http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/scien … imate.html
People wouldn't alter scientific data for their own personal benefit would they? There's not any money to be made with Global Warming is their?
To be fair, the rebuttal:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … -cru-hack/
I live on the east side of the Sierras. Global warming is more obvious at elevation. Glaciers are melting. And the low temps on the east side of the Sierras run 10-15 degrees higher than average almost continually.
Don't know how much man has to do with it, but it is real at least at higher elevations.
Global Warming can cause destruction only!
Why do all the conspiracy theorists suspect the environmentalists of scamming, but never question the big corporations?
The world's big corporations are under pressure to adopt environmentally friendly practices, which will cost a lot and thus affect their huge profits. Practically every climate change opponent in the world, both individuals and "think tanks", are funded by these large corporations.
What? You don't think big companies would lie to us about global warming?
What about the company that invented leaded petrol? They continued to cover up its health impacts for years, even though its own factory workers were dying from it.
What about the tobacco companies? They knew they were killing their customers, but covered up the evidence for years.
There are countless examples of how large companies wilfully put people's lives at risk for the sake of profit. It's terrifying to think that big corporations are willing to sacrifice our children's future for the sake of money, but I suspect it's true.
Of course it's a trick. That man can affect an entire planet?! What kind of an ego is that?
As for money to be made with Global Warming, it's the best kind of money, governments take it from citizens and give it to you!!
Check this YOUtube link to a presentation debunking global warming, you decide. The video is 96 mins long, if you decide to watch it you should also enable the power point file that goes with it.
you can approach that problem from 3 ways.
1. statistical analysis
if you look at the science of it, simply by measuring carbon in parts per million in the atmosphere through thousands of years, (we get those from the air particles stuck from frozen ice cores dug down kilometers in the ground at the poles) the current readings are way way way off the charts. it's the highest in 650,000 years. and that includes the ice ages and stuff like that, so natural climatic changes can't account for this rise.
the hottest years on records have all been in the last 10 years. and we are consistently seeing new "highs" being made. is the earth warming up? it's hard to argue otherwise.
3. visual experience.
look at photos of mt. kilmanjaro taken 50 years ago and now. compare them. the fabled ice caps is all almost gone. look at photos too of the ice caps and their extent. once frozen solid, the north pole may be soon accessible to shipping year round. what can you infer from these? of course the earth is warming up.
hence if your question is if global warming a trick, using that 3 types of info, of course it's not. the earth IS warming up. whether it's caused by man, all indications say very very likely yes.
what the whole community is trying to do is to reverse it before it becomes irreversible. think of it as like cancer. the early stages are silent, but when you discover the truth, often it's too late. that window of opportunity, i'm afraid, has already passed though.
yeah i did. perhaps some of those guys did cheat on their figures. but the body of work on global warming is so great that no one, nor a single university, or even say the United States of America (throw in all their universities) can have a total say on "yeah we got the authoritative answer". Think of the reversal of bush's policies under the present administration.
it was the same with the cloning hoo-hah a few years back when the korean scientist was caught fabricating stuff. doesn't mean that cloning can't be done or dolly was a fake.
ultimately, global warming is here. and it won't go away just because we found out that someone overstated some numbers right?
I only asked because in your first post you didn't reference anything in the articles.
So, if "some of those guys did cheat on their figures" Isn't it possible that others, "cheat on their figures" as well? Where is the standard. Who's data do we trust, and discount. What if the data that de-bunks Global Warming is correct. Maybe the skeptics are the ones not "cheating on their figures"
your concern is that everyone is in one big hoax to scam the whole world right? that everyone is cheating. imagine it as an economic situation where the commodity is truth. assume that all these guys are cheating (your scenario), that'll be a monopoly where only the scientists have the truth and no one else has it.
the real academic world is more like the free market than a monopoly. there are good honest people and bad deceitful people in EVERY society. same goes for the academic circles. the "hoax" if there ever is one will collapse on itself cos no government owns the truth. i think you'd find it a bit far fetched to get the russian and chinese scientists to agree to participate on a hoax of a global scale along with the americans. the british won't work with the french, and the arabs won't suddenly love the israelis.
who do we trust and discount? well you get all the views and opposing views and you make a decision which sounds more logical, more fair and more objective. use your own judgement!
that's why i proposed 3 areas of evidence, of which one is personal experience. look at photographic evidence, climatic disasters. you can even observe things that happen around you. did those migratory birds disappear? what happened to all the frogs calls that i always hear? why did the flowers start to bloom two weeks earlier than 5 years ago? the natural world is finely tuned to the seasons and temperature, and currently, a lot of these cycles are thrown off balance due to global warming. you can observe them, and as first hand experience.
And you believe none of your "3 areas of evidence" are just natural phenomena occurring through one of the earths cycles?
Is the earth getting closer at perigee each year it passes by the sun?
Was there an ice age? And if so, didn't Global Warming start then? Maybe there is nothing that can be done to stop it.
from the evidence of temperature rises and CO2 level sin the air, it's already way past the rate and magnitude of what we've experienced in previous ice ages.
although i'm no expert in astronomy, i don't agree that earth's orbit to the sun is a factor at all. logically, if earth is moving closer to the sun, the effects will won't show only in this decade. a decade in climatic terms is akin to a few seconds perhaps for us. the ice ages didn't occur overnight but over a long time. hence, what we are experiencing now is an anomaly. the speed and rate that it has happened is something that we can't explain away without human activity as the cause.
You don't "agree that the earths orbit to the sun is a factor at all"? Are you being serious? You don't have to be an expert in astronomy to know that the closer a planet is to the sun the warmer it will be, and the further it is the colder it will be.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/ … uses08.jsp
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec … y/planets/
It's not that simple. The earth is closest to the sun during our winter, but it's not hotter then. http://ecology.com/features/tiltingearth/
The change in the earth's orbit over the last century is miniscule. Why the sudden change in climate?
Your response takes into account the season itself, which is determined by hemisphere, and the amount of sun that actually reaches earth.
What I am saying is that if the Earth's orbit is getting smaller (or the counteracting forces between the planets/sun are beginning to differ), and moving closer to the sun little by little, then the Planet is going to get hotter.
I understand. But those changes would be too slow to noticeably affect our climate.
yes this is exactly my point. if our earth is getting closer to the sun and it's affecting our climate, this effect should have been reflected through all of time, but it isn't. to use that to explain the sudden spike in the last 50 years is stretching it a bit. whatever happened to the last couple of billion of years?
1. Measuring carbon particles from the atmosphere today and comparing them to carbon particles you "believe" came from the atmosphere "X" amount of years ago is not solid evidence.
2. Recorded weather history. While the last 10 years have been the hottest on "AVERAGE", meaning that the average "Global" temperature has been hotter over the last ten year period, proves nothing. First in the past ten years the "Average" gglobal temperature of each year in the last ten has been trending "DOWNWARD". Finally recorded weather history is your best source. However there isn't enough. No accurate analysis can be done with out a reliable sampling of data. Supposedly the earth is millions of years old. However we only have a couple hundred years of accurate weather recordings.
3. Visual. This only means that the weather is changing. No one is arguing that. The cause, thats in question. \
I personally believe that weather is cyclical. There will be drought, floods, ice ages, hot and cold periods....Basically the earth is a living thing, capable of sustaining itself. It was here before us and will be here after us. The idea that since the industrial age we have done, or doing irreparable damage to something that's been here for millions of years is the pinacle of arogance.
Yes but you "believe" that based on absolutely nothing.
And are quite happy gambling my grand children's future on it.
Don't worry, I'm sure the next Ice age is just around the corner!
Get your facts together Tex! That was the 60's....I believe the great enviromentalist.....Manson, forget his first name. Anyway he was claiming that the earth was headed for an Ice Age....
and cap and trade tax is not gambling on your grand children's future? The current conclusions regarding global warming are based on flawed or incomplete data. I noticed you had nothing to say concerning the facts that were stated. I'm not an emotional religionist you so easily antagonize. Facts, sir is what we should be basing drastic actions on. On that we can agree.
Did not see any facts. You said "I believe" but go ahead and present some "facts" that we are not having an effect.
Then you chose to ignore them. Paragraphs 1,2 and 3. contain verifiable facts. The question of global warming is NOT a "this or that" type of question. Its a question of impact. Not only do you have to prove that Humans can impact the enviroment(proven). You have to prove that they can do so in a manner that is obviously dangerous. There are plenty of good reasons to get off fossil fuel based energy. Scare tatics and hair brain tax schemes aren't going to help convince anyone. Further, even if global warming is as bad as some "BELIEVE" and the US does go down this path, Russia, China, India, etc won't. No matter how you try to convince them!
Lets be honest. Al Gore starts a "carbon credit" company on the heels of this "theory". Al Gore starts a "green" car company, outside the US with stimulus monies...FOLLOW the money! Even if the theory of global warming is absolutely correct, the US government is entirely too corupt to trust at this point. Especially if it intends to funnel tax dollars to an entity founded by a former politician! Geez, its like giving money to the tele evangelist in the name of "jeebus" as you like to say.
The forum question did ask for peoples "thoughts".....
Umm no. It isn't just one man either. I took a course called Climate Change and the Ocean, she didn't mention him once, I don't think she was very fond of him.
Besides, our research is pretty conclusive; global warming really is caused by people.
No, I didn't. I've read articles on both sides of the argument, and the ones showing the existence of man-made global climate change are by far the more convincing. In fact, almost every dissenting view expressed turns out to have an oil industry lobbyist behind it. They rely on pseudo-science and emotional arguments to cover up gaping holes in their logic.
Then your reply is irrelevant. You are only looking for a stage to push you opinion onto people. This thread was specifically started as a result of the two articles in the first post. Our research? May I ask what scientific research you have done that uncovers the cause of Global warming?
I stand by my statement. There has been a LOT of research done about the extent of global warming and its causes, and there is a global consensus that it is human-caused and major. The legitimate debate is over. Only politics keeps up the appearance of doubt.
That's fine to stand by your statement, but at least try to address the original point and references of the thread. They were specifically related to the original articles.
Your response is basically saying, I don't care what anyone else has to say. I am only going to post what I believe.
Seems like some people feel compelled to take such absolute views on certain issues as if they are afraid anything less would be some kind of ideological betrayal.
I simply understand the science and am stating what I have come to know. The debate among conscientious scientists has fizzled out as it does whenever a global consensus is reached.
It's time to stop chasing our tails.
Go on then, tell us why man-made global warming is a fact. And don't just come out with the "all dissenters work for oil companies" argument.
The debate has most definitely not "fizzled out"
Register and search Global Warming. The debate is still very strong.
http://www.physicsforums.com/search.php … id=1872011
Global warming is thread situation for people and also its really caused by people
- People are making money of global warming issue, TRUE!
- Global warming is just a trick, FALSE!
Global warming is a man created problem, it is the biggest challenge that world is facing today.
I think this is the most sensible viewpoint. global warming and making money from global warming is 2 issues and we should not confuse it though they are so very linked.
1. did we cause global warming? very likely.
2. are some pple going to make a killing out of it? definitely.
did they create the imaginary problem so that they can profit from it? highly unlikely.
think about this from another angle. experts have been arguing whether oil will run out in 30 or 50 years time. but if you are under 30 years old now, it is most likely you will live to experience the post-oil era where oil is no longer the main energy source.
same for global warming. did we cause it or not? some say yes to all, some say maybe, some say 10%. but again if you are under 30 years old now, you will live to experience warmer temperatures and more extreme climates.
Come on people! Why does every conversation or debate over this issue devolve into the cause?
I have my own opinion based on the exponential growth of the human race, the proliferation of heat and pollution producing installations (power plants, industrial plants) and motor vehicles - do some research on the number of those, oh and don't forget trains and planes.With planes look into the effect their exhausts are having on clouds and therefore rain.
I digress, the "cause' is not important, the fact is! You do all live on this planet yes? Are you not afraid?
I am afraid, I am 52 years old and I can tell you when I was a kid we could stay out in the sun a lot longer, we never had reports of hail causing catastrophic events. The very thought that Alaska would have a longer growing season or that the Sahara would start to green would have been a laugh until we cried.
I am only afraid because I have a son who is the light of my life, take me tomorrow God (and I am an agnostic) no worries, but my boy please don't hurt him?
PS I was going to say I was an atheist but my son pointed out that if God suddenly appeared I would not deny him, but would probably engage him in conversation, along the lines of "Where the heck have You been?" A side suggestion to that was that the response might be "Well I'm really sorry but once I allowed evolution to develop marijuana, I just took a trip for a few (thousand) years.
Perhaps the thread should have been called "Is man-made global warming a trick?"
If it had been, then I would have said a definite "yes". I didn't think this way at one time but now I'm a lot more cynical.
For example, the thing about the ice caps melting: a lot of it is due to soot/pollution(1) (black stuff absorbs sunlight, its temperature rises, hence the melting). And the other factoid that man-made global warming true believers like to throw at you, about the highest temperatures occurring in the last ten years, isn't as clear cut as they make it out to be. The high average is largely caused by a "spike" in about 1999; take away the spike, and you find that the temperatures are *slightly* higher on average than the previous decade, but the actual trend is down(2). The believers' climate change models didn't predict that AFAIK, and a model is no good unless it predicts things accurately.
Put it this way, I'm hugely sceptical about the "man causes global warming" scenario, and I think the "solutions" (cap & trade etc) will be very damaging. A few people will make a lot of money out of it, but the rest of us will lose out. And that applies to both the developed world and the developing world.
(1)http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03 … page2.html
(2)http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/20 … ir-margin/
The planet is constantly changing and evolving, and variations in climate have been going on since recorded history and beyond. Here in Europe we experienced a long period of warm, temperate weather in the Middle Ages, followed by 'the little Ice Age' which lasted several centuries and saw some of the major European rivers freeze over completely each winter. I don't applaud the way we use and abuse the planet. Things could and should be done to prevent pollution etc. But at the same time I'm not convinced that all global warming is a result of human activity.
True there have been climatic changes as pointed out with the ice ages and the warm periods in between. I'm no expert as to how much the temperatures have risen back then compared to now, but i believe if we look at CO2 in the air, it's way off the charts currently. that is something that is difficult to explain without human activity.
the earth's capacity to take pollution is finite. what we are doing currently it adding pollutants in the form of the various greenhouse gases, and killing the capacity. deforestation is reducing the earth's capacity to absorb CO2 and regulate the atmosphere.
this is a double whammy that has really taken root after the industrial revolution. in the past, we chopped a tree at a time. now we raze them by the hectare and acre per hour. in the past we could only gather round a fireplace. now we belch out emissions by the tonne. coincidentally, that is when the spike in CO2 starts.
We've been chopping down trees with gay abandon for centuries. For example, Britain and Europe used to be absolutely covered with trees until the Middle Ages.
As for deforestation "reducing the earth's capacity to absorb CO2", you just don't know this. None of us do. And as I've said elsewhere in the forums, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas. It's not even the most important greenhouse gas - that honour goes to... water vapour. And as I said before, guess what covers most of the earth's surface? Could it be water, by any chance? Surely this alone would have far more effect on temperature variation than any tiny fluctuations in CO2 caused by man.
And another thing: what came first, the chicken or the egg? Analysis of ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic show that there is some doubt about whether increases in CO2 levels *cause* temperature increases or whether they follow on afterwards(1).
(1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Siros … ate_Change
You state this:
"yes this is exactly my point. if our earth is getting closer to the sun and it's affecting our climate, this effect should have been reflected through all of time, but it isn't. to use that to explain the sudden spike in the last 50 years is stretching it a bit. whatever happened to the last couple of billion of years?"
"True there have been climatic changes as pointed out with the ice ages and the warm periods in between. I'm no expert as to how much the temperatures have risen back then compared to now, but i believe if we look at CO2 in the air, it's way off the charts currently. that is something that is difficult to explain without human activity."
So which is it? Do you study the effects of the temperatures in the past, or do you only rely on data from the last 50 years? If you only rely on the last 50 years, then how could you possibly comment on the sun's effect on temperature over all of time?
Here is an outline of how to calculate the Earth's temperature
http://www.math.duke.edu/education/prep … index.html
Notice that the first thing mentioned is energy flux in relationship to the earths distance from the sun. I would also like to point out that the earths orbit is an ellipse. Why is this important? Most people think that because it's an ellipse the orbit is shaped like an egg. The earth's orbit, if it were seen with the human eye, would actually just look like a circle. The drawings and illustrations used to portray the earth's orbit are always drawn or created to over emphasize the shape of the ellipse. Point being, don't judge apogee and perigee by what you see on a drawing. You really need to do the math, or review the math in order to compare the effects of the earth's orbit.
Here's a fun little tool to play around with. Adjust planet X's temperature by moving the orbit. Additionally, notice the pretty accurate representation of the ellipse.
The planet is heating up. Whether this is a natural occurrence of a cycle of heating and cooling will be determined. Global warming always proceeds ice ages, and on and on. Man may be hastening a natural occurrence but not be the cause of it.
In answer to the op though saying that because a few scientist have been accused of lying or padding numbers shows the whole thing to be a trick would be on par with saying that the few priests and pastors caught lying, cheating, and molesting proves Christianity and religion to also be a trick. It is an extreme generalization and an example of opponents of the theory jumping on anything to disprove it. The globe is heating up, this is a fact. Mankind is doing serious and irreparable harm to the environment on a daily basis, also fact. Denying the evidence before you won't make it any less true it just makes people seem even more ignorant and oblivious to reality. Once again see global ocean temperatures, melting ice packs, strengthening hurricanes, and growing desertification of temperate regions. All these are indications of a system out of balance and trying to cool itself and return balance.
Overpopulation causes global warming. Nuclear wars should solve everything.
I love your extremism !
Extreme, one of my favourite words.
Whether global warming is true or not, i think it is better to take good care of our earth
True we should take care of the earth.
All the same, in the Telegraph last week it was revealed that hackers broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and found some rather compromising emails passed between scientists - apparently they've been tampering just a little bit with the global warming data http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james … l-warming/
It's not going to be big news though as anthropogenic global warming is apparently big money for politicians, media and a good many scientists. This article explains why-
Whatever they get up to we can still take care of this planet. It would be nicer if they were honest with us though.
Less of a trick more of a trip and people keep falling for it.
The evidence is what is most disputed. Some Scientists relate staggering data to back it up while other scientists chalk it up to anything from fame seeking scientists to tree hugging alarmests that want to prove their self worth and credibility.
What ever the reasons it is something that should not be ignored. With some statistics stating from 1997 to 2008, world carbon dioxide has leapt up 31%. Emissions from China have doubled since 1997.
Globally, glaciers are disintegrating three times rapider than in the 1970s and the normal glacier has melted 25 feet since 1997, says Michael Zemp, scientist at World Glacier Monitoring Service at the University of Zurich.
Oceans are also growing more acidic due to carbon dioxide in the air that is being drawn into the water. Acidic water is hazardous to coral, oysters and plankton and will harm the ocean food chain, biologists note.
By ignoring these types of reports we are setting ourselves up for a lot of trouble when the trend cannot be reversed or at least stayed.
That still doesn't address the underlying issue of whether CO2 is even responsible for the vast majority of global warming. 31% of not very much is... not very much. Plus there's the doubt I mentioned in one of my earlier posts about whether increases in CO2 emissions come before warming or lag behind it.
And yet sea ice in the Antarctic has actually increased by 43% since 1980. Funnily enough, the mainstream media hasn't been too quick to tell us this.
The acidity could also be coming from other things like sulphur and nitrogen emissions. It would definitely be worth monitoring this though.
There is still evidence to dispute the recent expansion of the ice in the east.
An expansion of sea ice around Antarctica is linked to a hole in the ozone layer high in the atmosphere, according to a study that helps clear up a mystery about global warming.
"While there is increasing evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic has occurred due to human activity, in the Antarctic human influence through the ozone hole has had the reverse effect and resulted in more ice," says John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey.
Read this to get a better understanding of it.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ … 549626.htm
The hole in the ozone layer causes cooling? Fantastic - get that hairspray out!
Seriously though, I can't help wondering if they're grasping at straws here. You would think that an ozone hole would let in more of the sun's rays and would therefore heat up the Antarctic, leading to *melting* of the ice.
Getting off the topic a bit, I'd be interested to know if the ozone hole really *was* a direct cause of us letting off CFCs, or whether it too is a cyclical phenomenon that pre-dates large-scale human population. Seeing as they only started monitoring ozone levels about 50 years ago, I suppose we'll never know.
The hole in the ozone caused a large portion of the eastern side of Antarctica to melt into the atmosphere. A thing that happens most in that part of the world is the wind that is generated much like hurricanes in this part by the warming air rising caused the moisture to snow down on the eastern part of Anarctica.
It really is basic science but the other side of the argument tends to laugh and point at it on the surface and look at it as contradictory.
The only argument I see from the naysayers is do nothing. That is no plan and one that can be very costly.
Again, you call those that refuse to buy the theory of man made global warming "naysayers" and in the same breath you talk about how the opposition calls proponents names and therefore discredits any serious debate they may present, yet you do the same! There is nothing to be done for a problem that doesn't exist. It's pretty simple. And what's proposed will do nothing, absolutely NOTHING to reduce carbon to make a measurable impact. What it will do is enrich people like Al Gore at the expense of the poor! You who pretends to care so much about the unfortunate are more than willing to sacrifice them on the global warming altar of Mother Earth using "science" that's been shown in the recently revealed emails to be manipulated to show a desired result.
Once again you state possible scenarios and because they are not fully understood or studied you claim too much cost and bother to pursue them. This is indicative of a fatalist approach with no answer to the problem.
The human condition has a funny mechanism. We find it in all aspects of human behavior. If a problem is too much to bear then ignore it and better yet deny its' existence. Not a sound approach.
I really don't care if Al Gore gets richer by this. I can put away such petty animosity for a better understanding and possibly averting another tragedy in human history. You know a dog doesn't even poop where he sleeps, where are we better in that scenario if we can't come to terms with the solutions.
This post is really a response to both yourself and Katelyn, who makes much the same points.
Firstly: this IMO is one instance when I think doing nothing is genuinely better than the "something" proposed by climate change activists. Even if man-made global warming is real, all cap and trade will do is shift the problem around a bit, rather than solving it. You and I will just end up paying more tax, and people like Al Gore and traders on Wall Street/the Square Mile will get richer at our expense. It won't even help people in the Third World - quite the opposite.
Increasingly, I also feel more and more disturbed by the environmentalists' claims about mankind being a stain on the surface of the planet (or words to that effect). There is a very anti-human, fascisistic strain to it all that always made me a bit uneasy, even when I was a card-carrying environmentalist myself (yes, that last bit is true believe it or not).
If you want to look at from another point of view we could turn the lemon into lemonade. Create an industry from it and hopefully America could be ahead of the curve and exploit the moment with it. A lot of jobs could be created and we might have some affect on the trend and maybe slow whatever the progression is. It sure beats wars for getting an economy going.
It's better than wars, sure. But that's all it's got going for it. If you're going to go down that route, it would be better to spend money on research into renewable energy to reduce dependence on oil from Russia and the Middle East.
We should smoke more here in Canada, may be Canadian winter will be milder...
Global warming is a lie!
It's part of a conspiracy to destroy the USA and collapse our government in order to move to a new world order under one socialist government!
Even if it were true, and by no means is the science certain, it would take extreme measures to reverse, hundreds of times more than those proposed in the Copenhagen accords, and the USA would bear the brunt of those reductions resulting in the shipping of wealth from the USA to the rest of the world!
Even if it is true, no one can say with certainty that a warmer globe would be bad in sum total.
The fact is 400,000 years of ice core data show cyclical warming events in 10,000 year intervals and we are currently at the peak of one such interval. This data shows ONLY a correlation between carbon and warming NOT a causation!
There are powerful forces that which to impose their will upon free people mainly in order to enrich themselves! Remember it was Enron that first came up with the idea of trading "carbon credits". We should be very skeptical of anyone making these claims of global warming and predicting catastrophe.
That is a really great diatribe but doesn't address the problem directly.
Well yes it does because his contention is that there isn't a problem!
The tone and demeanor and no specifics only encourages inuendo without any proof. That is why I called it a diatribe.
The funny part about this debate is that the naysayers have a need to insult and try to defame the participants through out and out debasement. With this type of tripe you cannot make a credible argument. If you want to discuss these things you would be better served by doing so wth out all the conspiracy hype and disparaging statements about the topic. You cannot expect to have any respect given your point of view with name calling and trivializing peoples views as your defense.
...and yet there's plenty of insult and hyperbole on the "global warming is man-made" side as well. Worse - there are actually people who believe that "climate change denial" should be criminalised. The implications of that are truly frightening.
Besides, Lord Monckton's speech does make some extremely valid points - why *does* Al Gore not want to make his slides public?
3-5% of Co2 Emissions are created by man. Perhaps even less.
So what happens when you eliminate all man caused Co2 emissions?
Answer: No real effect
The whole Global Warming Movement is a distraction so the Governments of the World can implement "Green Taxes".
The problem is not warming, it's pollution and corruption.
"3-5% of Co2 Emissions are created by man. Perhaps even less."
Where did you get these figures? I think you are probably confused by the difference between NET adn GROSS emissions.
It is true that plants release c.60 Gt of C per year through autotrophic respiration, and decomposition another 60 Gt of C (through heterotrophic respiration), but photosynthesis absorbs 120 Gt.
In fact human emissions are by far the greatest net contributor to atmospheric CO2 concentrations, with the burning of fossil fuels being the largest human source. You can read a good summary of what we know, what we don't know and how we know what we know here:
For the "man can affect the planet - what a huge ego" argument... I think many people tend to forget just how many people are on this planet.. the place is overrun by people, and with us comes our pollution and insatiable use of resources.
It doesn't take a scientist to look at how much of the planet is being drilled, drained and chopped up to support human life, and how much of it is used to store or 'dispose' of our waste products.
Does a family of beavers chopping down trees in a swamp alter their landscape? YES, of course it does. Now if there were a million beavers chopping trees down in the same swamp, things would change pretty quickly.
Same thing with people.. the planet can only support so much life, it seems vast and endless to one person's point of view but with over 6.7 BILLION people sharing resources, things tend to CHANGE. Whatever those changes may be.
Nietzsche made a good point when he called humans a disease of the earth. I'm not anti-human or whatever... I just think we need some self control as a species.
Has anyone seen that video where the guy talks about whether or not we act to try and solve the climate issue? I can't remember who it was or what it was called.. maybe someone else knows.
Anyways, he says something along the lines of:
1. If we do change our ways and it turns out the climate argument is right, we all win because we fixed the problem
2. If we do change our ways and the climate change argument was false, well...nobody really loses
3. If we don't change our ways and the climate change argument was true, we ALL lose.
4. If we don't change our ways and the climate change argument was false.. again, we're no better or worse, just right where we were to begin with.
So, how many people can the Earth support without "damaging" the environment, and who decides who should be killed?
By the way number 2 is not true, changing "our ways" has a cost, a monetary as well as human cost, and that impact will be great. Number 3 is also untrue, because you are making the assumption that the result of warming will be a net negative for the planet. But I guess if poor people die, iy's all okay because the planet is "overrun with people". I just hope when we're picking people to die, that you aren't the one to draw the short straw.
The four scenarios is meant to be broadly general, and I'm not implying that people have to die...I don't know where you got that idea.
Think of an aquarium: If there are too many fish, they die from the toxic buildup of their own waste. How to solve this problem? You obviously don't KILL the fish, you get a better filter.
It's simplistic but if you put it into our situation, we need to acknowledge that our use of resources and the resulting waste/pollution IS in fact an issue, and that we need to look into better ways to sustain ourselves and to "filter out" our waste products, rather than fighting over whether or not it's an issue.
Unfortunately the general idea is that cure is better than prevention, not the other way around.
The town always waits until enough people have died before putting up stop signs.
If Human Beings have the power to blow up the planet then they also have the power to effect it's climate.
What amazes me about the people who refuse to believe the evidence on global warming is the nightmare world that they must live in.
Most of the doubters believe that tens of thousands of scientists around the world are involved in some kind of conspiracy to fabricate evidence.
The UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change that collates, condenses and summarizes the work of the thousands of independent teams working on climate change number around 150. Those 150 scientists come from every corner of the globe- every where from the US to China to Belgium. How do you bribe, intimidate or suborn that panel, let alone the huge number of independent researchers?
The stand outs against the evidence for Global warming are few and far between. Of those, many are associated with special interest groups. Nowadays, even the special interest groups are thinning out.
Major oil companies like BP accepted long ago that evidence for man made climate change was incontrovertible and have adjusted their business model.The rest of the business world needs to wake up and smell the opportunities that a sustainable development model offers. If they don't they will end up in the same mess as General Motors et al.
p.s. the Internet has a carbon footprint as large as the aviation industry, so none of us has any reason to feel superior.
Odd that you should think that only those who ask for conclusive proof of the extent of man's contribution to global warming are backed by "special interests" and have some "agenda". What agenda would that be? And why when people like Al Gore and others stand to profit greatly in the trading of carbon credits is it that their intentions are pure?
And how do you explain the emails documenting the manipulation of data to produce the desired results?
The fact is that man's contribution to global warming has not been proven conclusively. Ice core data shows a correlation between carbon and temperature but that doesn't mean carbon is the causation of the warming. Indeed, it may well be the other way around!
Before we can solve a "problem" we have to determine one exists and to what extent then we have to realistically look at the options. To make the cuts that "scientists" say need to be made we would literally have to eliminate all fossil transportation around the globe. Hardly a realistic solution.
This is the one time I suggest we do take Pascals' wager. It will only be "proven conclusively" when it is far too late.
It is not as farfetched as you think. There are a number of alternatives being worked on. Big oil would want you move into electric vehicles as the energy to create electricity would need to be generated by fossil fuels. Still a lot of smog. Another source is hydrogen and Big Oil would want you to create the electricity from fossil fuels again. Still smog.
What they don't want is for the electricity to process hydrogen to be left up to solar or wind as there is a great deal of electricity needed to produce hydrogen by these means. It would take them out of the running. Worse yet for Big Oil is the conversion of water to hydrogen onboard generators that are being squashed. This type of conversion for internal combustion engines is the best solution for us and the planet but forces far greater than you and I are against it.
Yes it is. Using alternatives that are more expensive than natural gas and oil will hurt us just as much as cap and trade. We'll lose even more jobs and developing technology that is not needed will not "put us ahead of the curve" as you put it.
If global warming were a threat there would be no need to make up data and skew the results of the observed measurements. 30 years ago you'd have been one of those people arguing that we were headed towards a global cooling.
You are assuming that alternatives will be more expensive. there is technology that refutes that. The other problem of reducing current technologies say in the matter is wholly different. Remember capatalism? The big capitalists don't wish for us to abandon a system of energy technology they have spent the last century creating. To much of an investment to let go. Careful who you think is lying in this scenario who will benefit from the lies.
Either way, it is scary. Especially the amount of rain the UK has lately which we never had 10 years ago
my opinion, and only my opinion. Man made global warming is a hoax. everything else is natural and operates in cycles. I wont bother to link or add data. those who believe in global warming will ignore it and those who believe as I do have already read it.
That people have caused it . yes! Otherwise, I'd say it's happening!
Sure trading carbon "credits" will create tons of jobs! This carbon tax will destroy jobs and hurt the poor most of all. It's a scam to trasfer wealth globally and the people of the USA will bear the brunt of this fruitless exercise!
You "global warming" proponents make me laugh! You're all fine with doing something about the "problem" until that something affects your life! Will you stop buying cars and start walking? Will you grow your own food without the use of pesticides and fertilizers? Will you turn off your thermostats and shut off your lights. your AC, your TV's? Will you stop eating meat? LOL! No of course not! You want governmnet to "fix" the "problem" and of course it's as simple as taxing the use of energy! LOL!
You want to stop global warming? How about you set an example by eliminating YOUR carbon footprint? Yes, I thought so...
If insults is where you want to go with this and hypocrisy is your intent I won't get into that with you. You don't know what I have done but you assume the worst of me. I don't wish to think the same as you. I would hope we could make this conversation one of an idea exchange but as usual you wish to attack with assumptions and popular propoganda to boost your point. I am sorry you cannot look ahead and see the writting on the wall.
You wish us to do nothing for something that is coming down the road. Maybe not today and maybe not in your lifetime or mine but maybe our childrens children won't have to worry about the threat of a broken country to live in but a world that is too toxic to exist in.
Where did I single you out? If the shoe fits my friend.... Where is the insult? I didn't insult anyone! I asked questions which you and all of the other proponents of global warming will not address. However to really "fix" it will require sacrifice not some carbon tax that will have an immeasurable effect on emmissions but will stress the poor and destroy jobs! You and your other supporters of this fiasco wish only to ease your conscience and you think that can be accomplished by paying a tax on carbon! That's the truth so just own up to it! When it comes down to doing what is REALLY required, to make the real sacrifices...well, then we will see!
You should go back and read what you wrote to remind yourself of how you sling attacks. And if you really want to produce evidence you should have more than name calling and belittling insults to express your points.
I didn't call anyone names . Perhaps you can show me where I had? I did make some accusations and you and all the other supporters of the global warming lie have failed to address or deny them.
I guess the article you offered had no attacks or name calling in it, did it?
Your claims were unsubstantiated and I did reference studies and facts you claim to refute based on your beliefs. No my friend things that you say and opinions you have offered are on the record. I am sorry you don't stand up for what you have said and hide behind instant amnesia. But have no worry I still will try to understand your offerings and help you find the error of your ways.
LOL! So if I post a link to an article that I didn't write everything in it is automatically credited to me? Now if onlyI could get royalities that easily!
The answer to the original question increasingly seems to be 'yes.'
Global warming has little to nothing to do with man... If you check data about how the distance between the sun and earth changes over time you'll find some interesting numbers though.
Anycollection - please tell us these numbers. Show me the academic papers that support your claim. What you are talking about is 'solar forcing' I assume. This is included in the IPCC synthesis. It does indeed increase the temperature of the Earth. However, this increse is very small compared to human impacts.
See for yourself here - p136, figure 1.2 (and the references therein): http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor … apter2.pdf
If you have evidence that is different to these figures then please share it. No links to websites though, I will only deal with links to peer reviewed articles. Anyone can write anything they want in a website.
What impressed me reading the New York Times article was that such a small event could get such a huge amount of hype.
It shows how determined and well organized the anti Global Warming lobby is. It also shows a measure of desperation. Having hacked a tiny university in the UK. they managed to find an email from a decade ago where someone talks of using a presentational trick in a graph of data.
Surely people are aware of the mountains of data involved in the case for global warming being man made? Most of it comes from studies made long after that email.
The NYT journalist's main gripe is that the scientists made disrespectful remarks about him and others who doubt the evidence. for whatever reason.
I mean the man is putting his fragile ego ahead of the fate of the planet.
conspiracy theories do nothing but heighten paranoia where there should be none. they are as bad as crop circles.
Its called climate change now so any evidence of heating or cooling can be used to prove the planet is doomed! Global warming is so last year.
This question is moot.
Even if global warming is some type of 'trick', what are we stuck with as a result?
A cleaner planet
Diverse energy sources
Greater understanding of our impacts (big or small)
No, it's a good point if you consider that there is only so much tax people can pay as a percentage of their income before it has an adverse effect on the economy:
Here are my predictions if carbon tax and cap-and-trade become an established feature of our lives:
1. We will all be paying more tax, which means we'll have less money to spend on other stuff, which means that any economic recovery that might happen will be slowed down
2. A carbon futures market will be established, which will lead to the creation of a stock market bubble out of which certain people (i.e. the very rich) will do very nicely indeed but a lot of small investors will get their fingers burned.
3. When the bubble bursts (and it will) the media will wring its hands. Cue sudden 180 degree reversal in the party line: suddenly all the mainstream media will be saying that climate change isn't man-made after all! How could we ever have thought such a thing? Etc. etc.
Meet you back here in ten years' time to compare notes and see if my predictions came true or not.
So in the interest of fuzziness we should ignore all the reports and continue down a polution based energy system and wait and see?
You obviously believe in the reports about man-made global warming being a fact. I don't. If humans don't affect climate change, then it's highly unlikely that any of the man-made "fixes" that have been thought up (carbon capture, carbon tax, emissions trading or whatever) are going to make any difference. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
The so-called climate change levy* was introduced by the UK government in 2001 to encourage energy companies to reduce carbon emissions. As a result (surprise, surprise) the energy companies have added money onto our bills. Funny, that. Moreover, the same energy companies were given carbon emissions trading permits through the EU when the European emissions trading scheme started. They were given these permits** for free, which effectively amounts to free money for the energy companies courtesy of us the tax payers. You might not have a problem with any of this. I do.
Unfortunately your links won't work so I can't comment on them. The general argument I recieve from people who don't believe that there is a global warming effect happening refer to debunking that attacks one or two theories being offered to combat the argument. If these were to be the defining reasons other than individual refutations there would be reason to think it was all a hoax. But knowing that these are "THEORIES" there is room to understand that either the refute was sound in its' reasoning or that it merely made the theory unexplanable. That is where the fuzziness comes into play. I can't defend out and out lies as some have offered but there is a lot that is not explained. Would it not be prudent to act on some abatement to the production of greenhouse gasses rather than get too far down the road and find out it is too late to reverse it. It is good that some find little change but maybe that is better looked at as there is still time.
As far as the financial aspect of taxes and rising costs due to it, nothing is free. This is something I would rather pay for now rather than leaving another nasty mess for our children to clean up if it came to that.
They should work now I've put spaces after the asterisks.
My argument is that human carbon emissions do not affect climate. Ergo, cutting human carbon emissions will also have zero effect on climate.
Sorry, I don't quite understand this bit.
The idea of anthropogenic global warming is also a theory. One with huge holes in it.
Life is full of risks and payoffs. If the likely payoff of doing something is very very small or even non-existent, and if doing that thing is going to cause other problems down the line, then you know what? I prefer to either do something else, or do nothing.
OK, I get you now. I really think that in life generally, the burden of proof should be on the believers. The fact that the statistics/data have been massaged (as per the emails described in the OP), the fact that cyclical climate variations have been occurring since before the earliest humans, the fact that CO2 isn't the biggest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by a long stretch of the imagination, and the fact that historically, temperature variations have actually preceded changes in CO2 levels rather than coming after them... all of these tell me that the "believers" haven't proved their case. Add to that the realisation of just who benefits from cap & trade and carbon tax, and I'm afraid that my bullshit meter pings into the red.
You should really read this to understand better how I view the situation. It does refute your assertions but it is a good read non the less.
As for cap & trade I think that the politics of it stinks and maybe they should go back to the drawing board. But to drop the subject entirely is a foolish gamble with the future.
I'm not too sure it does refute my assertions. It admits that CO2 levels actually lag behind changes in temperature, and also says that rises and falls in CO2 levels didn't initiate glacial cycles. Then it says that the slight rise in temperature caused by variations in the earth's orbit round the sun would then cause a feedback mechanism: "...a slight warming would cause the level of greenhouse gases to rise slightly. For one thing, warmer oceans would evaporate out more gas. For another, as the vast Arctic tundras warmed up the bogs would emit more CO2 and methane. The greenhouse effect of these gases would raise the temperature a little more, which would cause more emission of gases, which would... and so forth, hauling the planet step by step into a warm period."
Assuming this is true, you need to know (a) how much CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, and (b) what percentage of the overall CO2 levels in the atmosphere is produced by man. Given that we know the answer to (a) is "very small", then (b) must be "smaller still".
Another thing: if you go back hundreds of years in history, there was a period known as the "Little Climatic Optimum" extending from 800 AD to 1250 AD*. During this period, just before the "Little Ice Age" (about 1300-1850), temperatures were about 2 ºC higher than now, allowing the Vikings to colonize Greenland, for example. You can't tell me that anthropogenic CO2 caused that.
Whether or not we are contributing to global warming, we will still be paying for the impact it has on our cities and societies through higher taxes.
Choose how your tax money will be spent, not if it will be spent. Prevention and mitigation, or response and recovery?
Here is the latest congressional hearing and testimony regarding the hacked Global Warming e-mails. Nothing to surprising...everyone disagrees.
It sounds serious,you convinced me, I am selling my fur coat!
One Indonesian volcano blowing up in 1815 caused a huge two-year climate change in Europe and North America. There was snow in July in Massachussetts and other states. Entire crops failed. Europeans starved for lack of food. It was just one volcano, spewing forth gasses and tiny solid bits of ash, and it caused this major change that lasted for two years, until the ash settled out.
Is it therefore so unlikely that since we have taken carbon-based fuels from beneath the soil, where they were stored for millions of years, and reintroduced them back into the atmosphere, that our endeavours have not changed the climate in some form? When these former living things were buried the atmosphere was at a much higher level of carbon that it is today. Do we seriously think that this reintroduction of carbon has absolutely no effect at all? Who is being egotistical here? Or perhaps blind to our own actions?
This is not idle speculation. Things being added to the atmosphere can and do change the climate. This can be shown locally and happens whenever a temperature inversion occurs. It is pollutants that cause it, such as in Los Angeles and Mexico City and other places. Imagine that on a larger scale.
However, the question we ask is all wrong. It is not whether man has influenced in some major or minor way the climate, it is rather that the climate is changing, either getting colder or warmer, and what are we going to do about it? What do we need to do in order to make sure we, as a nation, get through this?
I really don't care two figs if mankind caused this change or is simply adding to it: If we are going to experience climate change f any kind, hadn't we better start looking to our own safety?
Humans definitely have a negative effect on the environment, but the temperature data has only been recorded for a short time in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of years that humans have been on this planet. To think that we have a more direct influence on the planet than the sun does is a pretty arrogant and self serving attitude.
Of course there is money to be made by being "green". You can't turn on the television or witness any other media without being pummeled by the need to go "Green" and anyone who invested in CFL's 5 years ago is sitting pretty. My advice to you? Invest in the electric car.
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 sannyasinman6 years ago
An independent weather forecaster who tells the truth - a rare commodity . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyjsJJr … ded#at=164
by Holle Abee9 months ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
by emievil8 years ago
I came upon this news that a study showed majority of the Americans do not believe humans caused global warming / climate change. Any idea if this is true? What about the rest of the world, what do we believe?This is...
by arakkathara7 years ago
The islands like japan, philippines, andaman,nikobar,lakhswadeep etc .which are same to the sea level will disappear with in 100 years, because of the damage of osonspheres. make awareness to this issue is the first...
by William R. Wilson6 years ago
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/ … TE20110127A North Atlantic current flowing into the Arctic Ocean is warmer than for at least 2,000 years in a sign that global warming is likely to bring ice-free seas...
Copyright © 2017 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.