Global Warming - The Science is Not Settled

This is not a settled issue

The "science" is not settled. More and more evidence is mounting that raises concern that climate change is nothing more than a giant hoax. More scientists are sharing information that conflicts with the current global warming (now called Global Change) doomsday scenarios.

Is the globe warming? Yes.

Is it disastrous? No.

Is it mostly due to man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Now, THAT is the question, isn't it? There are two possibilities:

1) If it's true that carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing all this warming and climate change, then we humans can at least do SOMETHING to prevent catastrophe.

-or-

2) If it's NOT true, then there are a lot of people, a lot of companies, a lot of government officials throughout the entire world somehow working together to pull off what will surely be called the greatest, most expensive hoax ever.

Source

The Source of Skepticism

The organization that's causing people to question what many are calling "The Church of Global Warming" is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

The climate science is authoritatively explained in complete detail in the thousands of pages of Climate Change Reconsidered II, authored by the dozens of top scientists serving on the NIPCC. It was recently published in three volumes of thousands of pages by the Heartland Institute.

Those volumes are “double peer reviewed,” in that they discusses thousands of peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals, and are themselves peer reviewed.

http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html


The National Climate Assessment Report cannot claim this level of peer review. In fact, the Summary (the part that news organizations draw their headlines from) of the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (http://www.ipcc.ch/) has already been proven to have been modified so extensively that many of those very scientists who contributed to the full report are calling foul.

More well-researched, well-thought-out articles are being written questioning what some are calling "the cult of global warming." This one at Forbes.com offers a great point-counterpoint article about the National Climate Assessment.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/05/18/president-obamas-global-warming-calculated-deception-means-democrats-have-abandoned-working-people/

Why is our planet warming?

See results without voting

Record High CO2 Levels

According to Discover magazine #3 top story of 2013, on May 9, instruments atop Hawaii’s Mauna Loa volcano pegged the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) — "the gas that contributes most to global warming" — at slightly above 400 parts per million (ppm). This is the highest it's been in over 650,000 years.

This is alarming! The highest in over 650,000 years. And the article insists that CO2 is "the gas that contributes most to global warming."

Carbon Dioxide Hits 400 ppm — Does It Matter?
Carbon Dioxide Hits 400 ppm — Does It Matter? | Source

An increase in CO2 levels has resulted in increased agricultural output and production -- NOT catastrophe

Oh, but we forgot to mention...

As with most global warming articles, there were a few things that were not mentioned. The time of year; once the season changed and plants started to bloom and grow, the levels of CO2 went down. They're still high, just not as high as was reported. Also, about 550 million years ago, CO2 concentration levels were 15 times greater. Yet, there was no record of any catastrophic results. Instead, modern life flourished and evolved.

And since that’s what plants need, this massive increase in CO2 levels has not produced the same warming proportion that the models predicted. Instead, there’s been increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion.

(Recall that during photosynthesis, plant leaves take in carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. Using the energy from sunlight, this is combined with water drawn up from the roots to make glucose. Oxygen is also produced in this chemical reaction and exits the leaves into the surrounding air.)

In fact, while there is some correlation between CO2 levels and temperature on shorter scales, on long geologic time scales, CO2 has very little or no influence on global temperature (see figure below).

Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Geologic Time
Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Geologic Time

Climate Models are Simply Guesses... and are Wrong

Those Climate Change models are wrong. Even when people point out that there has been a rise in temperature (which, I agree, there has but very small), this rise is nowhere near what the models predicted. So, the models are wrong, and their predictions are repeatedly mistaken.

The charts of the models as compared to actual readings are straying further and further apart. If the models were accurate, or even sort of accurate, then the recent cold spells (many, not just individual events) should never have occurred. The models that were used to generate an immense amount of public federal policy... were wrong!

Uncontested global temperature data shows there has been no global warming for 17 years and 8 months now, even though human global CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate that entire time -- to unprecedented levels.

2014 so far has been the coldest year for the U.S. ever, at least through May 6, according to the network of nationwide thermometers monitored by the U.S. Historical Climatology Network

Soon, the more recent period of no global warming will be longer than the older period of actual global warming, which lasted only about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Preceding that were 30 years of global cooling, generating alarms regarding a new ice age (which is actually overdue, given historical climate cycles).

Sun Spots and Volcanic Activity

I've seen a lot of graphs connecting global temperature to CO2 levels. But there are even more convincing, and more consistent data that suggests that global temperature is more influenced by sun-spot and volcanic activity than anything else. (Many signs point out that we're actually heading towards another mini ice age.)

I'll leave that for a whole other conversation. In the meantime, take a look at this figure:

Let's rename it to... Climate Change

"Global Warming" has been renamed to “Climate Change.” This is kind of funny because I'm trying to think of a time throughout all of history when the climate did not change. So, although this may be one of those things that seems to be so obvious it's stupid, it's actually very smart to call it Climate Change. Now, every time there's a tornado or flood or hurricane, Obama can claim brilliant foresight. "See? I told you this was going to happen."

What they're saying is that there's MORE climate change than normal. And this is because of man-made CO2 emissions from burning all that oil and coal and driving those non-electric vehicles.

But has there been MORE climate change?

No Category 3-5 hurricane has made landfall in the United States since 2005, the longest such period since at least 1900. Moreover, “U.S. tornado frequency remains very low, and the number of years with very large tornado losses has actually decreased during 1993-2013 compared to 1950 to 1970.

In other words, no significant trends for floods, droughts, hurricanes, or tornadoes.

What about the receding glaciers and the melting Arctic ice?

Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago! But there has been no acceleration in the rate of that sea level rise for at least 200 years. Over that past 200 years, the long term, stable sea level rise has averaged a mere 6.6 inches per century, as measured by major tidal gauge studies.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), satellite data shows that Arctic sea ice was 50% thicker in Autumn 2013 than it was in Autumn 2012. This is due to an increase in ice thickness, since sea ice extent declined by around 3 per cent.

So, the ice AREA decreased by 3%, but the true measure, its THICKNESS, increased by 50%.

In Antarctica, the story is a little different: BOTH extent and thickness is increasing.

So, whenever you hear about the melting Arctic ice, the person telling you this is either lying or just hasn't looked at the most recent data.

Source

National Climate Assessment

The National Climate Assessment states, “The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels.

But there is no proof of this basic declarative statement in the entire 841 pages of the National Climate Assessment report.

Infrastructure is being damaged by sea level rise, heavy downpours, and extreme heat….Sea level rise, storm surge, and heavy downpours, in combination with continued development in coastal areas, are increasing damage to U.S. infrastructure including roads, buildings, and industrial facilities, and are also increasing risks to ports and coastal military installations. Flooding along rivers, lakes, and in cities following heavy downpours, prolonged rains, and rapid melting of snow ice pack is exceeding the limits of flood protection infrastructure designed for historical conditions. Extreme heat is damaging transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail lines, and airport runways."

Not one word of this passage is demonstrated by the 841 pages of the report either.

The Greatest Hoax of All Time

50-100 years from now, once all this runs its course and everything really hasn’t changed (except that it’s likely colder), this Global Warming Climate Change thing will be regarded as one the greatest hoaxes thrust onto mankind.

It’s really sad that if this were a Republican theory, the media would have conducted massive research and uncovered how many billions of dollars such-and-such company is making, and how so-and-so people are gaining immense power and influence, and how politicians are just taking advantage of the inherent goodness of people to win votes, "Vote for me and save the planet. The other guy wants to destroy the planet so companies can profit;"

We need journalists to be journalists -- not propaganda voices for the government.

People insisting that Global Warming is real and who share data, are sharing data presented only by those who have a vested interested (influence or money) in this being real.

It’s like religious people who point out the verse in the Bible that says that the Bible is the ONLY book people should read and all other religious writings are the works of the devil.

In other words, one cannot use itself as an independent Source. This is what Global Warming theorists are doing.

Follow the Money

  • Carbon credits
  • Solar panels
  • All Green industries
  • All educational grants promoting "green" issues and conservation
  • Windmills
  • CFL light bulbs

In order to solve this mystery, all one has to do is follow the money. Al Gore has become a billionaire by setting up companies selling carbon credits. Friends (or friends of friends) of Obama have made millions from the multiple government programs promoting the various green industries.

The very people funding the environmentalists speaking out against fracking, coal, Keystone pipeline, big oil, and so on are those that stand to benefit most from the green industry.

Very, very little is done for the pure benefit of the planet. Yes, the "little people" care, but those of influence who are really pulling the strings are all benefiting from green money.

Hoax or not, we can still care about our environment

So what do we do? Do we just throw up our hands and let people and industries trash our environment? Because, let's face it, China and India and Russia do this very thing and even if we spend millions on extra taxes and extra costs for electricity and purchase electric cars, and so on, even if we do all that we will have very little impact on the global environment.

Other countries and, especially, volcanic eruptions (not to mention cow farts and people just breathing), have significantly more influence on the environment. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be healthy.

With everything, a little common sense and moderation is what we need. And, especially, we need to consider the long-term ramifications of government proposals that initially seem to be well-intentioned.

Those hand dryers in restrooms save paper, but the additional costs in electricity are actually worse for the environment.

How will the average U.S. citizen handle $300-500 in increased heating and cooling costs? Will they reduce expenses in other areas, which usually means Walmart gets bigger and there's more paper and plastic waste?

What are the manufacturing and mining costs related to electric vehicle batteries, as opposed to just continuing to make gas engines more efficient? And where will that power come from to power millions of new electric vehicles?

In San Francisco, they mandated a switch to low-flow toilets. As a result, less water breaking up the "solids" in the sewer systems has resulted in far worse environment impacts.

This list goes on and on.

So I have to repeat: this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be healthy for ourselves and for the environment.

But with everything, and ESPECIALLY with granting government more power and influence, a little common sense and moderation is absolutely necessary. And always remember, politicians NEVER do anything that a) will not earn them more money, or b) will not get them re-elected.


And yes, this means YOUR local representative, not just "all those others."


So, don't just accept this global warming issue as fact. Do some non-biased research and come to your own conclusions.

More by this Author


3 comments

jonaive 2 years ago

I really can't believe that there are still people who think climate change is a hoax. The evidences are everywhere! Sometimes it seems that these people are just looking for excuses to NOT take care of the environment.


LetusPonder profile image

LetusPonder 2 years ago from Cheshire, MA Author

This is the problem. This article provided links, evidence, quotes, and even suggested that we DO take care of the environment, and the commenter apparently has read nothing other than the headline. All I ask is that people do a little INDEPENDENT research.


Sanxuary 2 years ago

I believe that there are plenty of other variables. If this was a hoax it surly was not created by the powers that be. The powers that be do not want any challenges to the carbon Industry. Most proverbial is the lack to allow a two sided argument and the complete denial of the obvious. If you grew ethanol fuel for example the carbon exchange rate from burning and growing would have to be some what equal. By comparison burning somewhere close to half the Worlds carbon in less then hundred years takes a great deal of denial that this would not have an impact. Instead we deny both sets of facts in order to protect self interest and try at best to deter alternatives to advancement. Oil will not last forever and so a solution must be found. If it is causing climate change then all the more reason to start searching. Those who think that they are serving the better good of all people have a tendency to exclude others at great peril and at great profit for themselves. We can only hope that their children receive the best survival schools before the lights go out for good. The price of keeping a horse is pretty high these days.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working