Global warming, thorougly debunked

[Richard L]

Caymen,

Thanks for the offer of a DVD, but it's not that improtant and I will continue to keep trying to make it work. Any idea how long before the wheel stops spinning? I have let it run for about 30 minutes without and change and I still don't get the workds "Download Link".



RSheck,

I think that is what the video pointed out....The whole Global Warming issue is plitical. Yes the earch is warming, but it is not caused by numans. We cannot do anything about the rising temperatures, the melting of the glaciers., but we can show the politicians that Global Warmaing is not a plitical issue and they should not make it one.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

It's funny, I watched "An Inconvenient Truth" just yesterday. IF the statistics that Gore shows on his slides are true then the trends are alarming and hard to dismiss (note I said IF). The whole documentary would have been much better received by me if it didn't have that "sour grapes" part in the middle that replayed all the controversy of the first GWB election.



I do think that those of us that think we humans can't make an large impact on the climate are ill-informed. I do think we are making an impact, and I do think we should try to reduce greenhouse gases. But I don't think it needs to be as politically divisive a subject as it has been.



I will watch the linked vid above. But probably not that soon. Heck, it took me this long to watch Gore's vid (waited until it streamed to my DVR so that I wouldn't waste any petro for pressing the DVD...hah!).



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

I love it.



When R Shek posts a message about just about anything, it ends up a "Go Republican" and "Boo Democrat" message.



Sad thing is, there is no such thing as an honest politician. None can be trusted and there is no lesser evil, since they are all just as evil as the other one.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Well, now it seems the BBC is trying to clear things up. No longer is it "thoroughly debunking" global warming as the thread implies:

A former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, Professor Collier is concerned that the serious message about the real risks posed by global warming could be undermined by making premature claims.



"I think there is a good chance of that," he said. "We must guard against that - it would be very damaging.



"I've no doubt that global warming is occurring, but we don't want to undermine that case by crying wolf."

Which sounds to me like less of a debunk, and more of an admission that:

"Well we probably are causing globabl warming, but it won't be as bad as Hollywood is saying."

I think there is too much emotion and sensationalism on both sides of this debate. Furthermore, I trust science, but I am not so sure about scientists.



Read the full article below:

 

[P M]

That it is happening right now is not a question. WHY is the issue. It's the cause and effect that is not quite as clear.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

PRM, I wish more would look at it that way.



If we all would agree that climate change is happening then the important question is:



"Is it going to hurt mankind in the long term?",



And if the answer to that is "Yes", then the follow-on question is:



"Is there anything we can do (or stop doing) to stop or slow the change?"



TJR

 

[Bill Ellis]

Mankind now lives in all of the earth's environments; deserts, tropics, artic and temperate zones. Humans existed through the previous ice age. Humans will adapt to climate change. Of that there should be no question nor doubt. However, the real concern now seems to be that nature has no right to change our mode of living. If sea levels rise then someone is going to lose their property. If deserts expand or rain forests expand, then somebody is going to lose their farm. I say SO WHAT!!!! The biggest effect that climate change will have on most people is that they will pay more to cool in the summer and less to heat in the winter. Many might have to move. It's all been blown out of proportion so badly that it's pitiful. Even worse, is that all the "sheep" believe it when the "Chicken Little" politicians claim the sky is falling. Read both sides of the science and you will find that neither side can prove anything. You will find that the future projection models are so flawed that they can't even track the recent past. Now everybody knows that the weather can't even be accurately predicted more than a few days in advance; so why would anyone think that the earth's very complex climate system can be modeled and predicted 50 to 100 years in advance. Just think about it for a moment. You don't trust what the weather man tells you about next weekend, but you are running around, waving your arms in a panic about long term global climate change. That is simply idiodic.

 

[Richard L]

I do think humans can damage our environment, but I don't think CO2 is the cause of global warming, and the amount of change that humans inject is insignificant when compared to what volcanos, and other natural phenomena have contributed.



As stated in the video, in the 1940's after WWII the CO2 levels were higher than ever recorded yet the weather was so cold that scientist were predicting that we may be entering another Ice Age. However, as the temperature dropped, so did the levels of CO2 until about 1975. This is exactly what the BBC video explains and I heard about that years ago...Long before Al Gore and other were sounding the alarm about global warming. It's very obvious CO2 does not create global warming, but higher CO2 levels is the results of global warming not the cause.



I agree that we need to investigate if there is a manmade cause for global warming, but the panic over CO2 is way too premature if even a valid assumption.



...Rich

 

[Rich Stern]

I think there is too much emotion and sensationalism on both sides of this debate. Furthermore, I trust science, but I am not so sure about scientists.

I've certainly become emotional about it. I get offended when a politician tells me that "the debate is over" and "we have to act now" because "all leading scientists agree."



And then you go and read any number of written accounts by someone like Richard Lindzen who says that Al Gore has mistated his (Lindzen's) position on the matter not once, not twice, but three times. And Gore knows that's not Lindzen's position. He's doing what politicians usually do: Lie for money. Lie for power. Lie to gain uneccesary influence over the lives of ordinary people who would be better off without his help.

I do think we are making an impact, and I do think we should try to reduce greenhouse gases.

Tom, why? Until the science is settled, we don't know what impact we're having and what impact more greenhouse gasses will have. Nobody knows with certainty what the answers are. Why advocate running in a particular direction when you don't know where it leads.



Twenty years ago, a number of prominent scientists ruined their careers in the cold nuclear fusion public relations fiasco, by making statements ahead of where the science really was. They fell prey to the politicians throwing money at them, sinking their hooks into the scientists, making them into puppets. When the early research was later refuted by rational, well reasoned science, those scientists were out of work and disgraced.



It's happening again.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich, asks:

Tom, why? Until the science is settled, we don't know what impact we're having and what impact more greenhouse gasses will have. Nobody knows with certainty what the answers are. Why advocate running in a particular direction when you don't know where it leads.

Because I don't think I need a scientist or a politician to tell me that less pollution and greenhouse gases, not more, would be better, for everyone.



Yes, I know "better" is a subjective term, and "better for whom" is the follow-on question. But if we can pollute less, shouldn't we?



TJR

 

[blksn8k]

One of the "solutions" currently being proposed and implemented is CO2 sequestration. In simpler terms that means capturing the exhaust gases from fossil fuel power plants and pumping it into underground caverns such as empty oil fields. While this may sound like a perfect solution I have to question the long term effects. Is it really better to pump CO2 into the ground rather than into the atmosphere? Given that scientists can't seem to agree on the effect CO2 has on the atmosphere I doubt they know exactly what effect it will have on underground water tables, etc.

 

[Rich Stern]

Because I don't think I need a scientist or a politician to tell me that less pollution and greenhouse gases, not more, would be better, for everyone.



Yes, I know "better" is a subjective term, and "better for whom" is the follow-on question. But if we can pollute less, shouldn't we?

You've already been brainwashed into thinking that CO2, a natural input and/or output for most organic life forms on earth, is "pollution."



I think it's easy to agree that lead is poisonous to many living creatures, and removing it from gasoline was reasonable and helped reduce "pollution." Same for controlling PCBs. Aesbestos. Mercury. Along with other elements and compounds that we could demonstrate, in a lab, as harmful to living things.



Let's say, for the sake of argument, that CO2 is not a significant contributor to global warming, but is a signficant contributor to increasing plant life, resulting in more aerable land, and hence, more food production, which in turn, can lower cost and raise availability of food for developing nations. For that set of circumstances, which is completely plausible (and a supported viewpoint in some scientific circles), is CO2 "bad?"



How did you get to your conclusion? I'd venture to say you weren't led there by scientists, but rather by politicians, who figured out that since everyone emits carbon dioxide, controlling carbon dioxide delivers unprecedented state control of nearly all human activity.

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

When R Shek posts a message about just about anything, it ends up a "Go Republican" and "Boo Democrat" message.

Name me (1) thing in the past 15 years that the Democrats did that was good.... course, besides the tax cuts, name me (1) thing that the Reps did that was good as well...



Let's look back at the last 30 years of Environmental Hysteria....



1970's: Global Cooling (Presidents Nixon and Ford)

1980's: Ozone Hole (Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr.)

1990's: No real environmental issue (President Clinton)

2000's: Global Warming (President Bush Jr)



Cooincidence that all the environmental issues come up while a Republican is in office? I also remind you that none of the enironmental issues of the time occured starting the 3rd week in January of every 4 years....

 

[Tom Schindler]

Name me (1) thing in the past 15 years that the Democrats did that was good.... course, besides the tax cuts, name me (1) thing that the Reps did that was good as well...

That is simple. Neither has done anything good. They are all scum.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich, I'm not brainwashed. Note I said "pollution and CO2", not "CO2 pollution".



But with regards to CO2, I happen to think that less is better than more...that's just my common-sensical viewpoint.



No, it's not brainwashing....until this weekend I thought Al Gore a wet knob, and after watching his video, I still do, so I haven't really been brainwashed or drank any Kool-Aid. I might be wrong, but it's my opinion and viewpoint.



It's kind of like the Adkins diet. There's debate on both sides, but I can have an opinion the subject that is based on common sense that says "something about a high protein diet that says a piece of fruit is bad by a greasy bacon cheesburger sans the bun is good" just doesn't sit right.



Kind of like saying that putting CO2 into the atmosphere when we don't need to is a good thing, not a bad thing. It's good, bad, or indifferent...I'm betting on bad...it's the safe bet.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich also asked:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that CO2 is not a significant contributor to global warming, but is a signficant contributor to increasing plant life, resulting in more aerable land, and hence, more food production, which in turn, can lower cost and raise availability of food for developing nations. For that set of circumstances, which is completely plausible (and a supported viewpoint in some scientific circles), is CO2 "bad?"

Okay, let's say that. I just saw a CNN report that said average crop yields per acre in the US is down, significantly, and its a trend the past few decades. So I am not sure increased CO2 is having the effect you want.



Besides, aren't these increased CO2 levels we are talking about in the upper atmosphere and not necessarily at ground level, surely not at ground level in rural farm areas?



Also, your question assumes a basis which may not be true.



As I said before, I trust science, but not scientists. All are trying to fund their research and that means furthering their hypothesis. When it comes to something like this, where experts on both sides disagree and our government is trying to make political hay, I think MORE people should do what I do, and take a common-sensical viewpoint and be lead by their own convictions.



I find it appalling that my convictions have me assuming that CO2 in ever increasing levels in our upper atmosphere is harmful, not helpful, and some label me as brainwashed.



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

Okay, let's say that. I just saw a CNN report that said average crop yields per acre in the US is down, significantly, and its a trend the past few decades. So I am not sure increased CO2 is having the effect you want.

Was that report based on a socio-economic context, or an biological context? Important distinction. And, consider that it's a media report, which means the context might be misrepresented to gather your eyeballs for advertising viewership. I'd be less suspect if you told me you read the study paper, rather than saw the news report.

Besides, aren't these increased CO2 levels we are talking about in the upper atmosphere and not necessarily at ground level, surely not at ground level in rural farm areas?

If that were true, why would you care if my SUV puts out CO2 at ground level? Why would we measure what amounts of CO2 are in ice core samples?

Also, your question assumes a basis which may not be true.

Or it may be. It's not settled science, which is my point.

As I said before, I trust science, but not scientists. All are trying to fund their research and that means furthering their hypothesis. When it comes to something like this, where experts on both sides disagree and our government is trying to make political hay, I think MORE people should do what I do, and take a common-sensical viewpoint and be lead by their own convictions.

Why is your approach common sense? What conclusive, uncontested scientific knowledge do you have that suggested less CO2 is "better" for society? Is this where the "scientific consensus" (which is only suggested by political bodies) comes into play?

I find it appalling that my convictions have me assuming that CO2 in ever increasing levels in our upper atmosphere is harmful, not helpful, and some label me as brainwashed.

Since there is no ecologically signficant timeline that shows CO2 levels, based on human action, will always increase as a function of modern industrial lifestyle, it is flawed thinking to assume that is the automatically the state we exist in. There are important variables, aside from human activity, that influence the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.



If you trust science, then you must realize that drawing conclusions from 50 years of data in the context of hundreds of millenia of heating and cooling cycles, with major variables such as water vapor and solar activity not fully understood, is a bit of a reach.



You've been conditioned to believe it's not.

 

[Rich Stern]

It's kind of like the Adkins diet. There's debate on both sides, but I can have an opinion the subject that is based on common sense that says "something about a high protein diet that says a piece of fruit is bad by a greasy bacon cheesburger sans the bun is good" just doesn't sit right.

Maybe the Adkins diet more accurately reflects the diet of humans 50,000 years ago, when nobody in the tribe knew that wheat was good for them (or what wheat was), but everybody knew that if you speared a wooly mammoth, the tribe could eat for a month.



What I am trying to say is, our modern social perspective (aka "common sense"), based on our current socialogical environment, is not necessarily the appropriate reference for scientific analysis of long timespan ecological issues that predate recorded history by a factor of hundreds of thousands of years.



Kind of like bleeding a patient to cure his ills. A common (and flawed) medical practice for thousands of years.

 

[Bill Ellis]

Another article questioning the global warming "science". Equates the validity of a "Global Temperature" to signifigance of the average phone number in a telephone book. It's unfortunate that climate science has now become political and, in some sense, religious; rather than remaining an unbiased scientific field.

 

[Rich Stern]

Bill, that's an interesting article. And it's going to present a perfect study case in demonization.



Authors McKitrick and Essex are already demonized as global warming "deniers." They published a meaningful attack the statisical validity of the famed Mann "hockey stick" graph (the graph the IPCC loves to scare political leaders with). He is considered a villain among global warmists.



The lead author, Andresen, is not yet labelled. Given the nature of the paper you referenced, I give it 30 days before he is listed in Wikipedia as a "global warming skeptic" and his name starts appearing in various global warming blogs as a villain, guilty of all manner of crimes against humanity.



You can practically set your watch by this stuff, it's so predictable.