able to fully satisfy. The full proof would ultimately involve going through everything they ever wrote and arguing that none of it met my standards of science (which are high, and evenly applied).
I also hesitate because I have been burned by trolls in the past, who convinced me to spend a bunch of time and then disappeared. Nevertheless, game theory recommends cooperating until burned.
So ... start by going to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed / and entering 'attitude' in the search field. While I cannot vouch for every article that comes up, you will find many examples of actual science. The papers spend a great deal of time discussing the specific methods used and explaining how they developed them. I examined #6 - Rhode et al in more depth because it appeared to be survey based. If you want to discuss what makes science, then we could use this as a starting point. I can send you a pdf of the publication if you don't have access.
Now go to the NCPA site http://www.ncpa.org / The first thing to note is that they do not claim to be a scientific organization, they do analysis. That doesn't make them wrong! But they make no claim to scientific methods that I can find. Digging further I found the debate-central area where they have links called Evidence and Research Current Topics. These links are to information that helps in debating issues not a discussion of scientific methods or links to such. The ability to debate an issue is important - this is a great resource. Not science. I note further that the information that they link to appears to be analysis rather than science.
Next, the specific graphs shown: It took some digging because the links are broken, but here is the actual study cited by NPCA: http://coast.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html /BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/surveyframe.html
The original study (1996) was conducted by mail and may have merit, but the 2003 follow up (from which the cited data arises) was a web survey which was not conducted to scientific standards and appears to have been gamed. Here is a quote from the site:
"It seems members on a skeptics-mailing list were specifically requested to participate in our survey by one of its members. Indeed, the format of the 2004 survey was not as safeguarded against biasing practices as the original survey form 1996."
I am not sure why it is referred to as the 2004 survey here and 2003 elsewhere, but I believe it to be the same survey.
So, this study was not conducted by the NPCA itself but a separate party who did not use scientific methods. The NPCA cherry picked a bit internet pseudo-science and claims that it is data in this debate.
The actual question was: "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?"
Consider what the decidedly imprecise word "mostly" means. Then look at the title they use in their post. This is not honest discussion of facts.
It is important to note that while the people who conducted the survey are scientists, they did not publish the results in a scientific journal or make any inaccurate claims about the quality of the numbers. That was done by Joseph Bast and James M. Taylor and the Heartland Institute
Both graphs come from the same internet survey, but the reference given here was to a slick restatement of the data with none of the caution of the actual people who did the study (and still no scientific method). http://www.heartland.org/pdf/2086111.pdf
You asked me to prove that these organizations do not use the scientific method. Instead, I have simply found no evidence of scientific method. At least I can conclude that the data shown is not science. I feel that I have done a reasonable amount of work to convince you. I am not going to dig further into these organizations, but all you would need to do to disprove my assertion is to find one piece of science generated by either group.
Please do respond to my effort.
- Adam Hammond September 4, 2008 12:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
As a first reaction: I appreciate the effort you made a lot. Just give me some time over the weekend to go through it. I will react, as I'm very interested to understand more. Thank you.
- Ralf Wilmes September 5, 2008 5:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Ok then.
I agree to say that the NCPA is not basing it's statement on an original scientific report but on a survey.
We are speaking about different approaches in the first place.
The test to which NCPA refers is a survey. A survey indeed is something different than an original scientific report as the ones on the ncbi site. (true)
The survey shows how on different questions different scientists think. But there's nowhere any sign of denying that it is a suvey and not an original scientific report. The results of the survey explain only how a group of scientists think about the questions that are listed. Nothing more. Nothing less.
The german site indeed shows the quote you copied above, but also shows two different analyses to verify the claim of being biased.
So I can agree with you on the statement that it is not an original scientific study but a survey showing opinions of a group of people. (which might be valid or not, we cant tell).
So there: you win on this one.
Still.....returning to the thesis if global warming is a manmade crisis. I still have too many doubts to answer this with a loud and clear 'Yes'. There are too many signs of insecurity (global temperature is not rising since about 8 years, but dropping slightly; solar cycle variations; ocean phase shifting patterns and more) to base a firm policy upon. (carbon tax for example should not be based on this).
To close consider this article in the AP: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OFFSHORE_DRILLING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
So environmentalists against oil company regarding offshore drilling on California. So this is about principles I thought. But what happens? They make a deal of which the "summary shows that the company agreed to donate 3,900 acres of land to the Trust for Public Land, contribute $1.5 million to a fund that could be used to buy hybrid buses and end its local operations in 14 years"
In return for money and private investments in public costs they can drill anyway!
If something is a crisis it is a crisis also in return for money right?
I know that this example is but one example. But I remain skeptic until I have the whole thing cristal clear, even if that requires a lot of information and time!
Thanks for an interesting discussion.
Ok then.
I agree to say that the NCPA is not basing it's statement on an original scientific report but on a survey.
We are speaking about different approaches in the first place.
The test to which NCPA refers is a survey. A survey indeed is something different than an original scientific report as the ones on the ncbi site. (true)
The survey shows how on different questions different scientists think. But there's nowhere any sign of denying that it is a survey and not an original scientific report. The results of the survey explain only how a group of scientists think about the questions that are listed. Nothing more. Nothing less.
The German site indeed shows the quote you copied above, but also shows two different analyses to verify the claim of being biased.
So I can agree with you on the statement that it is not an original scientific study but a survey showing opinions of a group of people. (which might be valid or not, we cant tell).
So there: you win on this one.
Still.....returning to the thesis if global warming is a manmade crisis. I still have too many doubts to answer this with a loud and clear 'Yes'. There are too many signs of insecurity (global temperature is not rising since about 8 years, but dropping slightly; solar cycle variations; ocean phase shifting patterns and more) to base a firm policy upon. (carbon tax for example should not be based on this).
To close consider this article in the AP: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OFFSHORE_DRILLING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
So environmentalists against oil company regarding offshore drilling on California. So this is about principles I thought. But what happens? They make a deal of which the "summary shows that the company agreed to donate 3,900 acres of land to the Trust for Public Land, contribute $1.5 million to a fund that could be used to buy hybrid buses and end its local operations in 14 years"
In return for money and private investments in public costs they can drill anyway!
If something is a crisis it is a crisis also in return for money right?
I know that this example is but one example. But I remain skeptic until I have the whole thing crystal clear, even if that requires a lot of information and time!
Thanks for an interesting discussion.
- Ralf Wilmes September 8, 2008 6:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Where else are they going to get funding? The pro global warming researchers get funding from those who believe that global warming is a crisis and would have their funding cut off if they disagreed. They would have equal reason to be biased. Funding for anyone who disagrees with the "Global Warming is a man made crisis" point of view find it impossible to get funding from anyone but those who agree with their views. I've noticed that when someone can't argue the facts they attack the motive.
- tbcass September 4, 2008 3:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
In reading this statement and the Sierra Club statement, what is apparent to me is the Sierra Club used the word consensus as most of us do to mean a majority. The NCPA wants to make an argument by sticking to the dictionary meaning of 'we all come together'. Such picaune tactics generally signal to me that there is no concrete statement for the opposing view, especially when they state that 56% of the scientific community agree. Let's borrow from civil court. At 56%, there certainly appears to me that there is a preponderance of evidence to support the claim that there is a crisis. Use the facts, not your ability to word-smith.
- JimWa LoCra August 19, 2008 7:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
What reasoning is that? Because 56% agree it follows that it must be right? Apply this to ex nazi -germany and you see this reasoning can't be the one to go for.
Use the facts also means seeing the other 46%.
- Ralf Wilmes September 3, 2008 2:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
At various times in history the scientific consensus was that: the world is flat, T Rex dragged his tail on the ground, and, an Ice age is coming soon. Because something is believed by a majority of "scientists" does not make it true.
- tbcass September 5, 2008 3:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Almost this exact same split was present in the 60's. 60% believed in the steady state universe. The majority is not always right.
- Fenderman89 July 22, 2009 1:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
So, it's better that three women were repeatedly raped for 14 hours than one of them had a gun and stopped it with the first victim almost immediately? I'm sure glad my safety doesn't depend on you.
- LagerHead September 22, 2009 1:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
What does that have to do with global warming ?
- MrBook September 23, 2009 6:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I wasn't in this thread when I responded to a post that had nothing to do with " global warming ." Curious, ain't it?
- LagerHead September 23, 2009 11:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a think tank. It is a "communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems ... [and] prides itself on aggressively marketing its products for maximum impact by 'targeting key political leaders and special interest groups, establishing on-going ties with members of the print and electronic media, and testifying before Congress, federal agencies, state lawmakers, and national organizations.'" -- NCRP, The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis
Just look at their donor list.
- ElaineVigneault September 1, 2008 9:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
With these arguments you are saying nothing on the facts or doubts of global warming. But it does add to my suspect that the whole green-crusade really is against.. the free market.
- Ralf Wilmes September 3, 2008 3:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It's doesn't prove it, but you don't need proof. Just weigh the consequences of action versus inaction. If climate change isn't real and we act as though it is then, oh well, we made some lifestyle changes. If climate change IS real and we act as though it's not, then DISASTER.
I made my above point about NCPA because they cannot be trusted to provide accurate, reliable information. They are biased.
- ElaineVigneault September 3, 2008 6:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
For centuries -and still- the church made people believe that hell exists. We didn't need proof, but just 'in case' it exists, it's better to switch off your reasoning and doubts, and blindly obey everything they say.
Please: 'just in case' is not a rational concept to base policy on. You don't put people in jail, 'just in case' they could be a danger, yet we are basing policy on this basis as far as global warming is concerned?
- Ralf Wilmes September 4, 2008 1:22AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
This is not about "the church." No one is suggesting putting people in jail. We're just saying that the prevention of climate change is an urgent matter. Enough with the hyperbolic nonsense. Now please reconsider some of your lifestyle choices and see how you can reduce your footprint :)
- ElaineVigneault September 4, 2008 8:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I'm not reducing any footprint that's the whole point. I have the habit of doing things when I understand why I should. And when I understand that it is in my interest,nobody needs to force anyone you see.
The church stands for irrationality. Jail stands for using government force to coerce people into doing what they want. By fines for example. (Metaphors they are called, sorry if I didn't make myself clear about that)
- Ralf Wilmes September 4, 2008 10:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Who can we trust since both sides seem to be biased? First, as a former science teacher, I believe that scientific research should be pure and unbiased. The facts should speak for themselves. There is so much emotion and politics involved in the global warming debate that it hides the fact, at least as I can see from examining the science, that there is no proof of human caused global warming or that the recent warming trend will continue past the present day. What I'm afraid of is that if the global warming crisis is revealed as a sham then irreparable damage will occur to the environmental movement which will result in people becoming complacent and all research on alternative energy sources will slow or cease. I am in total agreement that we should wean off our dependence on fossil fuels but for the right reasons.
- tbcass September 4, 2008 4:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Good argument there about people becoming complacent. I think that alternative fuels need to be used for the right reasons too, mainly cost and dependency issues.
- Ralf Wilmes September 4, 2008 8:02AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
That's the whole point: you need proof to base policy on.
You can't just start punishing 'just in case' it might be true. Think this logic trough if applied to justice.
Or: Maybe martians will destroy the earth in 10 years time? we better prepare just in case?
I am an advocate of lifestyle changes too, but that does not solve the question of what to change and how. Example: I am sure I buy a hydrogen fueled car as soon as it comes out. It is cheaper.
See, even if global warming is due to human activity I still don't see how present policy changes it for the better.
- Ralf Wilmes September 4, 2008 6:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Why aren't there groups advocating for a larger anti-martian effort? It seems just as reasonable as the environmentalist effort by these standards.
I think there is an implicit premise that the current denizens of Earth be concerned for the future denizens of Earth. If the argument is that we should not care about our children 's future, or our neighbor's children's future, then how could anything like climate change be a crisis for you?
I think the idea that this is an even debate amongst sincere and concerned parties is an illusion. Everyone seems either concerned about the future or concerned about the present. Those concerned about the future are going to try to for see the ramifications of our way of life, and seem to agree that Global Warming is a crisis. Those concerned with the present all seem more concerned with not losing their current quality of life or not being told what to do. Or they are paid to represent that ilk.
- Submariner June 17, 2009 8:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
For someone who votes "No" on "Is there a God?" you sure seem to be falling into one great big contradiction. Using your logic everyone would have to blindly come to that conclusion not on the basis of their own convictions and experiences. Instead on the notion that if they are WRONG, they go to hell. If they are RIGHT, nothing happens, therefore we should all believe in God whether we see reason for it or not.
This is not at all the source of my conviction at all for obvious reasons.
- F2XL November 14, 2008 9:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Who supports sourcewatch?
Does it count if their donors are typically anti-free market?
- Highlander September 11, 2008 12:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I'm sure Elaine will be more than happy to dodge it of course.
- F2XL November 14, 2008 9:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
What free market are yall talking about anyway? Capitalism never had much chance in the US especially, since 1913, but even before. Free markets are little more than village hobbies.
I am skeptical there has ever been a successful entrepenurialship that was not subsidized by the government or funded completely from existing inordinate wealth.
Even so, there's nothing sacred about the idea, and its mostly been most profaned by the quarters that espouse the sancitity of free-market economics.
- Submariner June 17, 2009 8:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It's a purely progressive site that seeks to cook up as many conspiracies about Exxon funding false news stories or Rupert Murdoch trying to impose a global agenda. If you feel that the donors of an institute are what influence it's policy, then why not have an army of Air America listeners throw money at it and see if they change their mind?
- F2XL November 14, 2008 9:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The NCPA and the Heartland Institute both generate studies for the purpose of supporting their side of arguments, not to honestly investigate the issues. That is an incredibly important distinction. In the present cases the results are simply irrelevant to the question posed: Is Global Warming a Crisis, and have very little bearing on the lesser question of scientific consensus.
- Adam Hammond September 3, 2008 1:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Without proof your statement is sophistry. Lets stick to the science and the issues not unprovable motives. Researchers get their funding where ever they can. Unfortunately on divisive issues like global warming it inevitably comes from sources that support their views. That goes for both sides. The idea that somehow the global warming proponents motives are pure is laughable IMO.
- tbcass September 4, 2008 4:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
You say, "Lets stick to the science ..." and then discuss motives.
Speaking specifically about the items at the top of this thread: They are junk science. The questions posed were designed to serve the purpose of the questioner. Such bogus studies are a discredit to whatever side employs them. The argument NCPA makes here is that the "consensus is overstated," but the data they show in support of their argument are useless. Logically, that doesn't disprove their argument, they have simply utterly failed to support it.
Researchers get their funding from government agencies through an arduous vetting process, and then their results are reviewed again by a properly skeptical audience before publication. They are subject to censure or even federal prosecution for fraud if they do not follow legally established guidelines and ethical rules regarding the conduct of federally funded research.
You (IMO) are judging the fast and loose world of advocates (indeed, on both sides) who are not constrained to be fair or even honest. Unfortunately, there are individuals who straddle the distinction and tarnish their scientific reputation by pursuing advocacy. However, that is not the case for the NCPA nor the Heartland Institute. They are pure advocates, and nothing more. Their motives are indeed unprovable, but easily guessed.
I do not believe that this new forum should grant the "expert" title to advocates of either side. There are experts whose conclusions span the breadth of the discussion and who are not financially indebted to partisans. These people should not be lumped together with groups that have financial interests in the debate. I would suggest having two titles available (most of the experts currently posting would be switched to advocates - both sides).
- Adam Hammond September 4, 2008 7:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Having financial interests in a debate per se is not wrong. Example: if your employer is about to fire you for a whim he has and it is not for any rational reason, I assure you that you have a financial interest in the debate and that your arguments could also be sound.
I do not see a conceptual contradiction.
Also I would argue that any set of posed questions in whatever issue is by definition designed to serve a purpose right? Again this is not proving anything. Correct me if I'm wrong or unclear.
- Ralf Wilmes September 4, 2008 10:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
In your example, my arguments would likely be biased by my interest. Nevertheless, you are right that financial interest does not preclude unbiased argument. Additionally, people can be biased for reasons other than money. Bias can be easily hidden, but money can't. Financial involvement is imperfect but practical as a measure of impartiality. For important things (like law suits) a better method is needed. For less important areas, like online forums, perhaps it is good enough. If you have a financial interest, you are an advocate instead of an expert.
"Designed to serve the purpose of the questioner" was an inaccurate sentence - my bad. Designed to reinforce the preconceptions of the questioner is what I mean. This may be a moot point, since I am now unsure that these groups do any data gathering at all. They may simply be limited to cherry picking - as they did above.
- Adam Hammond September 4, 2008 1:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
One more I appreciate your frankness. That's more important than deciding who's right or wrong to me. I suppose it's the truth we're after regardless the side we choose at present. Thanks.
- Ralf Wilmes September 5, 2008 5:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
You Said (You say, "Lets stick to the science ..." and then discuss motives.) What's the problem with my statement? My purpose in discussing the possible motives of both sides was to demonstrate the futility and uselessness of attacking the opinions of those with whom you disagree since it can't be proven and in fact both sides could be biased. Just because money comes from the government doesn't mean that the money is equally distributed. The fact is anyone who is on the anti global warming side has trouble getting money for research. There is a strong movement to shut down any descent. One of the Weather Channel's chief Meteorologists even suggested that any Meteorologist who declared skepticism over Global Warming should be stripped of their license. If that's not bias what is? That attitude is typical of the Global Warming activists.
I would suggest that you read "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus" by Richard S. Lindzen PhD. who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at M.I.T. This esteemed Climate Scientist has been severely attacked by Global Warming supporters simply because he is a skeptic. The bias and emotional fervor demonstrated by many of the Global Warming supporters is matched only by the Abortion (both sides) and PETA crowd.
.
- tbcass September 5, 2008 4:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"the use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving" (Oxford dictionary)
An argument that is not proven does not automatically qualify as sophistry. I strongly deny that any of my statements are sophistry. I hope that I have not used any fallacies and guarantee that I have no intention of deceiving.
- Adam Hammond September 4, 2008 8:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The fact that 35% of "experts" think that computer climate models disturbs me. The complexities of climate, many still unknown to us, and the lack of necessary computer power even in super computers, makes computer models very unreliable. All computer models have to be calibrated by running the model and comparing the results to real world tests. Since climate change can take a hundred years or more this approach is impractical so they try to compare to short term trends. This is a useless approach that can actually make the model more inaccurate. From where I stand the computer models for predicting climate change are worse than useless as they are likely to give inaccurate results. All one has to do is observe the accuracy of computer models for predicting the weather. 3 days out is good, 2 weeks is iffy and beyond that is anybody's guess. How can we expect models to predict 50-100 years out and more?
- tbcass September 4, 2008 3:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The theory of AGW is supported only by theoretical models that have no basis and can be easily manipulated to show whatever outcome the author desires. Climate is a very complex thing to model.
Here are some important facts.
The warmest year in the 20th century was 1934.
The warmest decade was the 1930s.
Five of the ten warmest years were before 1940 in the 20th century.
Antarctica has 90% of the worlds ice, and in 2008 has the most ice
ever recorded (something the press never mentions)
CO2 is a trace gas, it is less than 4 one hundredths of one percent
of the atmosphere.
CO2 as a percent of the atmosphere has only increased 1/10,000th
since the beginning of industrialization in 1750
1998 was the second warmest year of the 20th century, but it has been
cooler every year since even though CO2 levels continue to increase.
temperatures declined between 1940 and 1975 even thoough CO2 levels
increased.
in 2008 US temperatures, as tracked by the National Climate Data Center
were 0.2 degrees above the 114 year temperature average, there is
no warming.
So what drives the climate, the sun. Its output is not constant. It
caused the warming of the late 20th century and the cooling we now
experience. The solar winds are the lowest ever recorded according to NASA.
See this website for all the answers
www.isthereglobalwarming.com
- geoff January 24, 2009 12:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
that's what i worry about the most
the cooling trend is a result of global warming and is bound to continue as more co2 is pumped into the air
i know this founds like the film, but i think it might trigger an ice age
we are current in a interglaceric warm peroid, and the warm climate can end any day
- Stormwolf February 12, 2009 8:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Surveys of climate scientists conducted in 1996 and 2003 by two German
environmental scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch.
More than 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries
provided numerical answers each time the survey was conducted. All
responses were anonymous.
A much greater number of respondants expressed doubt concerning forecast models and their accuracies.
- mostly a conservative August 21, 2008 8:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You know I find it ironic that in 1970's many climate Scientist listed the same reasons for Global Cooling. This is more about money and politics than science. Many are cashing in on this by giving speeches and selling products. Come on America, let’s do some real research and give true facts. The best way to know if humans cause Global warming is to compare and contrast temperatures recorded over the many years, and the amount of fossile fuel being used. See 1974 "another Ice Age?" in Time Magazine.
- rkiser September 25, 2008 3:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
In the '70s I taught that another ice age (interglacial actually) was due (in another 500 years plus or minus 400). In the 80s, the exponential increase in CO2 appeared, and I heard my first convincing lecture that since this is a greenhouse gas (this effect was also taught in the beginning atmospheric science class) it is a no-brainer that this will cause warming. Since the 80s, the only real question was how much, with the ancillary question (red-herring?) is it anthropomorphically caused? Since the 90s, survey reports at the highest level all concur that the globe is warming and mankind is contributing to it, with agreement of about 99% of climate experts. Since the 2000s, it appears the estimates of warming were for too little and too late, and expert climatologist critics have disappeared. What's nice about predicting warming is that the data is coming in much faster than expected, and we will know during my lifetime!
- bobbrown November 25, 2008 1:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I don't know about the cash and products for global warming scientists (I do get $200 honorarium occasionally). You could double all climate experts' salaries for less than $1,000,000/yr, which is about 1/100th the yearly intake of any one of the 40 richest people who are oilmen.
- bobbrown November 25, 2008 1:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I remember doing a term paper back in 1976 on sources of energy . My main reference, written by a physicist, said that we would run out of oil but long before that, the earth would warm due to the characteristics and volume of CO2. But we weren't ready to hear that because, at the time, it was viewed as a pro- nuclear , bogus argument.
Now statistical anthropologist argue that it would be more cost-effective to fight global hunger than global warming . Certainly, global warming, if it exists, will produce winners and losers but my question is what are we not hearing right now?
- batymahn May 6, 2009 2:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I question the chart displayed showing the number of weather related deaths and even to the extent it's accurate I question its validity to the argument.
Weather related deaths should absolutely be lower than in the 20's due to better building standards and better medical technology and emergency response time. The fact that weather related deaths have decreased over the last 80 years has no baring on this debate.
Based on the information I was able to find I question the charts 19,000 deaths from 2000-2004. Among other incidents this site shows 10,000 dead in a French heat wave in August of 2003. That would be half of the total deaths in one event.
http://www.mapreport.com/subtopics/d/h.html
That, obviously, doesn't disprove the 19,000 number but it makes me question its validity. Even if it is accurate I still question that it bares on our argument today.
- State of Reason July 25, 2008 1:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Not being in a position to dispute your facts, I'll concede them. But one still would have to be concerned at an accelerating temperature rise with no end in site. Sure when it gets a little warmer precipitation increases in some cold areas and those changes may offset ice pack thickness. But the fact of the matter is that we are seeing accelerating change which will effect the whole planet. Eventually there are going to be consequences for a lot of people (not just polar bears) especially poor ones. As far as weather related deaths goes are we just talking about America? Due to advances in technology and increases in standards of living, we're less likely to have the same weather related effects as the drought did in the middle of the Great Depression.
- GreenLove September 3, 2008 11:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
There are benefits from a little arsenic too.
- bobbrown August 24, 2008 10:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Right now, in other countries, mosquitoes are allowed to go higher up mountains.
Problem: people in malaria-infested areas build their cities on mountains so that mosquitoes won't come in and spread malaria! Sure, our beans are a little greener, but that's not worth people dying.
CO2 also causes poison ivy to grow thicker, greener, and with stronger oils.
We don't necessarily want to make the ecosystem ripe for evolution; it's fine (and already stressed, with various organisms at risk or extinct) as is, and we'd have a few million years to go before seeing any sort of payoff for this change. And there's no guarantee we'd like it.
- sharky September 24, 2008 5:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
well if the environmentalists hadn't banned DDT, maybe malaria wouldn't be a problem.
- stewarsa April 7, 2009 1:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Besides the IPCC report? Since the conclusions of the IPCC are in dispute, shouldn't the Sierra Club use other sources to support the claim increased anthropogenic CO2 levels will result in famine and drought?
Since CO2 makes up such a small portion of so-called 'greenhouse gases', purportedly a problem because it causes a cascade of reactions, causing a rise in the pre-dominant green house gas - water vapor, how exactly does that translate into droughts, etc?
What does the Sierra Club make of recent data suggesting global cooling? http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/uah-global-temperature-dives-in-may /
- Highlander September 10, 2008 8:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
How could it slow the economy? Already, nearly everything U.S. consumers buy is made in China, or another exempt country. If China is exempt, how will that change anything?
If these countries account for such high emissions (which, don't have an impact? or do they?), then the problem is those countries.
Lastly, dead people can't be consumers. Neither can sick people, poor people, or displaced people. Or all of the above. Without climate legislation, that's where we are headed.
- SocialistBetty December 25, 2008 1:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
How can you enact legislation to try and slow Global Warming at risk of pushing the already teetering economy off the cliff of despair when it has already stopped?
If you look closely at Al Gore's little chart, you can see that the warming comes slightly before the CO2 rise. Warming causes an increase in CO2. This is why the earth hasn't burst into flames yet, even though CO2 levels are far higher than they've ever been. Furthermore, Russian scientists have started to say that Global Warming is over, and that we are now entering a period of Global Cooling. But wait, weren't we just in Global Cooling back in the 70s? Oops...
It's all a hoax to try to scare people into trying to protect the enviornment. Should we protect the enviornment? Yes. Should we tell stories to terrify people into doing it? No.
- richardsonkr January 15, 2009 7:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Climate Legislation Would Slow WHOSE Economy?
I assume you mean the US economy .
Electric cars are real and are on the way. But other than Tesla, a niche player and a tiny one at that, US companies are either not playing in this game or are way behind. Where is the GM Volt? (and it is not going to be pure electric anyway)
Better Place, based in Palo Alto partnered with Renault-Nissan.
And Li-ion batteries? US companies missed the boat there too. That's all dominated by Japan, Korea, and China.
And what about the raw material Lithium? US doesn't play there either.
What about other forms of renewable energy ?
The US has great chances with solar power. Applied Materials is very strong here. However, they have so much of their production outsourced to other countries, mainly in Asia, that when the intermission in the solar boom is over, it will not mean much for American workers anyway.
Wind turbines?
GE Energy is very strong. But again, this gear is made all over the planet. Who knows how much that actually helps the US economy.
- Rave
September 23, 2009 2:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Of course Greenland is melting. The average temperature of the world is increasing. Do you not ever recall hearing of the medieval warming period that allowed the Romans to grow grapes in Britain?
This warming is not causes by humans, though. Far from it, in fact.
- nickodonnell April 30, 2009 7:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
A scam straight from the mouth of Al Gore. Each time you donate to some cause "fighting global warming" you do to things.
1.) Buy Al Gore a nice new set of tableware.
2.) Support the advancement of the Democratic Party.
Global warming is a scare and a scam. Think back to the 80s (and I wasn't alive then, but I know most of you were). What was the big alarm? Global cooling! And most global warming people say "Well... yes, eventually we will perpetuate ourselves into a second ice age by allowing climate changes to continue." etc. But it's my personal belief that it is nothing more than weater patterns. Our planet has weather patterns that last hundreds, even thousands of years. I come from Washington State, and one thing i know is that Mt. St. Helens pumped more carbon into the atmosphere in one day than industry does years worth of time. If that didn't put a gaping hole in the ozone, i don't know what will (and believe me, it's still ice cold in the soggy state of Washington).
- Brady November 10, 2008 11:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Politics is a life and death game that is mostly played by people who care more about the game than the life and death. http://twitter.com/JonHenke
- libliber June 20, 2009 8:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Your rhetoric is not your own. It comes straight from the opposition sites that skew data. Yours, however, is not an accurate recreation of that information. It's not the 80s. It's the 70s. And there really WAS a global cooling during that period. A brief decline in a long climb of global temperatures. And it wasn't a big alarm at all. It was brought up, however.
In addition to your regurgitation of flimsy opposition, your personal belief doesn't hold in a scientific debate. Your comments about Mt. St. Helens, carbon, and gaping holes in the ozone indicates your gross misunderstanding of the impacts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Neither would you necessarily feel the effects in your home state, nor would you feel them right away. As for your comment on weather patterns, those are directly impacted by global warming (regardless if you believe it's man-made or not). We're talking about climate, not weather.
Your implication that global warming is a money -making venture is highly dubious, and you've provided no supporting evidence of this. Furthermore, suggesting that if one cares about the potential for an increase in global temperatures that could greatly alter weather, sea life, CO2-absorbing plant life, and consequently all life on Earth are supporting a single political party in a single country on this planet is absurd without concrete evidence.
Here's my contribution to the environment in order of least to greatest efficacy:
1) I conserve energy in my home (lights, gas, water, etc)
2) I drive an economy car
3) I use alternative and mass transportation
4) I do not support animal agribusiness
I do not throw money at organizations, nor do I recommend this behavior to others. Also, if I intend to support a political party, I will do so by helping promote the ideals of their to which I align.
I strongly suggest you ignore your country's party lines (the absurdity of a dual-party system is topic enough for another debate) and start considering facts, then consider motives. If you're really going to press the "ulterior motives of political parties" argument, shouldn't you take a closer look at what former Bush administration "experts" stood to gain by fighting to notion of man-made global warming?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
Or it could just be the stupid liberal media always attacking a conservative government. Or maybe James Hansen and his esteemed colleagues are lying about not being able to speak to the public about their research, their findings, and their conclusions.
Please do a little more research, come back with some concrete arguments, and see if you can present them in a way that doesn't sound like Rush Limbaugh diatribe.
- mike June 25, 2009 5:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Your data is over 10 years old. My recommendation: Go out and count again in 2009. Then come back.
By the way: Climate change is not a matter of a democratic majority but a fact.
Why don't you try out the following: Visit a greenhouse near to your home. Compare the ambient temperature with the temperature inside. You will probably find a difference: It is inside warmer than outside. And then post another comment here that this is not an example of the greenhouse effect but of ... humm ... whatsoever, I don't know.
Regards,
Oliver
- Oliver January 29, 2009 1:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Your example of corn is downright wrong:
SEVEN TIMES MORE GRAIN IS FED TO FARM ANIMALS (MEAT, DAIRY, ETC) THAN IS PROCESSED FOR BIOFUELS. If there is a decrease in the supply of corn, it's related to the consumption of animal products.
People working to decrease our dependency on petroleum by creating ethanol and other biofuels are not responsible for the increased cost of corn. Those responsible are the major consumers (animal agriculture) and commodities traders. Don't blame the state of our economy on scientists.
Don't call the results of commodities traders' calculated plans "unintended consequences." Those who bought low and sold high surely wouldn't call their investments "unintended consequences." The cost of housing didn't skyrocket a few years ago because supply decreased or demand increased. The cost went up because of gamblers - loan companies willing to bet on the housing market. It's the same with corn.
(By the way, decreasing our meat consumption can help slow climate change.)
- ElaineVigneault September 1, 2008 9:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I feel like I should just ignore this post at the risk of encouraging this propaganda, so I won't say much.
Name one green house gas emission policy in the United States that claims it would be "free and easy." Oh that's right, the current emissions regulations are controlled by the federal run EPA. California's recent plans to abolish green house gas emitting automobiles is a prime example of how hard it is for any progression on the matter to occur. The federal government has done everything in its power to deny California its rights as a state.
- Logically Inclined August 11, 2008 2:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Our 250 years of natural global warming is NOT your fault.
One degree warming in last 100 years and no net change in last 10 years is not a crisis.
The crisis is our external- energy dependence!
-
See following site for facts and data:
-
http://www.roanokeslant.org/GlobalWarmingThoughts /
-
- lbhagen June 14, 2009 6:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Is Global Warming a Crisis?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Watch AL GORE Explain the process
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jxi-OlkmxZ4
- wendiland June 6, 2008 2:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
i'll watch if you'll watch
Try out Penn and tellers piece on " Global Warming"
- the car man msncom
February 28, 2009 5:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I watched Penn and Teller on Global Warming this weekend
I love Penn and Teller 's show even though I sometimes disagree with them. When I watched this episode I was blown away by what they said because the facts they say on the show seem to overwhelmingly disprove the theory of global warming . Unfortunately that episode of B.S. was full of b.s. Immediately after watching I looked up their claims and there is absolutely no basis for them, especially the claim that only 3% of carbon output is caused by humans, this is definitely not true. I wrote a long episode rebuttal for some of my friends if you'd like to read it... Plus, if you recall, at the end of the episode they even came clean and said they actually had no idea if Global Warming was real or not.
- domokun
October 21, 2009 4:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Really
So whatdya really think, no really did you also watch AL the gores movie and whatdya think about that? Are the polar bears really going extinct ?, could the earth be in a warmup phase just as thousands of years ago it was once in an Ice Age ?, or do you really believe that we can "create" a static Atmosphere that neither warms up or cools off, Please tell us all how this will work. I've already heard of the taxing way to get there, BULLSHIT.
- the car man msncom
October 25, 2009 10:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Lets work with what we know.
Perhaps the cause of global warming is not 100% identified, but we can see that it is occurring and we do have ways to help combat this problem. We must make a giant commitment to implement some of these global warming prevention strategies.
- targetross1 July 14, 2008 8:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Can modern society address threats proactively?
I agree with Professor Chris, regardless of fault, its an issue that needs to be addressed not ignored. My larger concern is how a global "coalition" of governments is able to address threats before the impact of those threats becomes so severe that irreversible consequences become unavoidable. If what we've heard about global warming is anywhere close to true, it will take a herculean effort to avoid the consequences. What historical models can we draw on where an impending threat was avoided by a democratic or coalition government when it involved major public sacrifice?
- dwtung July 14, 2008 8:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
top down or bottom up?
dwtung said, "My larger concern is how a global "coalition" of governments is able to address threats before the impact of those threats becomes so severe that irreversible consequences become unavoidable."
i worry that we're all just waiting for someone else to swoop in and save the day rather than addressing our own overconsumption.
- reckoner
July 20, 2008 8:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We can't expect billions of people to change their ways
Unfortunately we can't expect billions of people to change their ways, and while some difference can be made by the combined efforts of millions of concerned individuals, this is unlikely to have a significant impact when you consider the rapidly increasing population. That is why this problem must be solved on the production side and not the consumer side. In order to really avoid the crisis we must make it a national priority to switch to 100% renewable, non polluting forms of energy and we must make the cost of decommissioning products be a part of their initial price tag. If we force companies to design products with the entire lifecycle being taken into consideration then the competition and the nature of capitalism will find ways to make this process cheaper and more efficient.
- domokun
October 21, 2009 4:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's certainly happening, but should we prevent it?
As far as the evidence and debate goes, it appears fairly certain that there is a green-house effect due to certain gases which we humans expel in great quantities. However, whether this is a bad thing in the long run is questionable. We shouldn't be focusing on whether it is our fault, because even if we stopped all of our cars and factories, there is enough in the atmosphere already to continue the process. It is too late to prevent.
But there is a lot of evidence suggesting we shouldn't stop it. It certainly will cause misery for many places around the world, but it will also cause improvements for a number of countries and regions in terms of agriculture and weather patterns. A planet going through a temperature change does not automatically equal negative results all around. For example, global warming has caused a significant increase in vegetation growth around the world.
I suggest we adapt instead of prevent, because we can do little to reverse it at this point anyway.
- The5thElephant July 24, 2008 9:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
End of Mini Ice Age?
I'm uncommitted because no one has convinced me that this isn't the end of the little ice age that peaked around 1800.
- gridlock July 24, 2008 9:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The debate is not over in the slightest
Science has *not* proven in any way, shape, or form that increasing CO2 is the primary cause of global warming, much less that the human produced CO2, which represents something like *** 3% *** of all the CO2 production on earth, is the primary culprit. Too much disinformation is being passed around, starting with Al Gore's famous chart that, upon close examination, actually shows that rises in global temperature generally *predate* rises in CO2 (i.e. global warming causes more CO2, not the other way around). And no one seems interested in the fact that solar activity also tracks with global temperature changes quite nicely.
Things to remember:
1) A lot of people are making money and/or political points on anthropogenic global warming
2) It was only about 25 years ago that we were "in danger of the next ice age by 2001"
3) Given a choice, most of the world would do better with warming than cooling. The earths biomass is increasing nicely as we speak.
4) Water Vapor > CO2 in GH effects
- ThatSteveGuy July 28, 2008 2:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
sunny ade
Congratulations, you have just regurgitated the 4 top climate obfuscations and myths. Perhaps you can come up with some that have not been so thoroughly deflated by the scientific community. Nicely done.
- sunny ade
June 19, 2009 4:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No obfuscation or myth
When growing up in the 70's I was afraid of the end of the world as we knew it. We were told in no uncertain terms and ice age was coming and most likely those of us watching that news broadcast would suffer through it and many would die. That was promised to occur in about 20 years. I never forgot that as a 5 year old hearing that. Well, it never happened.
Beside that, they cannot predict the weather with any level of accuracy for next month, but they "KNOW" we humans are killing the planet. No thanks, I don't need your religion .
- pineypl
September 15, 2009 3:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
predicting
“We were told in no uncertain terms and ice age was coming and most likely those of us watching that news broadcast would suffer through it and many would die. That was promised to occur in about 20 years. I never forgot that as a 5 year old hearing that. Well, it never happened.”
That news broadcast was based on one paper predicting global cooling. Even back then the evidence for global warming was already on the rise (two papers proposed global cooling, many more proposed global warming).
“Beside that, they cannot predict the weather with any level of accuracy for next month, but they "KNOW" we humans are killing the planet. No thanks, I don't need your religion .”
There is a rather large difference between predicting rainstorms weeks in advanced and predicting an overall warming trend.
- MrBook
September 17, 2009 4:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No possible prediction
"There is a rather large difference between predicting rainstorms weeks in advanced and predicting an overall warming trend. "
Actually not. The 'trend' of which the climate change people-notice how it changed from global warming to global climate change-speak of is not there. This is a so-called global warming trend, yet we are seeing record lows all summer long throughout the USA and other countries. If this trend is what they are banking on, I am not worried.
As said many times prior, but maybe this time it will make people think, the globe is a huge machine that nobody controls or fully understands, yet we know that it goes through cooling and heating cycles; are they manmade? Nope. Other planets are showing the same trends, what did we do to those planets?
- pineypl
September 18, 2009 11:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
prediction confirmed.
“Actually not. The 'trend' of which the climate change people-notice how it changed from global warming to global climate change-speak of is not there. This is a so-called global warming trend, yet we are seeing record lows all summer long throughout the USA and other countries. If this trend is what they are banking on, I am not worried.”
Those record lows are consistent with global warming, which shows that regional variations will be effected by the overall rise in temperature. This occurs because the higher global temperature is altering weather patterns.
“As said many times prior, but maybe this time it will make people think, the globe is a huge machine that nobody controls or fully understands, yet we know that it goes through cooling and heating cycles; are they manmade? Nope. Other planets are showing the same trends, what did we do to those planets?”
There are specific predictions that are made by global warming regarding the effects of that warming. One of those that was recently confirmed was that the troposphere (the part of the atmosphere close to the Earths surface) would be warmed because that is where the CO2 concentrates. This has been confirmed by recent observations .
( http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html )
- MrBook
September 20, 2009 7:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good news: We can all help stop global warming
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that climate change is “very likely” caused by human activities. This means that humans can also help stop the problem.
Going vegetarian is a good to help halt global warming. According to the United Nations, raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars, trucks, trains, ships, and planes in the world combined.
The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook states that “refusing meat” is “the single most effective thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint.” Researchers at the University of Chicago have even determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.
- PETA
July 29, 2008 3:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I may sound rude here. But I'm not.
Ah yes, that's a great idea! Plant eating animals produce more greenhouse gasses than any other source, so all humans should just switch to eating plants. oh.
A few things to consider about this though.
1. methane is a byproduct of digesting plants. So if our diet changes from meat and plants to plant, won't we be producing a lot more methane?
2. Methane is a much more efficient green house gas (supposedly) than CO2. Can our leafy greens really take in more carbon dioxide than we put out methane?
3. Wouldn't all of that CO2 come out of our poo?
4. What about the cows, chickens and pigs currently alive? They won't stop producing just because we stop eating them. and without us killing half of the population they would have a population explosion. Do we just kill them all? Because that defeats the purpose to let them live.
Things are never as simple as they seem
- Nivarion
August 4, 2009 2:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
simpler
"1. methane is a byproduct of digesting plants. So if our diet changes from meat and plants to plant, won't we be producing a lot more methane?"
methane is produced through the process of digesting plants... the amount of methane depends on how the digestive system. Humans do not produce nearly as much methane as herbivores do.
"2. Methane is a much more efficient green house gas (supposedly) than CO2. Can our leafy greens really take in more carbon dioxide than we put out methane? "
Meat costs more energy per unit to produce then vegetables, so by changing the meat / vegetable ratio in our diet we can save energy (and thus reduce CO2 output).
"3. Wouldn't all of that CO2 come out of our poo?"
yes... in a sense... that CO2 is 'sequestered' in that it is not released into the atmosphere.
"4. What about the cows, chickens and pigs currently alive? They won't stop producing just because we stop eating them. and without us killing half of the population they would have a population explosion. Do we just kill them all? Because that defeats the purpose to let them live."
Yes, but with a reduced demand for meat there will be less need to produce as much meat... and thus fewer number of animals will need to be breed.
- MrBook
September 9, 2009 8:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
History
Yes, but with a reduced demand for meat there will be less need to produce as much meat... and thus fewer number of animals will need to be breed.
Historically farmers don't keep animals alive when they can no longer sell them. In the great depression era, when farmers couldn't sell their meat anymore they dug large deep holes with their tractors, forced all of the animals in and then buried them. In most cases (I'm sure there exceptions) the farmer has no hand in the breeding, so they would have to be denied contact with each other to stop a population boom.
Historically what would happen is that all of these animals would be killed in a pretty ruthless manner. They would stop getting anti-biotics and medicine if they are allowed to live, and would not be fed enough either.
And just a note, while I think that humans should eat meat, I agree that Americans eat an obscene amount of the stuff. I had less than 4 ounces of it today, and that is more meat than usual for me. I'm 5'6" 130 lbs and have a body fat index around 3% And boy do I feel great.
- Nivarion
September 9, 2009 9:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
eating meat
I agree that much of the industrialized world eats far to much meat .
You seem to be seeing this as a sudden shift... which is highly unlikely. A slower shift over a period of years (or even decades) is more likely, which would give time for the meat producers to adjust their herd size.
- MrBook
September 10, 2009 5:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Climate Goes In Cycles
Throughout earth's 4.6 billion year history, the climate has constantly shifted and changed. It's a cycle. We get warmer for awhile, and then we get cooler for awhile. It's part of the circle of nature.
Do I think it's important to take care of the environment? Absolutely! However I believe we're just in a warming trend right now and before too long we'll start cooling off again. The cycle will continue until the end of earth.
- bagpiper2005
August 12, 2008 2:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Global Warming: Real or Scam?
Before I answer that let me state clearly that being kinder to our planet and producing renewable energy and real recycling programs (not fakes ones like much of it now) are very important and should be pursued because it is the right thing to do. On some level, if you have to scare the crap out of everyone to move in the right direction, maybe it's not a bad thing?
But there are many things that bother me about this. First is that Al Gore is a hypocrite. His environmental record is pretty poor (better than Bush, not arguing that) but do a google search on Greens against Gore (a faction of the Sierra Club) from the 2000 election or a search on east liverpool and gore.
Secondly, you have a living thing like Earth and you cannot take any subset of it's history out of context with the rest. It is clear that there have been periods in earth's past where CO2 levels have been higher.
But what bothers me most is the LACK of intelligent debate on the subject. If you dare question the validity of the "good" scientist's theories, you are branded a quack and a heretic. Remember that Galileo was imprisoned for believing that the earth revolved around the sun, not vice versa which was the scientific consensus of his day. Failure to discuss alternatives of any subject is a very dangerous practice.
Lastly, realize that there is a lot of money in the word "green." I can 100% guarantee you that people will be saying the same thing about green energy companies in our future that are being said about big oil today.
- Pliskin
October 2, 2008 1:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A Challenge for AGW Advocates
The CO2 increase in the atmosphere has been from 280 to 379 parts per million ( http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0320-11.htm ), which when put into a percentage comes out to a .028% to .0379% increase, or less than one hundredth of a percent increase in CO2 with respect to the whole 5 quadrillion metric ton atmosphere. Explain how such a marginal increase resulted in the warming we have seen so far.
- F2XL
November 14, 2008 9:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Highly catastorophic - one way path to arctic ice bed meltdown
Now imagine a glass of water with ice cubes floating over top. Ice cubes on top let the water just under themselves cooler and cooled water goes down along the glass. When cooled water reached its bottom, it takes away heat from your hand or atmosphere. And then, warmed water goes upward to ice cube again, and going to be cooled by ice cubes. This is recirculation or convection.
Same thing happens among arctic ocean and tropic ocean as tidal circulation over a globe.
Ice bed floating over top in arctic gona cool down the sea just under it. This is an ice cube. Tides go down the latitude and take away heat in tropic and warm section. This is your hand. As a counter reaction, your hand feels cooler. Tides from arctic cool down atmosphere of the lower latitudes. This income and outcome have to be totaly zero by cycle of year. Otherwise, our earth temprature goes up and up(vice-versa). Greenhouse effect broke this equilibrium. Global warming and ice bed solusion started in 1995. Excessive CO2 emission caused greenhouse effect and made an excess in that global heat equiliblim.
This hypothesis explains outstanding warmth in higher latitudes and outbreak of tornades in United states caused by higher sea temprature. However, the most important thing lead by this hypothesis is that this is one way trip toward ice bed meltdown.
Amount of arctic ice bed has been kept totally compensated through a year. Heat release in summer is recovered in winter chill. Again, its total shuold be zero. Greenhouse effect caused an excess, and started lessening amout of ice bed. This amount of ice bed directly means cooling capability. As a result, once equilibrium is broken by excessive heat, total temprature keeps go up, while cooling capability of ice bed goes weaker by itself.
By the way, where did the arctic ice bed come from? The ansewer is "from ice age". In ice age, the globe had been perfectly coverd by ice. How was the days before ice age? Have you ever seen a picture of dinosaus in your childhood? Dinosaus as big gigantic reptiles walk around the earth coverd by tropic ferns, and the atmosphere was far warmer than today. After that, some global event caused dramatic temprature down, and ice covered all over the globe. Gradually, low temprature went moderate and covered ice disapeared, and then, reached the divine heat balance that we mentioned just before. "Failure to stop ice bed meltdown means that we are going back to the hot days of dinosaus."
Someone may say "We can recover the original heat balance by shutting down all co2 emission, then." - No way. Who can recover that original balance in the days before our co2 dependent industrial life started? In addition, already we have lost undeniable amount of ice bed as cooling fascility of the earth. To go back to old days is not sufficient, but we have to CREATE NEW ICE BED.
We gona all pessimistic...
Still, we have to make effort with all our invented technologies. Nuclear power - yes, shoud be one of them. Yet, enough? We have sum up all excess in all along tidal circulation concerning heat from green house effect.
We have another answer of infinite cooling capacity here. "The Outerspace" - the world of absolute zero temprature - sum of all our technology can create recirculation fascility connecting the outerspace - becomes God-allowable Tower of Babel that reaches heaven.
- ganchan425
November 20, 2008 11:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Open your eyes, people, and see what's happening!
My first post and a topic that is near and dear to my heart.
Global Warming is here and unless we - the world - do something serious to stop, slow down or totally reverse what is happening, our children and theirs will never see living creatures that we now take for granted. I have a 6 month old grandson and I am sad to think that he may never see a living polar bear (one of my MOST favorite animals). Their habitats are dwindling due to rises in temperatures and now, in Australia, the heat is going up so high that animals that have adapted to a hot climate are leaving their home areas in search of water and cool temps. There's been proof of a hole in the Ozone Layer and it's right where the temp. changes all started. Now they're moving downward and we're all experiencing radical weather changes. Species are dying off or being put in high risk due to drastic climate changes and while some argue that it's only a degree here or there, they fail to see that just 2 degrees can cause marine life to leave the waters that the polar bears feed in. Just TWO degrees! Those two degrees cause nearly all of the marine life that the polar bear population needs, to leave and go far enough away that the polar bear cannot find enough food to live.
It's a crisis for certain and those that choose to ignore it are not just hurting the whole world, but they're hurting *themselves too* and one day it will all be too late!
- jbdean
February 11, 2009 6:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Put more ice in your koolade
and that will cut back on your global warming . Are we really going to spend nearly $1,000,000,000,000 we don't have to cut warming by .05 degrees???
- Blackbird
July 1, 2009 3:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's happening
yes, no matter what the government tells you, global warming is happening
i have tracked and anaylized daily temperatures in Calgary and i have enough evidence to say global warming is causing worsening weather conditions at least in my city.
the rapid changes in climate has happened before, and it might happen again(i sure hope not)
record your local conditions and see for your self.
- Stormwolf
February 12, 2009 8:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Really?
Wow. Just wow. Because you have recorded daily temperatures in your hometown, you believe Global Warming is happening?
I believe you're getting "weather" and " climate " confused.
Let's just say you're right, for one moment (even though you aren't). My grandparents have been recording the temperature outside of their house for the past fourty years. They write it down... no lie! If you look at the temperatures and plot them on a graph, you get a two year "warm" period, then a twenty year "cool" period (noting that twenty years ago, they were afraid of a new ice age), followed by a couple more peaks and valleys, but overall the same. The AVERAGE daily temperature has gone down four degrees in their town.
It MUST be proof global warming is fake, right?
- nickodonnell
April 9, 2009 11:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What town?
What town have they been recording this in?
- Submariner June 17, 2009 7:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This is real.
Global warming has been an issue for the past 20 years or so, and still no one has done anything about it. Dont get me wrong there are people out there trying to make a difference but we as a society are dependent on cunsuming anything and everything. We need to know when to say no and break this old habbit and come into the new age of the 21st century and stop depending on forigen oils and big gas wasting suv's.
- MartinRG
March 11, 2009 10:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Our real threat is the global warming hoax
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 . The over 700 dissenting international scientists that just met in New York are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media -hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority .Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3
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 UN 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 , limit development, 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 U.N. and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.
- Antonio Sosa
March 23, 2009 3:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The real threat
Global socialism is the real threat. The concept of an average global temperature is silly and if it's such a threat, then we should all be rushing towards nuclear power . Since the environuts are ruling that "solution" out and relying on two things that will never amount to more than single digits percentages of the total global energy sources is proof that they're not really serious about finding ways to sustain our health and wealth. It's a luddite thing.
- ScottM
April 21, 2009 6:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The UN, ROTFLMAO
"The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that climate change is “very likely” caused by human activities. This means that humans can also help stop the problem."
Now there's a legitimate political body. hahahahahah.
The UN, is the most pointless organization on earth. From the Oil for Palaces program, to the UN council on racism , or whatever it is they call it with a straight face, that mega corrupt, leftist political organization shouldn't be regarded seriously by anyone with any modicum of intelligence.
- ScottM
April 21, 2009 6:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
CRISIS - YES
Science has proven CO2 destroys the planet. People don't what to believe it because they don't want to change. So, they throw out all kinds of arguments and bury their heads in the sand. The reality is that science will NEVER be able to prove that only man has created this problem because our planet is so complex.
The bottom line is climate is changing AND people are being impacted by it. Maybe not you, but there are people on our planet suffering. Same for animals and plants.
- Coo July 24, 2009 10:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
YES -Talk to these people in Alaska
The people of Shishmaref, Alaska lived on this island for 400 years, they have had to relocate the entire community inland because of CLIMATE CHANGE. The sea ice melted leaving their island vulnerable. Consequently, Arctic storms pound and erode the small island. Homes have fallen into the ocean. Plus, the permafrost underneath is melting making homes unstable and creating environmental issues. READ IT...
/ www.shishmarefrelocation.com /
There are other villages and people in the Arctic that have experienced the same thing. This is only a small example of what is happening all over the planet, that you are not going to hear about on tabloid TV.
- Coo July 24, 2009 10:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It always busts my chops.
I like this subject and argue it a lot with friends, family and complete strangers. However, it always irks me when an AGW supporter can't keep on the subject.
We are arguing the CAUSE of global warming . It is pretty undeniable that it HAS happened. ( god i need my italics)
So there we are arguing the cause. I state after my listing of facts that I know that AGW is a load of bolognium, when the change the subject.
"But it is happening, look the temperature has gone up by half a degree!"
Well woopde do. And the sky is blue too.
But in general, we don't really know if the CO2 actually has anything to do with the warming. It could be too many things that our little window of observation doesn't allow for.
Another thought I have had on the subject, is that we are making more and more accurate measuring equipment. How do we know that this supposed rise is not from error of the older measurements?
- Nivarion
August 4, 2009 2:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Global warming
Now I am not a man of since don't even know if I spelled it right . But I will Tell you one thing since I was 9 years old I've noriced different from year to year and if you think there is no problem ur in for a big surpise because it is happening.
- muffmonster36
September 2, 2009 1:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.