|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Is Global Warming a myth?
There are so many opinions on both sides of this argument. Who is right?
There WAS a Global Warming trend from 1979 through the big El Niño year of 1998. (Before 1979, there was a decades-long cooling trend.) However attribution is problematical. The Warmies would have us believe that we nasty humans and our evil 'planet-wrecking' carbon emissions are to blame. However there's a big problem with this particular fairy tale.
Even though the 'evil' atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been increasing since 1998, there's been no (as in zero, zip, nada, and zilch) MEASURABLE warming trend since then. And at least two prominent Warmies have admitted that in the leaked Climategate emails. That and the other predictions made by the GCMs (global climate models) have not panned out. In the theoretical sciences, prediction is the coin of the realm. Since the predictions made by the GCMs are all garbage, Anthropomorphic Global Warming is a thoroughly falsified hypothesis.
Yes, Green-House Gases are real. So what? The 800-pound gorilla of GHGs is gas-phase H2O. The real-world effect of recent CO2 increases on our fair planet's climate is so small that we can't even begin to measure it.
My claim about no warming trend is based upon the publicly available satellite data from the University of Alabama, Huntsville. I'm 99% certain that the surface station data say essentially the same thing. However the numbers coming from that source are all 'adjusted' (fudged), and that fact is common knowledge. The Warmies are extremely reluctant to release the RAW data for ALL of the individual temperature stations, together with the related computer code. This is not the way that REAL scientists behave.
For those of us old enough to remember, this smells like the shrill WMD-in-Iraq hype, from the early 'Naughties'. The Warmist propaganda is based upon a Big Lie; together with three classical logical fallacies: argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad populum, and argumentum ad veracundiam (spelling?).
Global warming itself can happen - but slapping the label "man made" is the hoax. i wrote a whole hub on it... here are the highlights ..
warmers oh the co2 the co2 is coming... firsthttp://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.htm off here is an article on it
guess what waaaayy back in thewayyy BACk Back Back all the way to the mid Cretaceous that’s approximately 100 million years ago for you non-geologic folks. It was estimated by a collaboration of Professors (1) in the Applied Science Department at NYU (Rampino et al) that Carbon-dioxide releases associated with a mid-Cretaceous super plume and mountain building activities in the Ontong-Java Plateau have been suggested as a principal cause of the mid-Cretaceous global warming. CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm (that’s1100 to 4000 ppm). Based on the temperature sensitivity to CO2 increases used in the weathering-rate formulations, this would cause a global warming of from 2.8 to 7.7 degrees Celsius that is 37-44 degrees Fahrenheit (toasty) over today's global mean temperature. Altered continental positions and higher sea level may have been contributed about 4.8 degrees C to mid-Cretaceous warming. Thus, the combined effects of paleogeographic changes and super-plume related CO2 emissions could be in the range of 7.6 to 12.5 degrees C, within the 6 to 14 degrees C range previously estimated for mid-Cretaceous warming. TRANSLATION- the earth was warmer … why yes global warming your correct BUT what caused the “Global warming?” Was it dinosaurs in hotrods? Explain that Al Gore....9guess who studied paleo climates in College????
I'm sorry, Larry, but who are the Warmies? I get so tired of political labels when discussions like this occur. Would it be possible for you to just state your opinion without labelling people....it goes something like this.....my opinion is....and then you site your sources if necessary....attacking another group is counter-productive if you are trying to gain support for your opinion.
No, global warming is not a myth, despite previous comments to the contrary.
The story of the mainstream science on this issue begins in 1811, when an William Charles Wells began an investigation of how dew forms, providing an early insight into radiation exchanges between atmosphere and the earth's surface. Other milestones came in 1826, (Joseph Fourier); 1860, (John Tyndall); 1896, (Svante Arrhenius); and 1938 (Guy Callendar.)
In 1958 measurements of atmospheric CO2 began at Mauna Loa. From 1959 to 2011, concentrations have risen from 316 parts per million to 392 ppm. In all, human contributions have raised CO2 about 40% from pre-Industrial levels.
By the end of the 1980s it was clear that the climate was warming. International efforts to investigate this question began, leading to several treaties, including the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, and the International Panel on Climate Change was established. To date, the IPCC has issued 4 Assessment Reports summarizing the science in the professional literature. (The IPCC does not perform primary research, and has no scientists on staff--its authors--hundreds of them per AR--volunteer their time.)
Today, there is a robust 30+ year warming trend; the first decade of the millennium was the warmest on record, and 2010 was the warmest year in many of the records. Glaciers are in retreat around the world; the Arctic sea ice is in sharp retreat; animals are adjusting their ranges to warmer temps (as are gardeners); absolute humidity, drought and extreme precipitation are increasing as predicted by climate models.
There is also a documented PR effort to deny all of the above, funded primarily by Big Energy--tax documents show that organizations such as the coal company Massey Energy, Exxon and (above all) the Koch brothers have spent many tens of millions of dollars to attempt to discredit the mainstream science. It is an effort which precisely parallels the efforts of Big Tobacco to discredit the fact that smoking causes cancer. Sadly, this effort has had considerable success.
A great resource to find out more on the topic is this website:
There are also a number of Hubs on the question; I've written some and there is an excellent series by William R. Wilson:
7-th week with -20 C in Bulgaria.
If there is global warming, it is someplace else.
Follow the money and you will see if it is a myth. Ask Al Gore, if he is so concerned about global warming why he spends so much on electricity for his numerous homes scattered throughout the US.
Look on the weather channel website and look at history. You can find the history of the your location and decide for yourself.
About CO2, as a gardener I would gladly welcome any that you have to spare. Without CO2 my plants will wither and die.
Global warming is not my fault. I can't even compete with the volcanoes that have erupted in the last few years. The one in Ice Land grounded air travel in Europe for days. Nothing I, or my fellow homo sapiens do will come close to having that kind of effect on the atmosphere.
I cannot honestly say who is right, nor can anyone for that matter. As a rule I would side against AGW, because any research data I have ever looked over is not all inclusive. The theory truly does not cover the scope of possibilities concerning our climate, and what has the largest effect on it. I rarely see any mention of solar minimum, or maximum, no mention what so ever of solar wind and it's possible effects, never a hint of how the fluxuation of our magnetosphere may be involved, all said there are just far too many variables in the data to try and put a neat little bow on the whole theory and say it's man's fault.
After realising that the data is incomplete, the next obvious question for me is: Does anyone stand to profit from this theory being widely accepted as fact? And behold Al Gore, Maurice Strong , and countless other psychopaths step immediately to the forefront with their "green" companies, and carbon credit sales. The only piece of literature anyone has to read to know for a fact that the people behind the whole AGW theory are psychotic is the UN Agenda 21. As boring as it is to actually read, once you get the jist of the whole document you realise you have been reading a horror novel all along. Stephen King isn't capable of coming up with crazier literature than that document (which is over 2000 pages long). It essentially tells how in the near future the International community agrees to relocate their entire populations into sustainable super cities, with "buffer" zones to prevent people from going out into the wilderness. I personally get angry when people try and teach me the truth behind the science of AGW, I think it is complete nonsense, but I guess we all have our opinions don't we.
Well, over the past 15 years, we've seen disasters, from Hurricane Katrina in 2005, to Hurricane Sandy in 2012, to the siege of blizzards in the Northeast during the Winter of 2015, to the Floods in Texas in 2015, 2016, and 2017. We've also seen a rare late-August outbreak in Indiana in 2016 (last year), a massive megaflood in Louisiana on August 2016 and Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria and Ophelia this year (with Ophelia getting awfully close to Europe as a major hurricane and being the easternmost Major Hurricane on record). I can say that Global warming is not a myth. It is fact. The media is hiding the facts about climate change to make it seem like it's natural. The world is going to end, people, whether you like it or not.
by Will Apse5 years ago
The Koch brothers are climate change skeptics, Their business is chemicals, coal and transportation- three areas likely to be hit hard by any moves to a low carbon economy.They have respect for science, though, and...
by My Esoteric16 months ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the...
by theirishobserver.7 years ago
Many European commentators are laughing at the Global Warming Thesis - is it a myth?
by Holle Abee17 months ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
by Pamda Man8 years ago
I recently did some research on global warming. I found out that the USA is emitting over 25% of the world's polluting gases. These include sulphur dioxide which causes acid rain, and nitrous oxides which causes health...
by David Stillwell6 years ago
Are you concerned about global warming or do you feel it is more hype than fact?There is a lot of information available about global warming, almost as though there is too much information available. Does the...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.