Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Addressing global warming skeptics
Share: 
by ishambat | December 8, 2010 at 08:18 pm
703 views | 0 Recommendations | 39 comments
Someone has asked me on this forum why scientists don't go on global warming denier forums: in his words, "What are they scared of?" The answer is that they are not scared. They don't go to these forums for the same reason that scientists aren't usually seen addressing statements of Pat Robertson, Osama Bin Laden or Glenn Beck. Most scientists see it their role to achieve knowledge, not to bang hands, and they also don't have much free time on their hands. Not being affiliated either with academia, UN, Obama administration or the media, I cannot be accused of being a part of any kind of conspiracy. So I will respond here with reason and facts to the more common denier claims I have found with the understanding involved that using the same would prevent me from being seen as unnecessarily alarmist or irrational.
Claim: The volume of the Antarctic ice has grown bigger.
Answer: Density of ice increases the colder it gets and decreases the warmer it gets. Increase in temperature in the Antarctic, where temperatures are extremely low, reduces the density of the ice and thus increases its volume. Not only is this consistent with global warming; it confirms it.
Claim: There is no ocean acidification/adding carbon dioxide to water does not make water acidic.
Answer: Yes it does. The reaction is CO2 + H2O -> H(+) + HCO3(-) . Water is split up and creates unattached hydrogen ions and carbonic acid. Ocean acidity has increased by 30% over pre-industrial levels, with over one third of that change in the last decade and a half.
Claim: There is no noticeable accumulation of atmospheric CO2.
Answer: Atmospheric CO2 has increased from 315 parts per million to 385 parts per million from 1960 to present. That's over 25% during the last five decades.
Claim: There have been cyclical fluctuations in temperature across decades.
Answer: The amplitude of these fluctuations is much smaller than the consistent upward trend that has taken place over the last century. It is much like watching the Standard & Poors' index since 1940 and observing cyclical risk fluctuation around a consistent upward trend. Over the last century, the increase has been 0.9 Celsius. Over the last two decades, it has been 0.3 Celsius.
Claim: Since most temperature stations are in the cities, urban heat effect is responsible for these measurements.
Answer: Urban heat effect has been calculated to comprise 0.002 Celsius per decade, or 0.02 Celsius over the last century. This is a minuscule fraction of the temperature rise that has occurred, accounting for less than 3% of the total temperature rise.
Claim: Global warming is not global / is only significant in some areas.
Answer: This conclusion is based on inadequate data. In measurements 1950-present, global warming is in fact global, with warming areas covering a majority of the Earth's surface and both hemispheres (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/).
Claim: Sun spot cycles are responsible for the climate change.
Answer: Over the last 50 years, sun spot activity has decreased.
Claim: The temperature has been rising since the last Ice Age.
Answer: The total rise in temperature since its bottom during the last Ice Age, over a period of 18,000 years, has been 15 Celsius. That amounts an average rise of 0.09 Celsius per century. That compares with the rise of 0.9 Celsius over the last century, or a rise ten times faster than the average rise in temperatures since the last Ice Age.
Claim: Changes in solar radiation are responsible for the climate change.
Answer: No sustained changes in solar radiation have been detected in 60 years. What has been observed is ten-year cycles around a constant base rate.
Claim: Most heat winds up in the oceans.
Answer: That it does as well. The heat content of oceans has been shown to be rising dramatically, and at a rate confirming the predictions.
Claim: The temperature rises have nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
Answer: The analysis of the heat content of different ocean basins has revealed changes in heat content consistent precisely with the predicted greenhouse effects and excluding any other possible source.
Claim: A small change in the gases in the atmosphere cannot affect the climate.
Answer: Nothing is small about a 25% rise in atmospheric CO2.
Claim: Oceans are not rising.
Answer: Oceans have been rising by 1.8 mm a year for the last century and 3 mm a year in the last decade. Many low-lying areas are experiencing constant flooding, and some islands in the Pacific have already been submerged.
Claim: Sea level rise is at the same rate as over the last 2000 years.
Answer: The average rate of sea level rise for the 3000 years preceding last century was 0.1 to 0.2 mm a year. That is in contrast to 1.8 mm per year since 1900 and 3 mm per year since 1990. This rate is 9 to 10 times the 3000 year average for the last century and 15 to 30 times the 3000 year averate in the last two decades.
Claim: El Nino of 1997-1998 contributed most of the recent rise in sea level.
Answer: If that were true, then every El Nino would do the same thing. The rise from satellite measurements shows a rise of 50 mm since 1995, or approximately 3 mm per year, with no significant deviation for the El Nino years (http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/).
Claim: Temperature trend at Mauna Loa shows no correspondence with CO2 trend.
Answer: Actually it does, as does global temperature. Both show a consistent upward trend.
Claim: CO2 concentration rises and falls all the time.
Answer: Never this fast. A 25% rise in 50 years is unprecedented.
Claim: The increase in CO2 is natural.
Answer: No natural causes have been found for a 25% rise in CO2 over 50 years - not now, not in the past. Manmade CO2 emissions have been increasing consistently as has manmade deforestation, creating an obvious source.
Claim: CO2 is not a major factor in temperature.
Answer: In analysis of ice cores revealing global temperature and CO2 concentration, it was shown that temperature and CO2 concentrations move in tandem with each other, with changes in temperature preceding changes in CO2.
Claim: What we are seeing is similar to previous times of changing temperatures.
Answer: In the past temperature changes, changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2. Presently, the opposite is the case. Atmospheric CO2 has risen by 25% over the last five decades. If this was a normal climate change, there would have been a corresponding temperature rise sometime between 1500 and 1800 AD. There has not been.
Claim: Previous temperature cycles were caused by natural changes in CO2.
Answer: Previous temperature cycles - known as Milankovitch Cycles - were caused by changes in the earth's orbit amplified through a feedback loop. A small shift would take the earth slightly closer to the sun, the temperatures would rise slightly; as a result of which rise snow and glaciers would melt to reflect less sunlight into the sky while oceans would release more gas, and bogs and tundra would melt, releasing methane and CO2 to reflect more sunlight back to the earth. All of these factors in feedback mechanism would make the earth warmer. A small shift would make the earth slightly away from the sun, more snow and glaciers would accumulate to reflect more sunlight into the sky, less gas would be released by tundra and bogs to reflect less sunlight back to the earth. All of these factors in feedback mechanism would make the earth colder. In all cases, changes in CO2 took place after, not before, changes in temperature.
Claim: CO2 is only a minor factor in global warming.
Answer: On Planet Venus, where the atmosphere is 97% carbon dioxide, the surface temperature is 464 Celsius and the surface pressure is 92 times that of Earth. It became that way, from an original state much similar to that of Planet Earth, because carbon produced was not being absorbed and accumulated in the atmosphere to result in present conditions. On the Earth, CO2 composes 0.04% of the atmosphere. Doubling the CO2 concentration has been computed to cause, by itself, a 3 Celsius rise in temperature - a rate which corresponds with the 0.7 Celsius rise we have seen from the 25% rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1960. This rise in temperature, if sustained, has the capacity to lead to a feedback cycle in which rising temperatures result in melting of glaciers and snow, reducing the reflection of light away from the Earth and further heating up the planet.
Claim: The Earth has been colder and hotter before.
Answer: These changes were accompanied by vast changes in ocean levels and in ecosystems. For people living now, most of whom live in low-lying areas, these changes mean vast loss of life and property. And if the feedback mechanism were to activate, the result would be disastrous.
Claim: Some places in the world are having cold spells.
Answer: Erratic weather events are very much a predicted effect of the destabilization of climate accompanying global warming. Cross-world averages show a consistent upward trend in the world's temperatures.
Claim: Carbon dioxide increase has positive effects, such as making trees and plants grow. This ameliorates the effects of carbon emissions.
Answer: This claim is based on reforestation of American Northeast over the last few decades, which has taken place because the region has had a reprieve from logging since early 20th century and has nothing to do with CO2. The forest growth in US Northeast is offset by deforestation of tropical regions. In fact carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue to rise at a consistent rate. For the situation to ameliorate significantly through the mechanism of trees and plants growing and absorbing CO2, areas that are desert, such as the Sahara, would need to become forests, and slash-and-burn agriculture in the rainforest would have to stop. Both are feasible at current level of technology, but it actually has to be done.
Claim: People cannot affect something as vast as planet Earth.
Answer: Yes they can. Amazon rainforest alone loses the area the size of Greece every six years, and half the world's animal and plant species have been lost in the last two centuries. We are in the middle of the fastest extinction in the history of the planet, all due to human activity. The same is true for global warming.
Claim: Mammoths, termites, etc., have produced lots of methane.
Answer: Nothing coming from mammoths or termites begins to compare to the deadly double-punch of uncontrolled carbon emissions and deforestation of rainforests that people have been doing to cause global warming.
Claim: Trees absorb carbon dioxide.
Answer: Which is why raising carbon dioxide emissions while cutting down the rainforest creates carbon dioxide with no trees to absorb it. The deforestation is making the problem worse.
Claim: The predictions of global warming are inconsistent with one another.
Answer: The 25% rise in atmospheric CO2 by 2000, along with accompanying warming of the planet, was predicted in 1950s by both American and Soviet scientists. It has come true. The change in the heat content of the oceans, and the amount of the change in the heat content of the oceans, has been confirmed precisely matching the original predictions. As to the seeming difference between other predictions, in fact there is none. There simply are many variables. Glaciers melt, ocean levels rise. Glaciers melt and re-route ocean currents, climate changes take place in areas affected by these currents. The first has happened already.
Claim: Hackers revealed that two scientists at UN were fudging data / NASA's James Hansen revised data.
Answer: That two people at UN and one person at NASA were doing wrong says nothing about a fact that was known long before these three had anything to do with it and that is affirmed not only by thousands of legitimate scientists who have nothing to do with UN or NASA but also by industry leaders who have opposed environmental agenda for decades.
Claim: Scientists have written peer-reviewed papers against global warming.
Answer: None of these scientists have been major contributors to climate science. The 700 or so papers written represent less than 5% of papers written on the subject. They have about the same credibility in the field as Richard Gardner does in psychology and Karl Marx does in economics.
Claim: Global warming is a ploy to create one world government or to create big government.
Answer: Neither is require to solve the problem. Solutions to global warming can be put into place by private sector as easily as by public sector, and with different entities doing it in different parts of the world.
Claim: Scientists at UN have made up global warming to pursue global domination by a Satanic New World Order conspiracy.
Answer: Scientists knew about global warming since 1980s. The right-wing government of the time wanted nothing to do with it, denying creation of clean-energy solutions that would have cheaply and easily solved the problem. Now, solutions will be that much more difficult, and much irreversible damage has already been done. All thanks to the American Right that denied the truth in the first place and many of whose adherents are continuing to deny it now.
Claim: Global warming is a giant hoax.
Answer: In fact, it is denial of global warming that has been a vast hoax perpetrated by Republican governments, Texas Oil, and conmen who deny the validity of science while benefiting from it daily as does everyone in the West. This problem was first predicted in 1938, gathered more evidence and predictive ability in 1950s, and was common knowledge in 1980s, when it should have been solved, cheaply and easily, through creation of high-intelligence, high-technology clean energy solutions. Instead it was denied, and now because it has been denied the world is facing great loss of life, great loss of property, and irreversible damage, none of which had to be if this problem had not been denied and been acted upon when it was discovered.
Claim: God will fix this.
Answer: People created this problem, people must solve this problem. It is not fair to ask God to clean up our mess.
Claim: There is no global warming. These are the end times.
Answer: People have choice as to what world to have, and for how long to have it. It is only the end times if you make these the end times by destroying life on earth. The stance of destroying the planet will not earn you any favor with God or with any power with any concept of righteousness. And if you continue this stance, you have everything to fear for your soul if the end times ever are to arrive.
Claim: It would be expensive to do anything about it / people would have to lose what they have.
Answer: There are technically and economically sound technologies that can provide all of people's present and much more energy needs through processes that are not destructive to the environment or are much less destructive than current technologies. Some of these technologies carry vast economic benefit, both short-term and long-term, along with their environmental benefit, while delivering greater convenience and utility than technologies of today. And these technologies can be put into place by the private sector as easily as they can be put into place by the government, resulting both in job and prosperity growth in the present and significant economic gains over the long term. This can be done without even involving the government for anything except this:
Refusing to give into lobbying by Texas Oil.
Advertisement
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (39)
- Sign In or Join to post comments
matt stefanovich (not verified)at 08:33 on December 9th, 2010
I think, global warming does exists, Ilia. Yesterday, it was unbelievably warm in bratislava. Warm air and very windy, especially for my liking because I live on a steep hill overlooking the Danube river. yet we are not going to perish too soon. perhaps Dutch people are more in danger, they are already buying small fields in eastern Europe. They want to settle here. What was striking, when I stayed in New York {Newark airport},, was, how hot the air becomes due to tousands of cars and their exhausts in the air. terrible. anyway, I want to stay longer in N.Y.C. one day and see some nice buildings. Ilia, your mail address is not working, I tried to mail you from two of my mails, but - no success. someone or something is blocking you. anyway, I have to get my coat and gloves, because its really cold on the streets now. one more question- how long do you think will the Maledives exist ? they are just few meters above the sea surface,. have a nice friday. Matt
at 14:58 on December 9th, 2010
Yes, global warming does exist, that's the point of this article: Refuting the things I've found on the sites of global warming skeptics. Regarding us perishing, that would only be the case in the worst-case scenario; but even if we do not it would be quite a loss if Amsterdam, New York, St. Petersburg and other such places go under water. I'm not sure why the email is not working, I'm going to send you email from another account and see if it works.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
aligatorhardtat 07:16 on December 12th, 2010
One point I would like to add, NASA has been taking photographs from satellites since the late 70's. The ice caps are noticibly shrinking, it is undeniable and the claim that glacies are increasing is completely without evidence. The density equasion may make ice look larger due to expansion, but that is not evident when the year to year photos are viewed. The snow capped mountains of Europe, Asia and America are all smaller and some nearly gone. Many millions of people depend on snow fall for their water. Rivers are filled by spring melting of snow.
Climate scientists do not spend time debating climate change deniers, because it is a total waste of time. Anyone interested in the facts can easily find proof of climate changes. Those who exercise a religious belief in denying the obvious are not likely to be convinced by science. I feel sorry for the delusional people who are being manipulated to support oil and coal industries, as their fear of declining market share in favor of obviously superior renewable energy systems is what actually drives the climate change denial campaign.
at 02:36 on December 17th, 2010
The person who motivated me to do the research for this article was using scientific arguments, I do not know what (if any) his religious beliefs are. He appeared to be sincere, so I went through the arguments on denier sites and researched their claims. I did put in some arguments addressing religious claims on this toward the end of the article, but my article is mostly targeted at what I've seen on those sites. The arguments here address the more common denier claims, so that someone who has been exposed to their arguments can come here for detox. To those exposed to anti-scientific church propaganda, scientific arguments do not work, but there are other arguments that do.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
JohnJB (not verified)at 22:19 on December 28th, 2010
Mate, I don't know what sites you went to and found those "claims", I've never heard most of them. Also, many of the "answers" you give are wrong. But taking them one at a time.
at 20:21 on December 29th, 2010
I'll see if this works without activating the spam filter.
Check climate.nasa.gov, the data there addresses most of the claims in this post.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
JohnJB (not verified)at 22:33 on December 28th, 2010
For some reason it won't let me post the rest of my reply. The links in the first part triggered the antispam.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
JohnJB (not verified)at 22:35 on December 28th, 2010
•UHI effects. The figure given for this is from Jones 1990. Unfortunately Dr. Jones has misplaced the data and efforts to find the original data have cast doubt on whether it even exists. The finding of Jones 1990 was that UHI was only .006 per decade. This essentially means that as say, London went from a city without electricity or cars or skyscrapers in 1900 to the city of today, the difference between London temps and the temps of the surrounding areas is only .06 degrees. Poppycock. www.nasa.gov/images/content/505076main_providence_all.jpg The second picture her is infrared showing that Providence NJ is more than 12 degrees warmer than the surrounding countrside. The observed data contradicts Jones 1990, therefore Jones 1990 is wrong. UHI is a very real and significant effect.•Global or Regional warming? Some go up and some go down, that is to be expected in any form of climate change. In general and on average, the planetary temperature has gone up, starting from the coldest point in 10,000 years. that some areas heat or cool faster than others is evidence neither for or against anthropogenic change.•Sunspots. Sunspots are an essay all on their own. Suffice to say that they are nothing more than an indicator of other Solar processes. Lack of sunspots is bad, very bad as the last very cols periods are linked to an almost total absence of sunspots. Another Dalton or Maunder Minimum could see people ice skating on the Thames river again. The myriad ways that the hot thing in the sky can effect the climate are yet to be understood. Not least because we haven't had the instruments to measure what we need to measure, and we're not sure what we need to measure.•Temp rise since the last ice age. I have no idea where you got that from, it's BS, plain and simple. (The answer isn't much better). Temps rose dramatically at the end of the last Ice Age to a level known as the "Holocene Optimum" and have been generally falling ever since. World temps do rise and fall on decadal or centennial scales but the general trend is down. And don't you think that smearing the very sudden temp rise over the full time since the last Glacial Maximum is a bit off? You are implying that temps have risen gradually for thousands of years and that is just false and misleading. Either way, every sceptic I know knows that the trend is down over the last 8,000 years or so. Unless you misunderstood and those you read were referring to the "Little Ice Age" of circa 1750-1850, in which case you are comparing apples to oranges.•Solar radiation. Your answer is (sort of) incorrect. While there hasn't been a major change in TSI at the TOA, the nature of the TSI has changed, but we've only recently had the instruments to detect it. UV is up, but the TSI is the same. What these changes mean for climate, we simply don't know. Solar radiation comes in many frequencies and the intensity of those frequencies changes. Just because one reduces or is stable doesn't mean the others are doing the same thing. Note how on a cloudy day the visible light is reduced but it is still quite easy to be sunburned by the UV. We simply don't know the changes in the various frequencies for more than about the last 10 years, we didn't have the instruments.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
JohnJB (not verified)at 22:43 on December 28th, 2010
at 20:07 on December 29th, 2010
I am aware of the anti-spam problem, otherwise I would have posted a number of links. There is solid data about ocean heat content and ocean acidity rising, especially in the last decade and a half and at a very alarming rate.
Regarding the "noticeable" vs. "measurable" argument: That is a non-issue. You can't see ultraviolet rays or x-rays either, but they and their effects can be measured.
Regarding the idea that 25% more than zero is still zero: A doubling of the carbon dioxide content has been computed to result in a 3 Celsius rise, which corresponds in its rate to the rise in world temperatures to go along with the actual rise since 1960. You may not be able to notice the change with naked eyes, but the effects are everywhere and confirm predictions.
As for greenhouse effect keeping the planet warm: when there are more greenhouse gases than necessary to keep the planet warm, the planet becomes hot. That is what global warming is all about.
at 08:30 on December 29th, 2010
JohnJB (not verified) interesting reading your thoughts and conclusions about global warming and it's effects.
Not sure why anyone still believes global warming is still a myth though. What may not be understood is the delicate balance of nature and how relatively small changes in temperature can actually affect the overall global environment in great ways. Climate change will result in the extinction of many species and reduced diversity of ecosystems globally.
Current models, predictions, and projections show average temp will continue to increase_period.
Snow cover area and sea ice will continue to decrease. Sea levels will continue to rise.
Frequency of hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation will increase.
We are actually beginning to see all these events happening even today. Man made greenhouse gas emissions are a serious problem in todays world.
at 19:00 on December 29th, 2010
We will all burn on earth if we do not comply!!!
at 19:49 on December 29th, 2010
In the words of Russian poet Alexander Blok, "The problem has been solved: All will die."
at 12:59 on December 31st, 2010
I like that!
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 11:26 on December 30th, 2010
If you are not a skeptic you will believe anything with out questioning. Personally, I prefer the skeptic over the hysterical believer who must convert all in the wake of their new truth. The alarmist don't ask why or from where the money comes that drives their new truth. They have jumped on the bandwagon and try to impress everyone with their new found doctrine, and questioning that knowledge is tantamount to heresy. The problem is all knowledge is incomplete, and much of what we assume we know today has been proven to be not the whole story. Global warming is not a man-made phenomenon. To realize to what extent we today are impacting this historical and natural earth cycle, we must first understand all the myriad processes at work that contribute to it. It is not enough to just go about screaming fire, fire. Man is destroying the earth. The earth is not a static entity and therefore we can not think in terms of a fixed model but, also must incorporate dynamism theoretical models in our search for true understanding.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
JohnJB (not verified)at 17:58 on December 30th, 2010
@ The 1. Who said that global warming is a myth? I certainly didn't and neither do any sceptics I know.
- Sorry to use bullet points, but I can't get paragraphs to space for some reason.
- Part of the problem is that the "warmers" combined two factual sentences into one. "The world is warming and man is primarily responsible" is two statements, not one. However by doing this it is automatically assumed that proof of the first part is proof of the second. This is simply wrong.
- Things like ice extent, polar bears, animal migrations are all proof that the world is warming, but they offer no indication at all as to the cause. These things would occur and have occurred in the past without man having anything to do with it.
- Similarly, disputing that CO2 is the primary climate driver does not in any way mean that the idea that the world has warmed is disputed. This is, and always has been a semantic debating trick.
- As to it causing extinctions, do you have some sort of proof? Remember that we are talking about what is a quite small change going on at the moment compared to what has happened in the past. If a say 2 degree change is going to cause mass extinctions, then don't you think that there would be evidence of similar extinctions when climate changed by a greater amount and far more rapidly than it is at present? Was there an extinction when we exited the last ice age and temps rose dramatically? What you offer is an assertion without any historical, factual basis in reality.
- Yes the models do predict warming. The current plateau is not predicted by any model. IPCC AR4 models iniated with the real world conditions and forcings for the year 2000 show warming by 2010 that is way above what we have seen. They crossed the 95% mark some 6 months ago. By any scientific standard they can be thought of as "falsified". Put bluntly, they couldn't model the period 2000-2010 correctly even when they had the data all the way up to 2006.
- It takes a very special type of person to fail a test when you've been given 60% of the answers already, wouldn't you say?
- Ishambat, the anti spam thing is a bugger, isn't it? Without some form of backup links the best we can do is appear to be arguing opinions without factual basis.
- Simply put, the oceans aren't warming, the ARGO data says this, and that is the best we have. This was the big thing behind Kevin Trenberths "travesty" comment in the climategate emails. "We cannot account for the current lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can't." There is a problem with the theory.
- That some unknown forcing or process has paused the heating has great implications. This major forcing is over riding the upward forcing of CO2. On what basis can we say that the same natural forcing, if reversed didn't contribute to the warming in the first place? We can't. The theory has big problems.
- The climate is complex, interconnected, non linear, chaotic system. To attempt to reduce it to a simplistic "Everything happens because of CO2" is lunacy.
- A simple example. Should incoming UV light (which is part of the spectrum that is converted to heat at the Earths surface) increase then the planet would heat up. There would be more OLR generated and therefore getting trapped even if CO2 remained stable at all times.
- As for 3 degrees for a doubling, this is simply wrong. The equations for a doubling, sans any feedbacks is 1.1 degrees. The models are currently centering around 2.4 degrees and the most recent NASA paper puts it at 1.65 degrees. To claim 3 degrees for doubling is to deny the science.
Thirty aught six, thank you. I would rather be sceptical of "End of the World" claims than a true believer any day. I'm always open to the possibility that I'm wrong and that there is a major problem, this to me is rational. I simply find the fact that the warmers cannot even accept the concept that they might be crying "Wolf" without good reason to be irrational. They are as sure in the fundamental correctness of their belief, (even though most have yet to read a single paper on the subject) as the most hellfire breathing ,pulpit thumping priest I've ever seen. I just wish they'd stop trying to convert me and insulting my intellgence by calling it "Science". It's not, it's a Doomsday religion, just like the previous Doomsday religions.at 05:25 on December 31st, 2010
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified) and 'JohnJB (not verified)'
One thought for all who either don't accept, find some fault with, or doubt the science of climate change, global warming, greenhouse effect, the causes etc; We really don't have anytime left to figure out if it's real or happening ( or not ) anymore.
It's like preventive maintenance, if nothing bad comes of it_great, but be prepared if something does.
If it is real, the buffer period we had to counter it's effects has ended. There is no more time left to waste discussing if it is real or not.
Real or not, it must be acted upon now just incase it is. This isn't pretend. It's a serious and possibly very real danger and global problem.
Compare it to something like a possible nuclear weapons attack. Should we be prepared just incase ?
Btw 'JohnJB (not verified)', try using HTML tab when posting for correct paragragh spacing. G/L !
at 02:26 on January 2nd, 2011
This "let's do something NOW, and BIG, and what harm could there be if we're wrong?" sounds good for about 5 seconds until you stop and realize the people blowing the whistles are IDIOTS being motivated by either environmentalism as a religion or self loathing and guilt for being born in the "haves" part of humanity.
Example: Know about "shipbreaking"? Greenpeace has a big page on it trying to bring attention to it and its real ugly, but they fail to point out one little small fact:
This DISASTER was CAUSED by short sighted environmentalists promoting knee jerk reactions to make themselves feel like they were "making a difference".
European Environmental Activists saw the Exxon Valdez and declare they were going to work to immediately ban single hulled tankers from ALL european ports as quickly as possible, even though the majority of said ships were of european registry. By doing so they put about 2500 tankers out to pasture overnight (figuritively) and by many times overtaxed the world's legitimate ship salvage industries. You can't just send these ships adrift, and third world nation officials were eager to make a buck taking them cheaply on their shores with zero environmental concern, and it contimues today.
SO to supposedly prevent a POSSIBLE disaster, these boneheads in Europe forced legislation that directly caused a much worse disaster, and I'm sure they are all sleeping well tonight about what they accomplished- and Greenpeace, who was part of it, surely isn't going to admit they were the cause of it.
Global Warming is proceeding exactly the same, over the years Kyoto has been in place the global GG emissions have sharply increased as businesses have sought to relocate and profit off the industrialization occurring in non annex one third world nations- sold to CURE a problem it's actually only making it much worse.
If Environmentalism is your religion you will discard this post and tell me I'm full of **** and paid off by the oil companies. I don't think that applies to you but I expect it from the article author.
Let's not pretend his sentiment will make good policy. As you can read below, there are very simple statistics which show the science behind AGW is fraudulent, that they don't want you to know about. As well as the policies they have tried to sell us as the cure, as an analysis of the total greenhouse gas emissions rising sharply since Kyoto's inception, will also reveal. (you will find such a simple yet important number is amazing hard to determine, by them- on purpose of course)
Don't let them obfuscate it by pretending only they know what data is relevant.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 13:52 on December 31st, 2010
If we don't fully understand the natural processes at work and their effects on planetary environmental and physical dynamics we can not insist that we then have the solution to resolve what we precieve to be. Now I understand those in a state of hysteria will not admit to the basis of such reasoning. They're emotionally indebted to the "panic" driven by and funded by political interests that have a large stake in ensuring that they continue to profit by mass ignorance and gullibility. Not only has the science not been universally peer approved, but much of it has been found to be fraudulently misrepresented to perpetuate the "panic". The unreasonableness of the hysterical and that of the deniers is endemic of any debate on any issue. The extremist always shout the loudest. And neither take any personal action to change their ways. Their houses are still powered commercially, they drive cars, fly personal jets and run companies that are in no way green. The holy icon of this movement, Al Gore, is prime example of this two-faced behavior. I will place my carbon footprint against that of the hysterical believers any day.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
basisofreasoning (not verified)at 18:40 on December 31st, 2010
I would say you won't have to wait long for the answer. Maybe 10 more years and we will know if it was panic and hysteria as you suggest, or planetary environmental and physical dynamics disaster.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 19:20 on December 31st, 2010
Your reply suggests that I have inferred that hysteria is a contributing factor of global warming. Perhaps a change in nom de plume is in order for you??? Any doctrine based on incomplete knowledge of the whole can not be held as irrefutable. Therefore debate remains essential to the proccess. My personal contention with this issue and many another is that the methods and processes need to be cleaned up and both money and politics need to be removed from the equation. Until then it will, in my opinion, remain a muddied and contentious issue. The truth of the science is being manipulated and misrepresented, and no "moralism" can or should excuse nor support that fact. The so called "warmers" are willing to accept the misrepresentations and manipulations as long as they support their cause. And that support is self-defeating as it gives impetus to the "deniers" and skeptics. 10 more years! Sheesh! Don't you know the world as we know it ends in 2012. Better get to work on that shelter.
at 10:01 on January 1st, 2011
{ 'truth of the science' is being manipulated and misrepresented }..that sounds somewhat like a misnomer .30-06 I would suggest saying science showing factual data could be misrepresented or misinterpreted_after the fact. The question of why abrupt changes to our environment including the levels of specific air, land, and sea pollution can be interpreted as anything else is the real question. Maybe thats how 'money and politics' are currently trying to 'manipulate and misrepresent' the facts_for big business maybe. Not any 'moral' reasons imo.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 15:13 on January 1st, 2011
Manipulating and misrepresenting the science has become big business for the warmers. That's the whole point. Al Gore has personally made billions off of it. Global warming has become nothing more than an add campaign dominated by emotional content. It's become farcical. A prime example is the automotive industry. Every car manufacturer produces a hybred engine and small efficient engines that dramatically reduce exhaust pollutants and increase mpg. They are doing everything they can as the science and technology develops to produce the most efficient vehicle possible. When gas prices were high those products sold. As soon as the price of gas came down sales of large V8's jumped proportionally. They still offer small efficient cars and hybreds. They are first and formost on the show room floor...But, if you talk to the dealer they are last to go out the door. So it is fair to say that the average person is not getting the message. Now we can label the average person an idiot, which isn't going to make you any friends, or we can look at the message -what it contains and how it is being delivered. And what it contains is highly disputed among scientist themselves and the message is being delievered in a note of hysteria and immediate doom. Several of the big name "warmers" have already said it's too late. That the earth is heading for a man made catastrophe unequalled since the demise of the dinosaurs. Time to throw in the towel man. Give up and enjoy the ride into oblivion. No sense in going out with a Prius in the garage.
at 10:15 on January 2nd, 2011
.30-06 this looks ominous..
'The Top 100 Effects of Global Warming'
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/09/climate_100.html
'International Impacts'
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/international.html
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 16:40 on January 2nd, 2011
The horror of discovering that the earth is not a static environment. Ever ask yourself what transpired geographically to create the soil conditions found at prime wine producing areas?
The world is in flux. Always has been and always will be. And since every thing on this planet effects change, change is the norm. The bigger question for the individual is to what degree they can minimize their personal impact.
You will notice the use of "the individual". Like many of my comments here on NP I come back to individual responsibility. I had a long exchange with a avid "warmer" from London, Ontario who defended his car ownership, having not gone off the grid, his use of plastics and paper, and all the other trappings of today's production. In short, he compared himself to industry and pointed the finger of responsibility there. He could not make the connection that industry is market driven and only exists because there are those willing to purchase the end product.
I'll give you another example of industrial need. Recycling. Recycling was touted as the planet savior. Yet it spawned it's own industry, with it's own production of chemical and gaseous waste and environmental impact. Has recycling reduced our environmental impact to any significant measurable level or added one more instance? And since recycling has become a major industry can we say it has altered individual buying habits? Nothing has changed. Same for the "green" movement. The only industrial green energy is hydro-electricity, and even then that has it's own environmental impact in creating the dams and water reservoirs. Forget the fact that any industry that can be managed on electrical power already is using electricity.
So we are back to the individual. What changes have you made to live a pollutant free lifestyle? Or are you waiting for the gov'ment to mandate your next to do list? Remember, industry can only produce what you will buy. And if you're buying, you are the problem.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
JohnJB (not verified)at 22:57 on January 1st, 2011
The1. There is never any time left. The end of the world is always just around the corner. Those of us born in the 60s remember quite well all the Doomsday prophecies (supposedly backed by science) that never came true. From the "Population Bomb" that was going to cause food wars by 1990, through the "Impending Ice Age" scare, through the "Acid rain will destroy all the forests" to global warming.
I live in Queensland, home of the Great Barrier Reef and I can't remember how many times we've been told that the reef would be destroyed within a few years. The simple fact is that a certain (surprisingly large) percentage of the population will always join the Apocalyptic movement.
I would point out that if we are now "out of time", then we always were. Wind and solar cannot provide baseload power for our civilisation. It will take at least 30 years to get enough nuclear reactors online to replace the coal fired generators and those who are most ardent about "reducing emissions" are also those most opposed to nuclear power, or dams for hydro power for that matter.
I have also found that as I've got older I can no longer turn a blind eye to the genocidal practices of the environmental movement. It strikes me as more than a coincidence that part of the solution for every environmental problem for the last 50 years has been for the third world to stay in that disgusting condition. Even today the (predominantly white) West won't have to give up their toys, but the (predominantly black) third world should either do without or delay their progress until "suitable technologies" arrive.
Part of the problem is that most "warmers" I've met have this silly idea that the climate is stable. It is not. With or without man the temps go up and down and sea levels rise and fall. Previously this wasn't that much of a problem as people simply migrated and fought wars to decide who stayed. We can't do this any more so we have to find a new solution, but the problem will remain no matter what we do.
If you think money drives the dabate, then maybe the $60 billion that the WWF stands to make from carbon trading has something to do with their stance? Look at the large investment houses lining up behind carbon trading, Do you think they are doing it for love? Companies that stand to make 10s of billions of dollars will certainly be pushing that the "problem" is "real".
A further thought for you. It is absolutely certain that this planet will be hit by a major meteoric impact in the future. The big ones are still out there, Shoemaker-Levy showed us that a few years ago. I presume then that you would support the placement of large sized nuclear weapons in orbit to defend the planet? If not, why not?
at 10:18 on January 2nd, 2011
JohnJB (not verified)
'Loss of Great Barrier Reef due to global warming would cost Australia $37.7 billion'
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0811-ryking_gbr.html
'Great Barrier Reef decline blamed on global warming'
http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/great-barrier-reef-decline-blamed-on-global-warming/
'The world's most important coral region is in danger of being wiped out'.
http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/water/rising_sea_temperature_killing_great_barrier_reef.htm
Looks like there are others who may think otherwise..
- Sign In or Join to post comments
JohnJB (not verified)at 22:58 on January 1st, 2011
The html tab worked. Thanks for that.
at 08:17 on January 2nd, 2011
I had the same problem. This site functions a little differently than we're use too.
at 01:59 on January 2nd, 2011
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/05/29/29may_noaaprediction_resources/maunderminimum.jpg
Author can kindly explain why he implies there is only 50 years of sunspot activity available to analyze when he asserts a decrease in activity over the last 50 years negates solar influence on temperature trends over hundreds of years.
Typical anti-human climate change alarmist manipulation of data.
I suppose you would assert the decrease over 50 years should have resulted in global cooling- EVEN THOUGH ALL CYCLES IN THE 50 YEARS WERE STILL ABOVE THE 400 YEAR AVERAGE.
Wake up, world. Solar activity since 1950 has been at its highest since man began to record it. Polar ice melting during this period released massive amounts of methane gas due to the decomposing organic material trapped within, which elevated CO2 levels and sustained a residual effect which precludes any meaningful variances of decrease between cycles. There is no methane DECREASE if solar cycles decrease, which negates the belief we should be seeing a trend of cooling OR CO2 decrease at this point- AND given the solar cycles, while decreasing around 1980-2000, were STILL among the highest over history and well above average, it's a fallacy to assert we should observe solar variation cooling in the first place.
We are now entering a solar cycle minimum, if it sustains and it should, we will go back to pre 1950 levels of CO2 and polar ice and likely another little ice age.
I have an 11th grade education and figured this out by myself. Climate change alarmists will never figure this out because it would conflict with their religion.
you don't have to believe me. just start presenting that NASA graph when you promote your agenda and see how far you get.