Topic: The Environment
Anthropogenic Global Warming is Nonsense I make an effort to dispel some of the myths surrounding the Global Warming hysteria.by Edward Townes
(libertarian)
Sunday, December 30, 2007
[Fig 1]
These days it is well nigh impossible to not be aware of the 'Global Warming' hysteria. From the doomsday movies, to alarming media headlines, to politicians scrambling over each other to get on the green bandwagon, one thing is clear - it’s not politically correct to question it.
When I first decided to look into what all the fuss was about on climate change, I was not opinionated on the subject at all. From what I understood then, the only difference between the global warming alarmists and me was a difference in opinion on the economics involved. That has now completely changed.
They have engaged in exaggeration and deception on just about every single last aspect of climate change. In fact, the only thing I can really confirm for you is that carbon dioxide has a 'greenhouse effect' in our atmosphere, and we are responsible for 0.28% of it [6]. Actually, even the word "greenhouse" is misleading because that implies a restriction on convection currents, which is not physically accurate. The moon doesn’t have an atmosphere and experiences an average surface temperature of 107°C and -153°C for day and night respectively, which is obviously a much larger range compared to Earth's. The best explanation for how an atmosphere's "greenhouse" effect acts, is it increases the planet's heat capacity (i.e. it holds more energy and thus takes longer to heat up and cool down) and thus makes the climate more gentle and hospitable.
But let's step back for a moment from the atmosphere and talk about Earth's historical and current temperatures. Global warming alarmists would have us believe that we are now seeing a global temperature at a height not achieved for a very long time. This is simply not true. We have seen temperatures even within the last 1,000 years higher than our present, which is not even a blip in Earth’s history.
Possibly the most infamous display of this garbage is the "hockey-stick graph".
Although Mann et al compiled it in 1998, it was not until 2003 that the first independent person was able to look at the algorithms used in the graph, because they refused to release it. It turned out that, even using completely randomized data, one could create a graph that looked exactly the same because the algorithms had a bias to exaggerate the last century! Not only that, but it should be obvious from the fact that the Vikings were settling and farming Greenland from the 9th to the 13th century, in places now covered with permafrost and ice, that this graph is just total nonsense! Of course, this was not before the graph had been used as the backdrop for the 2001 UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You would have thought that was a pretty good indication of their scientific integrity, but I promise you it gets much, much worse. Perhaps even more interesting than the inability of the IPCC to verify its data before using it at all, let alone as a centerpiece, or subsequently apologising after it became public how fraudulent the graph was, is the fact that environmentalists to this day still use this graph to illustrate their points. Al Gore's entire sensationalist "documentary" (boy is that charitable) revolves around this widely discredited graph and others like it. It should honestly occur to us that anyone who continues to use this graph to support their arguements has little interest in actually presenting reality. The IPCC used to publish the real temperature data on the past millennium in its earlier reports, but not anymore because it’s an inconvenient truth to their agenda.
What about recent temperature rises in the last century? Surely it is impossible to deny that we are seeing warming now at an unusual and alarming rate? Well, you'd be surprised. Measuring Earth's average temperature to any interesting degree of precision is a considerably complex task. Even defining exactly what the absolute surface air temperature means is challenging, giving plenty of room for pursuing an agenda. The vast majority of graphs you've seen on this subject will have come from data using land-based measurements, as these allow the graph to continue back beyond the 1970s. There are numerous problems with land-based measurements, ranging from the fact that land only accounts for 30% of the planet's surface, to urban heat islands and other effects from changes in local land use. Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. says, [7] "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (the 2D representation of a sphere which exaggerates the polar area) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance." However, in the last 30 years we've had consistent measurements from weather balloons and satellites, which produce much more reliable results for obvious reasons, and what we've observed from this equipment is a only a very slight warming trend. This data should be puzzling to the people who built the climate models for the IPCC, because they actually predicted the reverse - the troposphere should be warming faster than the surface if the current warming is due to the 'greenhouse effect'.
While we're on the subject of climate models, I'd like to say a few things. Climate models are in their infancy. They are highly dependent on the assumptions that go into them, and there are a lot of them. In fact, there are so many assumptions and parameters that it is genuinely possible to create any relationship you like. Climate models are made fun by the inclusion of "positive feed-backs" (multiplier effects) so that a small temperature increment expected from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide invokes large increases in water vapor, which seem to produce exponential rather than logarithmic temperature response to CO2. It seems to have become somewhat of a game to see who can add in the most creative feedback mechanisms to produce the scariest warming scenarios from their models, but there remains no evidence that the planet behaves in such a manner. Not only is it highly debatable as to whether water vapour acts as a positive or negative feed-back, but what has been observed in laboratories is that CO2 actually has a logarithmic relationship with temperature. The IPCC literally made its entire conclusion from the results of 6 models. Three of these were extreme scenarios with numbers like a global population of 15 billion by 2100 (almost all demographers expect our population to level at 9 billion), and even the 3 that were ‘moderate’ were predicting things like the annual rainfall in Ireland should be equivalent to the Sahara’s. Today. The unreliable nature of these models probably helps to explain why the IPCC cut almost of all its predictions by a third from 2001 to its most recent report. They also failed to predict the fall in methane levels we've seen since 2002, and their predictions for sea temperatures have been halved due to "incorrectly calibrated instrumentation". As the saying in computer programming goes; "Garbage in, garbage out".
There is an erroneous assumption flying around these days that CO2 is some how an important forcing factor on the global climate, when every last piece of empirical evidence shows otherwise. Al Gore, and I'm positive he's not the only one, has a graph with 500,000 years of ice core samples showing their chronological temperature and respective CO2 levels. There is a nice correlation, and the two are definitely linked, but he lies and pretends the relationship is the other way around. In every single time period it is clear that CO2 levels always trail temperature changes by 500-800 years. Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia had the following to say about this; [8] "Al Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak, that they are pathetic. The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." The historical evidence consistently shows temperature is independent of CO2. In fact, 450 million years ago when we were in the depths of the coldest period the Earth has had in half a billion years, CO2 levels were 10 times above today's! Even using the last century as evidence for a dependent relationship is meaningless. 65% of the warming this century occurred in the first three decades, and then, while CO2 levels continued to rise, temperatures fell for four decades in a row.
Another misconception that seems to be rife at the moment is that some how CO2 is a pollutant. I'm sure that you've all learned that this gas is actually fundamental to our existence, but this seems to be as good a time as any to re-cap. Estimates vary, but somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the increase in global food crop yields due to increased carbon dioxide since 1950. This increase has both helped avoid a Malthusian disaster and preserved or returned enormous tracts of marginal land as wildlife habitat that would otherwise have had to be put under the plow in an attempt to feed the growing global population. Commercial growers deliberately generate CO2 and increase its levels in agricultural greenhouses to between 700ppmv and 1,000ppmv to increase productivity and improve the water efficiency of food crops far beyond those in the somewhat carbon-starved open atmosphere. CO2 feeds the forests, grows more usable lumber in timber lots meaning there is less pressure to cut old growth or push into "natural" wildlife habitat, makes plants more water efficient helping to beat back the encroaching deserts in Africa and Asia and generally increases bio-productivity. If it's "pollution," then it's pollution the natural world exploits extremely well and to great profit. What should be obvious is that increases in CO2 directly increase the vitality of the bio-world. It is no wonder that the Sahara has shrunk 300,000 km^2 in the last couple decades, or that the dinosaurs managed to find the sustenance to survive, despite their size, in an era with 5 times our current CO2 levels.
The last myth I'd like to debunk is the idea that global warming is necessarily a bad thing, regardless of whether we have any significant control over it, or that historically warm periods have been the most prosperous for humans. By far the most hyped consequences are increasing intensities of weather storms, and rising sea levels. Global storm intensities are dominated by the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, and it really is that simple. Even by the IPCC's own admission, in manipulating the area of the poles using the Mercator system to distort the global temperature, the poles must be warming at a rate faster than the equator and this subsequently leads to gentler storms, despite the media explicitly or implicitly making an attempt to blame every last weather anomaly on "climate change". Ah yes, you say, but that would imply that we are in danger of rising sea levels because the warming would melt the ice at the poles. Well, consider this. Since the last ice age 18,000 years ago the global sea level has risen by 130 meters, and is still doing so at a current rate of around 20cm per century, which is dwarfed by local tectonic movements. This will obviously displace people, but it will pale in insignificance when compared to the migrations over the next century caused by other factors such as geographical changes in important resources, fresh water locations, industrialization, etc. Dramatic pictures of breaking seasonal ice is just patent propaganda, the reality is that Antarctica’s ice mass has now been growing for the last 30 years against a 6,000 year trend of melting, and it contains over 90% of the world’s land ice (sea ice, by Archimedes’s principle, does not affect sea levels). Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, [9] "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
Our climate is changing, just as it has always done, and always will. In fact, the only constant about our climate is that it changes, which makes you realise the term "climate change" is at best meaningless, and at worst intentionally ambiguous. It feels silly that I need to say this, but clearly it has to be done. The main determinant of our climate is not some gas, which comprises 0.038% of the atmosphere, but the Sun, the planet's orbital eccentricities and axial wobble, cosmic ray flux, and other celestial factors. Greenhouse gases play an important role, but a passive one. It should not come as a surprise that our entire solar system has been warming for the last quarter century, or that the most accurate weather forecasts come from algorithms that concentrate on solar fluctuations and cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are responsible for cloud formations, which are central to the overwhelmingly most important greenhouse gas. Water vapour accounts for 95% of the ‘greenhouse effect’ and, apart from the elaborate positive feed-back systems in their models that have no actual basis with reality, the global warming alarmists have completely ignored it. This is staggering because H20, by a country mile, in its gas, liquid, and solid form dominates all other terrestrial climate factors. I have included here three graphs to show you how temperature correlates to solar variations, CO2, and the global pirate population.
[fig 3]
[fig 4]
[fig 5]
As you can see, meaningless correlations are not difficult to produce.
I hope that by this point you are beginning to understand that there are dozens of simple common sense punches that go straight through the global warming alarmists, and you must now be asking why there is a motive for us being lied to in the first place. The anthropogenic global warming proponents consist of three main groups: politicians, the media, and some scientists. The politicians are easy, as always. As long as they have no personal vested interests that may be damaged by their policies, the global warming hysteria is a windfall for the simple reason that it is a cause that virtually everyone supports and is thus a guaranteed way of being able to raise tax revenue with no political backlashes. The media is similarly obvious. The news sells more papers, magazines, and has more viewers when their audience is scared of some imminent catastrophe that your respective service is reporting on. Problem for them is, we’ve been seeing that junk for the last 10 years, so, accordingly, their headlines have had to get more and more shrill to the point of ridiculous. Although, they can't decide whether we're going to burn, starve, freeze, or drown. Perhaps it is indicative that the media has now warned us of impending doom from climate change no less than 4 separate times in the last century. Last, but certainly not least, we come to the scientists themselves. In the late 1980s, the US federal budget for "climate research" was $170 million. Today it is more than $5 billion. There are literally tens of thousands of people who depend on your gullibility, in the US alone. The scientists who produce material to support the anthropogenic global warming theory are rewarded with media attention and political funding. They have abandoned some of the most fundamental principles of science in the pursuit of greed, and I, for one, will certainly not indulge them when the world starts cooling again and they need a job. Of course, there are also plenty of scientists with scientific integrity, but most of them have had their work distorted, misrepresented, suppressed, or passed off as funded by oil companies in the media. These real scientists must find the IPCC’s claim that there is a consensus in the scientific community on anthropogenic global warming at the very least a statement of ignorance on the scientific method, and probably downright offensive. More than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems. Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), The Leipzig Declaration (1997) and finally the Oregon Petition (1998), which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists [10]. Dr. Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC in his own words, because, [11] "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound." The IPCC’s process is highly corrupt. When a report is made, a couple thousand climate scientists each write a small section in their expertise and have no input into any other part of the report. This is the first reason the IPCC produces no scientific consensus. The second reason is that the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ is written first, by policymakers no less, and then the rest of the report is doctored and manipulated by a handful of "lead authors" to fit the summary’s agenda. In fact, some scientists had to threaten legal action before their names were finally removed. But actually all this misses the really big point: Hello?! It’s the United Nations for crying out loud!!
I think it is important to note that this is a fairly isolated case of how politics can hideously corrupt a respectable scientific field. Humans do affect the planet and scientists play a central role in understanding how. I just hope that in the future good lessons are learned from this on how not to have a functional relationship between the scientific community and the public at large, although given humanity’s track record I’m not holding my breath.
The amount of money being wasted on climate change nonsense is amazing. In fact, in my opinion, the only good thing Bush did with his presidency was refuse the US sign the Kyoto Treaty, which would have had the effect of lowering the Earth’s temperature by one tenth of a degree in 50 years time (by the treaty’s own estimates) at the price of $400 billion a year. That’s $2,700 per American family per year, or 20% of the UK’s GDP. At this price the US could provide the entire world with clean drinking water and sanitation, which would prevent 2 million real, not imaginary, deaths (from diseases like infant diarrhea) a year and prevent a half-billion people from becoming seriously ill each year. These initiatives are wasting our money at an enormous opportunity cost.
The point of my article is to show you that the theory of anthropogenic global warming needs to be exposed to criticism to ensure its health. If the theory has merits, then it has to be proved under the rigors of the scientific method, not through political campaigns. It is important for any subject, but especially one on a global scale with so much at stake, to be rationally discussed without the panic, hysteria, and sensationalist rubbish. People who try to suppress this debate are highly irresponsible and their motives should seriously be called into question. A lot of the responsibility for how this is handled rests on you and me. If someone tells you that the world is going to end in 100 years time because of the gases that come out your mouth and backside, you should have the intellectual fortitude to critically question that claim, and not treat like heretics those who do.
S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, "Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models," Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264
The views expressed in this
article are those of Edward Townes only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Edward Townes is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Too bad your "Thumb It" feature doesn't allow for anything but thumbs up votes...I confess I did not click the thumb to see if there are options underlying the graphic...I didn't want to give this a thumbs up inadvertently. Show some objectivity and you will be more credible. My opinion: I'm astonished at the level of denial in the face of such vetted science.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2007-12-30 12:13:31
Truth is not always what it seems to be in life or science,,objective reporting is its own petard.
The Planets history did not begin with the Human species and it will not end when we have left for other relms
Without a time machine to show us exactly what happened in each century we literally guess at each cause of change be it asteroids or Volcanic eruptions or just wild fires and droughts.
We have effected changes trying to solve what we perceive as problems with out the full knowledge of the reason for the events around us.
To not include the shift of the planets magnetic core as a part of the reason that the climate changes or it (the planets) relative position to the sun and in turn to the Galaxy is to look at a minuscule event without a comprehension of how things work universally.
We need to learn about perspective before we make generalities. This is something that those who claim Global warming is something this planet has never experienced before, seem to ignore. The fact that Antarctica and the Arctic were not polar regions in eons past nor were they always frigid does not appear anywhere in their presentations.
Nor has the fact that industrial crop fertilization with its contribution of salts to both land and sea has had any effect good or bad to the climate been calculated
Insufficient data and lack of comprehension is like the well known GI GO of early computation days Garbage in = Garbage out.
The author of the article make some good points that should be expanded upon and researched further.
The time for arguing this subject is over. The evidence is over whelming, and there is no point in discussing this subject any further. Action now must be taken. Poeple still arguing against global warming are people stuck in the 60's still considering data covering the entire century, the fact of the matter is, is that temperature changes in the last 20 years is the most important data for identifying that we have a problem.
As mankind faces the most dramatic natural disaster in history we are squabbling instead of taking action. Quit arguing and let's come up with a plan.
Our poles are melting, temperature and weather patterns are changing. Those are facts. Whose fault it is, man made or natural is almost irrelevant. The important thing is that we take action to prepare for the unavoidable consequences of climate change NOW.
Past climate changes have happened quick, the most recent having taken only about a decade. We have seen weather patterns change over the last few years, lost a bunch of ice, witnessed massive amounts of species going extinct and see a slow-down of the ocean's conveyor which regulates temperature patterns around the globe. My gut feeling is to say that we are in the midst of climate change. Whether it's caused by CO2, an active sun or any other cause is not the issue. The issue is... we can't change, avert or avoid it so we have to figure out how to deal with it and survive it's effects.
The focal point of all the issues surrounding climate change is energy. More specifically, present and future energy. The energy we currently use, which most say changes the climate, and the energy we will need in the future to supply more people and to stave off the effects of a changed climate. We need cleaner fuel now, not only because of pollution or the fact that we are running out, but because we will need much more fuel in the future.
The world economy is currently dependant upon CO2 emitting fossil fuels and we won't just be able to throw a switch to convert to another source so we have to start now. We have to stop spending billions fighting over the remaining oil. No matter who owns it, we will use it up. As demand increases and supply dwindles it will become more expensive and economic factors will dictate that we replace it. If we're lucky, mankind will be reasonable enough to spend more money finding new energy sources than fighting over obsolete ones. That's a long shot but there's always hope.
We will need more energy and there is no denying that burning oil and coal pollutes our planet. We have 2 choices if we want to survive as a species.
1. Come up with more, preferably cleaner energy.
2. Shrink our global population to a size that our current energy supply can sustain.
The first is preferable but considering our primitive human nature, the second is more probable. Let's let common sense overpower human nature and strive towards option 1.
Think about it. There are many sources of energy, known and yet to be discovered that we can use. Wind, water, tidal, and solar are clean technologies that we have explored and can improve. We have started tinkering with ways to use the Earth's magnetic field. There is gravity and countless types of cosmic rays that we haven't even tried to harness yet. Nuclear has been around for decades and if it doesn't blow up on you, it is extremely clean.
My suggestion, no, my demand is that mankind stop it's economic and religious squabbling and start taking the action we need for our survival as a species. It will be impossible to get mankind to act as one, but someone has to start. If the US trimmed it's government and military to a minimum, keeping enough troops and nukes to sustain sovereignty, we could save billions and use it to develop energy sources.
That scenario might even be good for the economy. Imagine all of the workers needed to make electric cars or cosmic ray powered toasters. Besides, whoever discovers a technology usually has a lead when it comes to selling it's usage or the products it spins off.
New energy won't solve global warming but it will help us deal with it better. Right now it's the only option we have so let's get on it!
Anthropogenic climate change is real, and only someone who does not truly care about their impact on this planet would say otherwise... or someone whose salary dictates their views. The amount of glacier melt and the rapidity of it is not just due simply to "natural" variations, and anyone with half a brain who can read and think for themselves can figure that out. And I would dare say by the ridiculous cartoon you plastered here with your garbage that this is purely political to you.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-12-30 14:58:48
Those who cry for a "thumbs down" button are actually saying that they want to disrespect what someone else writes without actually having to take the time to provide evidence that he is wrong and to document that evidence. "Thumbs down" is merely an excuse for an ad hominem attack.
Thank you for taking the time to read what I have to say on this subject.
 Unfortunately it would seem that some of you wasted your time because you missed the entire point of the article: declaring the debate "over" is irresponsible and potentially very damaging.  Besides, in science the debate is never "over".Â
If the baby has a fever and the doctor says, "get her a lobotomy", you need to open up the debate.
If someone wants me to pay for your climate change projects, they need to ask me politely, or go away.
If climate change is the fault of human beings, and the ideal CO2 level was in 1900, you would have to get the human population of the earth down to 1.5 Billion. Those committed to this point of view are welcome to leave the planet.Â
The argument is long over. The warnings were 30 years ago. Yes I was alive then. As usual mankind always focuses on the symptoms rather than the problem. The symptom is CO2; the problem is population, and Mrs. Nature will resolve the problem if we don't. This is just another of those articles by one who refuses to admit that he is killing his own children and probably doesn't care about them anyway. As to the 100 scientists; How many of them are electrical engineers, accounting specialists, etc. What percentage of all the scientists in the world does 100 represent. Is it 1/2 of 1% or less than that. All scientists were not created equal and apparently that applies to writers too.
The article reads like the refuse of Xmas passed - re-collected, re-collated, and re-presented. Industrial pollution is responsible for a 35% increase in GHGases (not the .28% cooked up by numb spinners). The entire solar system has not been warming for the last 30 years, and the disappearance of the second of two tiny colonies of Vikings is not a proxy for global climate conditions.
The rest of this article is the usual throw it at the wall and see if it sticks. If it doesn't hide it for a year and then try again. Hopefully the author believes in accountability for his position.
I think that it is so easy to sit back and call others liars and fools. It is much harder to face the truth without trying to find out the real facts. It hasn't dawned on you yet that there is no reason to lie about such a fact as global warming. What we need to do is to begin to make changes that will control human effects on the planet, whether it is called global warming or just stupidity.
Posted By: Michael Malloy
Date: 2007-12-30 21:03:16
Edward: as I understand your article it can be summarized something like this: blah blah blah alarmist. blah blah blah blah hockeystick, blah blah blah global tempurature blah blah. no consensus blah blah. grant funding blah blah. Hmm. Must be a slow news day on your end. And I didn't even know you where a scientist. shame on me.
When the well regarded philosopher and logician Socrates was tasked with defining wisdom, he famously dervied the "humility theory" (the most practically knowledgable men, like politcians and craftsmen, falsely claimed to know things well beyond the scope of their specializations and their knowledge, while philosophers like Socrates - practically illiterate men - claimed to know very little or nothing, so wisdom, then, is posessed most by those who claim to not be wise).
This argument has formed the foundation of logical thinking for all of human history. Any scientist with a legitimate claim to the title will readily acknowledge that however well he may regard his own theories, their inherent truth value is basically unknowable, and therefore the scientist really knows nothing, but believes many things. When a man stands up and declares the "scientific debate" over (a definitively impossible state of existence), that man is obviously no rational natural philosopher in any classical Socratic sense, and therefore can not claim to be a "scientist" nor to represent "science." He is a preacher, and his statements are dogma, not theory.
Mr Townes is wrong, and his misjudgement is catastrophic. It is an elementary physical property of carbon dioxide (and methane) that it behaves as a greenhouse gas. The Cheney 3C rule states that if the CO2 level in the air is doubled from pre-industrial, the temperature will rise 3C (and Dr James Hansen of NASA adds it will rise another 3C in the long run due to feedbacks).
To explain the warming now observed, Mr Towne would have to postulate a "factor X," when instead the current warming can be adequetly explained by the rise in CO2 (and CH4) levels in the air, caused by mankind's emissions. That is why the IPCC states with over 90% certainty that warming is occurring, and it is caused by mankind's emissions.
I challenge Mr Towne to identify the source of the additional warming in a peer reviewed paper, instead of writing the above psudo-science meant for gullible public consumption. Remember all the psudo-science casting doubt that smoking tobacco caused cancer?
The consequence of Mr Townes' misjudgement is that the CO2 (and CH4) level in the air will continue to rise, rapidly changing the mild climate we live in now to the hothouse climate of 55 million years ago when most life died.
By the way, the last severe global warming episode was ended when ocean life removed the excess CO2 from the air over thousands of years. In my opinion, it is very unlikely that mankind will cut their emissions so fast and drastically to avoid abrupt climate change or runaway global warming. I suggest improving nature's ability by seeding a GMO into the ocean.
Biosequestration is a low cost, technically feasible, and highly scalable method of removing the excess CO2 from the air. The CO2 level in the air is the highest it has been for hundreds of thousands of years-what is the harm of using a low cost method to bring it back to the level of the last ten thousand years when the climate has been abnormally mild, and human civilization blossomed?
Very interesting article that shows (again) that the discussion is not over.
The official monthly and yearly data in http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/nov/global.html#temp shows that the land rank of Northern Hemisphere shows up quite higher than the Southern Hemisphere. That does not look global. It should be much closer if it is a global issue.
November 2007 is the 24th warmest November in the southern hemisphere measured for land and ocean. Ok, it is the most extreme one I found on the above page but it makes me wonder. The trend is not just up. Even the global land and ocean temperature is only the 8th warmest November.
I know that someone can turn this around (again) and make it to prove that we in the Northern Hemisphere are the cause. ;-)
One more meaningless correlation is the combination of the CO2 increase and the increase of the human population, which look like that the humans are responsible for the increase. Stop breathing out!
Posted By: Ken VanderPloeg
Date: 2007-12-31 08:42:54
As usual, those who believe the myth of AGW engage in their common tactics of ad-hominem attacks on the people who oppose the AGW myth. "...he's received money from the oil industry." "...he is misinformed." etc., etc...
Please address the facts presented in a rational manner - skip the abuses directed at those presenting the facts.
Mr. Nolan has presented facts. Refute those facts with logic and reason, if you can. I don't think you can.
>The argument is long over. >The warnings were 30 years >ago. Yes I was alive then.
Well Stueyplace,
I was alive then as well.
30 years ago I was afraid about the coming ice age. All the data where there, the consensus, and the theory.
Well it did not happen.
The data where short-term data (climate is more long-term and complex than that), consensus (??scientist voting??) is too stupid too talk about, and the theorie was wrong. Exit. Over and out.
Thanks for the informative and factual article on the biggest threat mankind now faces - and I don't mean AGW. The real threat is the mindless following of the AGW dogma and the costly remedies to be prescribed by the newly empowered.
Without the support of the masses, such a hoax wouldn't have a chance. Unfortunately, AGW has evolved into a sort of 'personal brand'. In a superficial world, they 'wear' the AGW brand so as to appear more caring, more compassionate, and more intelligent - see how they worry for us all, watch as they demand immediate action to protect us. It's the ideal mask for those too lazy, stupid and lacking in courage to actually contribute in any meaningful way to a better world.
Their agenda is anti-life, anti-progress and anti-science. Their chief 'action' these days is to shout down truth at all costs.
When the ice caps totally melt and the southeast U.S. turns into a Sahara, Edward Townes, Rush Limbaugh, et al will still be arguing that there is no such thing as global warming and even if there is, it is not caused by human activity and even if it is, doing anything to mitigate the negative effect of human activity on the earth's climate would stifle economic growth and stifling economic growth would definitely negatively impact the pocket books of Edward Townes, Rush Limbaugh, et al so there is no such thing as global warming.
Posted By: one real scientist
Date: 2007-12-31 12:02:52
Very well done! This really should be published in some classic venues as well and I encourage you to push it forward. It will never convince committed alarmists of course but thinking people will almost certainly find it refreshing.
I would have preferred more links and footnotes, but I think you got all the facts straight. Of course, the AGW true believers aren't interested in facts or genuine debate: "The issue is settled. Just shut up, or help us find the best way to destroy capitalism."
Since global mean temperatures have fallen for the past decade, hysteric socialists will soon need to find another global crisis to justify their destruction of civil society. I predict it will be fear-mongering about "world killer" meteorites.
Excellent and I will be bulletenting this on Myspace soon! Many points are perfect, those points that aren't are just way too complex to go into...the shear amount of complexities is enough to spin heads on the basics then we enter realms we still do not understand that may have considerable effect on our climate.
 The very ones screaming the debate over and demand action now are the ones who need be held accountable! It's this witch hunt and attack on logic and skeptical science that's wrong, how are we to advance man kinds understanding of climate science when they are screaming while holding their ears? They say we are paid to say it that we do not care with absolutely no basis what-so-ever when it is us who sacrafice to stand in the face of tramendous adversity for what is right!Â
 The most complex scientific issue every tackled and it's been long over? If that is true we should be long gone....absolutely no concept or grip on reality some of these bafoons here.
So many of the comments here are just typical of the problem. Rather than actually present any real information, "educate yourself" with a link to a biased site is as good as useless. Yeah, there's denial, but it's not on the part of the "skeptics" (a convenient label used to demonize someone). The "believers" are in complete denial. The science does not show AGW, and the sources that do have demonstrated that they are NOT CREDIBLE.
It has been said that 2007 is the year that the tide has changed. Rather than being cool and hip with doom and gloom scenarios, those continuing to push the debunked AGW "theory" are beginning to look like fools.
If you push the belief that "even if it's not AGW, we still need to make changes", then you are nothing more than a liar. We could change our current pattern of energy use, sure, but not for a lie. It is this constant barrage of dishonesty that will kill the entire AGW industry. Considering what is at stake (no, not the "danger" of destroying the planet, but the danger of completely destroying our economy and society), you better have the science right, and AGW is based on emotion, not science.
Why not face the truth? Go to disclosureproject.org to see who is hiding what, and why. We have NOT NEEDED fossil fuels for over 60 years. It's all been to line the pockets of a few fat cats. Insist upon OPEN Congressional Hearings today.
An excellent article, very clear, very accurate, and yet, I had to stop reading the comments because there were too many naive, gullible fools who couldn't understand what they were reading. Since so many of you can't all be benifitting from this scam what in God's Name makes you cling so pathetically to your simpleton beliefs. "Action must be taken, now!" What action do you think would possibly have any effect? Arrogant ninnies!
Posted By: Peter Hale, Climate Concern UK
Date: 2008-01-01 04:19:24
Mr. Townes' article includes some interesting points, although the "AGW" scientists have counter arguments. The science should remain open.
My own summary of the position is as follows:
There is a chance that the sceptical view is correct. Let's hope it is. But unless you believe that most climate scientists are corrupt, this seems a small chance. And isn't it a rather extreme position to believe that the enormous amounts of extra greenhouse gas we are putting into the atmosphere (so far +33% CO2, +100% methane) will be benign?
If AGW science is correct, life will be very uncomfortable and possibly unsurvivable.
Polarised political positions (the point of this web site?) mustn't override objective thinking. Ditto any religious motives.
Even if AGW is not proven (and may never be), let's do whatever we can to reduce the risks. Our grandchildren are not expendable.
As I "see" scientific method, it is about putting forward a hypothesis that explains what we see and observe in a particular field.
Empiracal data and observation is then used to "skeptically" test the hypothesis.
This process continues forever.
As advances in measurement and observation techniques enable us to observe and measure new data, this new evidence should always be included in the skeptical testing of hypothesises, whether they be old or new. To not do this is completely unscientific. If a hypothesis fails the new data, then the hypothesis has failed. It really is that simple.
"The (AGW) hypothesis has been tested, and it has failed" Professor R. Carter.
That is the scientific method, as I "see" it. This I believe, is a far better "method" than the usual AGW proponents "discussion technique" of,
1) Dismiss the science, empiracal data or observation that questions AGW.
2) Rubbish the source.
3) Repeat the mantra.
Examples of both approaches will be found in virtually every "Climate debate" nowadays, and the same sides use the same tactics constantly. I'm proud to be a skeptic, it is the scientific way, is it not.
NB - Why is Mann still in a job when he has been proved to have produced such fraudulent material.
If he is such a good scientist he must have known how made up, and deliberately misleading his graph was,
therefore his motive can not have been scientific.
I apologise,people. I came back today and forced myself to continue reading your comments. I find that the majority of comments are logical and well thought out, and not of the 'Reality Denier' type at all. I feel better that the 'Lemmings' are not leading us to our doom, but are becoming a desperate minority, still shrilly demanding that we listen to their alarmist prophecies, even as their voices fade into the distance. It's a great new year, everyone. Happy New year!
I'd like to ask Todd, Franky, Ronny, Janny, Stuey, owly, Gino, Mickey, Bradly, Petee, et al, if any of them have actually tested the raw data being presented? I expect the answer is no, because only a ship of fools would continue to repeat the AGW mantra in the face of the peer-reviewed contrarian science, most of which provides solid irrefutable evidence of the natural state of an ever changing climate - warming on other planets, the fact that anthropogenic CO2 amounts to less than 1/11 of 1% of the greenhouse effect when we include the most prevalent greenhouse gas, aka water vapor, the subsequent fact that anthropogenic CO2 as a "force" factor doesn't even represent a blip on the Bell Curve when the data are subjected to statistical analysis, the historic record that shows increased CO2 always lagging temperature increases, the growing evidence of variable manipulation (or in some cases outright fraud) on the part of pro-AGW hyperboholics. Why are you all so willing to sell your souls to this fraud in the face of basic common sense? Or perhaps this is a case of their politico-religious tenet being exposed, in that the ends (their collective dream of an utopian socialist society) justify the means (proliferation of psuedoscience).
Whatever the case may be, we are apparently on the precipice of yet another world-wide Nazi movement - in this case it's the Greens who are donning the brown shirts. Climate fraud is a much greater threat to Western ideology than anything Hitler could have imagined or that Osama et al can throw at us today.
Check out John Stossel's take on global warming. The video is available on Youtube. He accepts the obvious notion that the climate is changing, but easily points out that there is absolutely no real proof that it's because of man. He points out Gore's emotional propaganda, he points out the same numbers that show climate change preceeds increasedCO2 levels, and he points out that plenty of prominent scientists agree the climate change is nothing but perfectly natural.
Thanks for the article - people are waking up to the carbon-taxers bogus agenda.
FACT: We are currently enjoyinga warm interval (interglaciation) between ice ages. Our interglaciation is called the Holocene. The last interglacial (before the last ice age) was called the Eemian. The Eemian Interglacial was WAAY HOTTER THAN TODAY AND CO2 WAS SKYROCKETING AS WELL!!! Modern Man was not here yet during the Eemian but if we were some Al Gore type would have been blowing hot air and blaming "human activity."
Thank God the Earth naturally warmed up from the last ice age, because my country was covered by ice several kilometers thick about 12,000 years ago. These warm interglacials typically end after about 12,000 years so statisticly the next ice age is getting close.
That makes over 40 blatant lies exposed from Al Gore's movie. Gore just wants to make as much money as possible for his company called Generation Investment Management(GIM).
Gore is Chairman of GIM:
http://www.generationim.com/philosophy/
GIM invests in companys that cause massive toxic waste and deadly air pollution. Here is their investment details:
NOW YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR CARBON CREDIT MONEY GOES!!
It's pathetic that this guy got a Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe the staff at Guantanamo Bay will get the next one.
About 1 year ago a forum like this would have been loaded with fools who bought into Al Gore's bogus claims, but things are changing for the better. Now it appears a majority are better informed and Al Gore's train is going off the track and into the ditch where it belongs.
The truth always prevails in the end. You can't fool people forever.
There should be no argument about this; what's done is done. It is our responsibility to respect our planet. God will provide the consequences for mistreating it.
IPCC predicted about 3 degrees C or 5.5 degrees F increase in "surface temperature" with the doubling of CO2.
I asked an AGW alarmist the following question.
Since GHG computer models say that CO2 drives our climate, why don't we have CO2 induce climate control systems in our homes? After all, I can control the water vapor and heat output.
She said it didn't work that way.
I said bingo, it will not work. So who is BSing who?
Well said Edward. It's an indictment that the climate warmists/alarmists have never been able to set out a clear concise argument for their case that relies only on the facts, as yours does. There is much greater credibility in the non-CO2 and non-anthropogenic warming scenario (if the surface temperatures can be relied upon, which again, if you look at the facts, is highly doubtful) than in the AGW case.
They must be feverishly working away in the back rooms trying to explain WHY there has been zero warming in the last 10 years even though CO2 continues to increase. 5 years ago, we only had 10 years, right? Time is running out with every snowflake and with every shiver they plot their next step.
Since the atmosphere weights something akin to 44.3 million billion tons, what effect will a few tons of CO2 have which is constantly be absorbed and reprocessed for human benefit?!
It appears that the case of global warming is not really a plot level, but it becomes self-sustaining and endures as a result of a collusion of interests between five players: Policies (who are so good conscience), industry (which are fighting a business CO2), scientists (who are insured sustain labs, climate studied on a very long-term ...), environmentalists (who have a new cause to defend) and journalists (who are assured of a lot of issues catastrophic virtually inexhaustible).
It seems impossible to thwart a movement now too committed. We have seen, on the occasion of reports, investigations and interviews conducted for our book "The Green sham" that the public has an opinion and made almost irreversible on the subject. The media hype has been such that even the arguments of common sense can no longer influence the general opinion. What to do when you know that in France the fight against the greenhouse effect has been declared a "national priority" by both the Assembly and the Senate?
Our feeling is that - apart from a few colleagues "engaged" - most of the journalists were abused in good faith by misinformation remarkably organized on an international scale. Having placed the IPCC under the auspices of the United Nations is a stroke of genius. Our view is that it is now too late - at the media - to correct the course of events. But nothing forbids us to try anyway.
They are so well organized that a website tells GW apostels how to respond to GW sceptics. Have a look at:
Before I really started checking out all the facts about global warming, I felt that anthropogenic global warming is very realy, needing quick action. Now I am convinced beyond doubt that AGW is nothing but sheer nonsense. Those who criticize the so call sceptics, will very soon be looking for a place to hide their face. Ten years have passed and all we can see is colder and more harsh winters.
I hope more Edward Townes will show themselves up to bring the truth before the people.
Well, there was that 22 years from 1976 to 1998 when carbon dioxide level and average earth temperature both increased. This resulted in a scary Hollywood movie and world wide global warming hysteria. Group-think developed in the climate science community where peer-review bias led to de facto censorship and a paucity of published studies that objectively investigate the extent to which human-produced carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. Apparently no one did any real research or they would have discovered that 440 mya the planet plunged into the Andean-Saharan ice age when atmospheric carbon dioxide was over ten times the present level. With a little further real research they would have discovered that, in the current ice age, temperature trends have changed direction at many different temperature levels. This could not occur with positive feedback. The forced conclusion from all this is that non-condensing green house gas has no significant influence on global temperature.
Mr. Townes, Every once in a while I read an article that makes me want to stand up and cheer. Your article is one of those. Excellent work!! Now let me compare your work to some of your detractors:
You provided facts and figures to support your claims. Your detractors provided no facts or figures.
You provided references. They provided nothing.
You provided references to lists of scientists who don't support the AGW theory. The warmers will claim thousands of scientists support the AGW theory, but they never provide the list.
The warmers immediately claim that scientists who don't support AGW are being paid by the oil companies, but they don't present a single shred of evidence to support that claim. At the same time they ignore the fact that Al Gore is the chairman of Generation Investment Co., a company which could profit from "green" government energy policies.
This is one of the best essays I've ever read! I am cheering! And with the recent paper published in Nature stating that there will be no warming for the next 10 years we'll have 20 years of no warming. That's quite a trend.
What always surprises me is how the alarmists seem to think the 1998 warming was human-caused instead of El Nino. It's amazing how many people have herd mentality and resign themselves from independant thought.
Keep up the excellent work. I have faith it will all eventually go away - especially when A1 countries who ratified see their bill from the Kyoto gang.
The comments written here by the global warming devout believers are amazing. Trying to reason with hysterics like these is like trying discuss evolution with a fundamentalist Christian. They are incapable of rational thought, completely ignorant of what constitutes science, and like any religious fanatic, will never change their minds. The legacy of the hypocrite/dolt Al Gore's life will be that he will forever be remembered as the fat-headed, slow-talking imbecile who touched off the most costly, destructive, tragically stupid and scientifically unfounded economic disaster in history with his global warming religion. The fact that he invented the Internet will not outweigh this blunder.
Reading this very long article, and the overabundant comments, I have come to some conclusions.
Most notably, the author and his fanbase are missing the pertinent point: DOES ANYBODY GIVE A F*CKING SH!T?
Who cares what the climate is doing and whether carbon dioxide causes warming or whether global warming is caused by dark matter, volcanoes, or Al Gore's farts? Does it really matter what if any correlation results between burning fossil fuels and average global termperature changes?
I do not know what is the deal with this whole anthropogenic global warming business. Nor do I care and neither should you! Let us suppose that the chicken little AGW scenario pimped by Mr. Gore is correct. Ok, what then? CO2 increases, the planet heats up a bit, the long term results are more lost polar bears and newsflash, hot, arid shithole desert countries will be somewhat hotter and drier. Tropical lands will be warmer and wetter. That is about it. Does that really affect your lives in anyway? Global warming will turn hot dry deserts into... hot dry deserts! Would anyone really care about the polar bears? Worst case scenario, we can make zoos for them. Which brings up the following joke:
What's the difference between capitalists and socialists?
It is not the case than one or the other does not like animals. Only their approach. The socialist wants to expend resources to save the animal's habitats. A capitalist would rather recreate the animal's environment in a zoo and profit off of visitors. Two different solutions with the same final outcome (the animals get saved), but a different process (one makes money out of the endeavor with no cost to the public beyond personal admission prices, the other spends the public money).
Also, I have noticed much BS from both sides. For all of the doomsday cries of the global warming alarmists, the behavior of the skeptics no different. "OMG! Global warming, we're all gonna DIE!1!1!" "Like, OMG, teh AGW people are a cult. They are all religious nutz. LOLz!" Why does anyone care?
Not to mention, application of the shoot the messenger fallacy. I just find your obsession with AGW people creepy... Let them believe what they want. They may be right, may not, WHO CARES? Why the obsession with something that does not affect the lives of 99.5% of people?
How about an idea. Why don't we leave science to scientists and ideology to ideologues? Rather than debating the truth about global warming, why not instead remind everyone of the irrelevancy of the issue? It is a waste of time to argue about the correctness of an irrelevancy. Instead of saying, "Teh AGW is a lie!1!1!" a more effective response would be, "that may be, but it is utterly irrelevant to my life. You are missing the greater point that I don't give a damn!"
Posted By: Edward Townes
Date: 2008-07-28 18:22:35
Jester,
If we had the appropriate property rights for air and oceans, and carbon dioxide was argued in a damages court to be a pollutant, then I would have no problem.
However, global warming is being used as the political motivation for a massive increase in government power and the implication of global socialism based on carbon trading brokered through the World Bank at 8% commission. It is an excellent opportunity to not only increase the scope of the government, but to lay the groundwork and mechanism of theft (taxation) for a world government. I have a serious problem with that.
If these idiots wanted to squabble about the science of global warming between themselves, that would be fine. But when you want to destroy freedom and prosperity in pursuit of your misguided ideology, then it does concern me enough to write and argue against them.
Thank you, I see your point now. Still, your counter-argument may be right or wrong. Al Gore may be right, or "global warming" may be caused by the hot hair he exhales making his case for it. We don't really know. I don't know, and I don't care. I think that the most potent weapon in your arsenal is APATHY. If people stopped caring about environmental doomsday scenarios, then there would be less incentives to push "carbon credits" on everyone.
Bottom line: point out the irrelevancy. By arguing against it, you are at least making appear as if An Inconvenient Truth is legitimate. "Anthropogenic global warming" is irrelevant to our lives. I am assuming that you are an American, in which case your life would be completely unaffected by such climate change, unless of course you live in Alaska, in which case it would be better off.
Great read! This article along with the book "Unstoppable Global Warming: every 1500 years" will give me all the ammo I need to take out every AGW supporter I see.
The funny thing is that Al Gorleone only talks about the last 100 years or so, but what about the Roman warming cycle (200 BC - 500 AD)? What about the Medieval Warming Period (900 AD - 1300 AD)? Both of these periods have been proven to be warmer than today based off of almost countless sources, from the ice core samples in Greenland and Antartica, to tree rings from Califoria, from stalagmites in the middle east, to lake bed sediments from around the world, etc. I could list hundreds of places and objects that have been researched and that all have shown evidence of this 1500 year average warming/cooling cycle. You cannot explain that away using CO2 models.
Posted By: the constant skeptic
Date: 2008-11-05 13:04:26
Great ideas posted here. I definitely am skeptical about anthropogenic global warming. Check out http://www.constantskeptic.com/ for some good reference material related to this. Thanks!
Mr Townes - brilliant article!! Was wonderful reading material. About time that the AGW hoax/farce is exposed, and please contine to do so. Comments by David S; Cail M; Scaramouche; Dmoney, the constant sceptic et al ... are excellent. Well done!. Jester, I am glad you understood what was meant by Mr Townes.
YES!! very good article indeed - and this last year has been another bad one for the alarmists. Without getting too much into the science, I'll tell you why this didnt even pass the sniff test. Al gore was the BIGGEST proponent of it - strike one. When it comes to science, the word "consensus" is VERY suspect, and when you hear the two words "overwelming consensus", get your boots on. When copernicus proposed helio - centric theory, the overwelming consensus was that the Earth was the center of the universe. Similarly, when Galileo observed mountains and craters on the moon, consensus was that the moon was an ether filled glass sphere. When Newton decribed gravity, there was a consensus that Aristotles theory of opposing forces, gravity and levity was correct. And when the Wright bros flew at Kittyhawk, newspapers waited days to report it because "consensus" dictated that it simply WAS NOT POSSIBLE. In the late 1970's, the "consensus" was that pollution would block the suns rays and - thru global cooling - trigger another ice age. I recently heard this theory once again advanced just the other day. Strike 3 for this "theory" was the Gore comment - "the time for debate is over". When ya hear this, you KNOW you're no longer discussing science, but politics. And bad politics at that. I wouldnt wanna have to debate Gores side of the question either. And what happens to those that dare question this junk science? You're called a "flat earther" and equated with a holocaust denier. RFK jr even suggested that people that refuse to believe this pseudo - scientific "religion" should be tried for "crimes against humanity!" During the Inquisition, the same crime was called heresy. I know my argument contains NO science, wisdom and intuition were enuff for me on this one. But, so as not to be hypocritical, i checked the "science" The truth is the globe hasnt warmed in 10 yrs, its getting colder, and the icecap has grown to the highest levels in 30 yrs.
I am not omniscient, and therefore, not sure if we're having a significant effect on climate change (AGCC, which is more accurate than AGW).
What I DO know is . . .
- the issue is no longer scientific, it's financial and political, and
- it IS going to cost us. Too many people (politicians) are committed to saving the earth, and making us change.
Therefore, I submit that the only realistic and achievable goal (for libertarians) is to control the damage by removing the financial incentive, and pushing back on restrictions of our Liberty.
Some kind of carbon dumping costs are inevitable - the current plans will put the costs square on your shoulders and mine. One proposal that I know of - a "carbon dumping fee", with the results returned directly to the wronged people - those whose environment has been polluted; removes financial incentive from gov't. types, and is neutral to end-users. The middlemen (polluters) would actually incur costs to deal with the paperwork, etc, so might have the effect of squashing undesirable behavior.
Market forces can drive innovation in energy production, and getting gov't out of the way will lower costs, and (at least in the case of nuclear) actually clean up the industry.
Let's stop arguing the science, and deal with the reality of politics, human behavior and emotions. Let's effect change - which is what the Al Gores have done, and deniers have not.
You can accept off-hand, the opinions of those with great financial and political risk, or you can just use a little common sense.
There is no indisputable evidence of "Man-Made" global warming any more than there was evidence back in the 70's, that mankind was bringing on the next ice age.
If you REALLY want the truth... If you REALLY want to know what motivates these promoters of mankind's inevitable demise... Just follow the money.
The earth has been warming and cooling since "time" and there is little to nothing that mankind can do to affect it. And short of nuclear annihilation, it is very likely that mankind will be here to experience it until whatever time that God decides, that's enough (and I'm sure that some reading this will discount my opinion for the shear use of "God" in my remarks).
I sincerely believe that mankind is responsible for caring for this planet as well as he is able for the duration. Recycling, conservation, preservation... These are all of our responsibilities as custodians of the earth. But to twist the truth... to out right lie...to scare the populace into compliance with programs and practices detrimental to a society is irresponsible at the very least, if not criminal.
And if I'm wrong, don't despair... Even the most prominent of the doomsdayers are only talking about a couple of degrees in average temperatures over the next 100 years. (That's been exagerated to make people feel like the end of the world as we know it by the next presidential election.)
If this really, really frightens you... If you are so unsure of how you will cope, I have a plan. Listen closely;
Adjust your thermostat!
'Chin up... Keep your electric bill paid up... You'll be fine.
The issue is that these changes of weather are changing much more dramatically ever since humans have created impacting machines. Being only 15 even i realise that we are the main cause. If we werent then why would politicians beleive it? Because it all points to us. We created nuclear weapons we are emitting dangerous chemicals into thwe atmosphere, we are to blame and we are to fix it!
Yes the earth has been heating up for centuries, but the issue is that it is happening much more dramatically ever since we humans have made changes because animals certainly arent!
And that bulshit about the moon isn't even relavent because the reason why the moon has such varied temperatures is because it has no ozone like we do! Duh!
The person who has written this obviously is totally ingnorant to this topic, and therefore does not impact real evidence.
Posted By: Edward Townes
Date: 2009-04-03 19:32:45
Anujah,
"If we werent then why would politicians beleive it?" - You've got a lot to learn about politicians.
The earth has been heating up in a very long term sense for 1.5 centuries, and its fine structure is much more complicated than you are giving justice to. It isn't happening much more rapidly either, check your facts.
The ozone layer is not directly involved in the greenhouse effect, it is a protective layer against high energy electromagnetic radiation. Almost the entire greenhouse effect is because of water vapour, which has excellent heat capacity, and thus smoothing out temperature fluctuations over time.
You're right, I don't impact evidence, no one does. I'm trying to impact the interpretation.
I hope this clears up some of your confusions. I'm not going to belittle you for your age, it is good of you to take the time to try to understand these arguments, but I would suggest not calling me ignorant on a topic where you have many personal knowledge holes yourself. That makes you a hypocrit, at best.
An excellent article well presented! I am amazed at how defensive the climate change activists are! Why do they feel the need to attack anyone who dares to offer an alternative outcome? No subject is ever closed as far as science is concerned. The data on global warming is limited and very subjective. The computer modelling used to support most of the claims is suspect at best. In any other field of science work would be allowed to continue unhindered on all views until a definitive proof was obtained, but NO not so for global warming! we are told that we are running out of time and we must act now! Why? the 100,000's of years of climate change that have gone before us should sow us that nothing on earth changes that quickly we have many years to carry out good science to achieve a true understanding of mankind’s impact ( if any) on planet earths temperatures.
Lets please not abandon our approach to good science for the sake of this type of trendy propaganda! Being used by the climate change lobby.
Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
The aim of this site is to help people understand the misrepresentation of C02 impact on global warming! Don't believe everything you hear in the media read the article and make up your own mind.
What about applying the "Precautionary Principle"? Do you see a potential 'real harm' from discouraging the gross consumption of non-renewable natural resources?
Posted By: Edward Townes
Date: 2009-04-06 20:01:27
Darryl,
I'm going to guess the "precautionary principle" refers to reducing CO2 emissions because these people might be right. I believe that is a simplistic view. Certainly, there is a chance I'm wrong and they are right, but what's important is not whether that chance exists but what the probability is and what the cost of preventative measures are. If you take this simplistic principle and apply it elsewhere, you can see its fallacy. For example, let me posit that we are under threat of imminent attack from an alien species, and that unless half of all the world's resources are donated to Edward Townes, we could all die in the invasion. As you can see, apart from the potential hazard, risk and cost are also both important parameters in determining whether action should be taken. In my opinion, the risk that they are right about global warming is extremely low, and the cost they propose (in tackling emissions of a gas so entwined in our prosperity) is so high, that it makes the "precaution" intolerable.
As for the consumption of non-renewable resources, I have two things to say. First of all, it is a fallacy to assume the resources we have available now are all we will ever have access to. As we consume more resources and grow in wealth and technology, we are able to access previously unavailable new resources. It is important that we consume in order to be able to consume from a larger pie. The other thing I will say, is that I believe in the price mechanism of the free market in determining not just where, but when the right time to consume certain resources is.
Who believes in AGW (anthropogenic global warming)?
Selected from http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America Australian Academy of Sciences American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members) Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia) Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts American Meteorological Society (AMS) Caribbean Academy of Sciences National Research Council USA Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) French Academy of Sciences German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina Indonesian Academy of Sciences Royal Irish Academy US Geological Survey (USGS) NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) World Meteorological Organization Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Royal Society (UK) Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil Académie des Sciences, France Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Royal Society of Canada, Canada Science Council of Japan, Japan Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Indian National Science Academy, India Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico International Council on Science The Petition - 11,885+ individual scientists listed by name
A petition signed by 52 Nobel Laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, 195 members of the National Academies, and over 11,885+ other scientists criticizing the misuse and politicization of science in Washington. The list is continually growing so these are minimum numbers. And I. This is by no means a comprehensive list. But it's a start.
Lets see... its been established that there has been a 3% increase per year in global CO2 output since 1997 when this whole thing started being looked at. Basic math... umm... 3% x 12 years = 36% increase in CO2 output.
Now lets be logical here. I am NOT saying, "why is ther not a 36% increase in temp?" I realize there is not a line by line direct increase. But if there HAS been a 36% increase in CO2 output, why has the global ave temp not steadily up in those twelve years? Maybe because there is far less cause-effect linkage between the two than advertised?
And FYI, all of you seem to not be in the know with the current buzz... it is no longer, "Global Warming," it is "Global Climate Change," that way if the temp goes up or down they can still be the disingenuous, power-grubbing social alarmists they desire to be.
I gues the mantra is... "When the facts don't support your argument, change the wording."
Let's stop arguing and just pay that global carbon tax! We can even start a Global Climate Change "lottery" where hundreds of millions of lucky winners get to live a lavish life for a year before they are "recycled" for Earth's sake, and our children's sake. It'll make life easier when government can dictate, through our energy providers, what levels our thermostats should be at -- it takes all the guess work out at finding that right temp! We should even expand the Green Police. Those evil Deniers need to be regulated and taxed, forget about the fact that quite a lot believe in not polluting their neighbors' property, let alone their own.
On a side note: I can't wait till when we have to pay extra taxes for fatty and/or generally unhealthy foods we consume. We're one big socialized family, so eat right or be taxed, 'cause we all have to pay for it, even more, once Universal Healthcare is up and running. Yeah, better quit smoking too! Big Brother won't let you have certain surgerys as he'll be reading your health history line-by-line; heaven forbid you engage in activites that would make our happy little hive pay extra.
All joking and nervous laughter aside, this whole debate (which is supposedly over) is bordering well beyond hysteria. Of course we should reduce the amount of pollution we create. There's no doubt that humanity has been responsible for destroying ecosystems by dumping toxic waste and other damaging byproducts of industry into our land and waterways. Might want to start by having government actually believe in private property rights and enforced them against these corporate and individual polluters. To think we can tax everyone-under-the-sun while ignoring industrial pollution simply because they paid X amount in carbon credits is rediculous.
There's always money to be had, at least, during this scam. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind getting off the power grid by using solar panels or windmills, or driving a more efficient vehicle, etc. Although, I wonder what kind of payday I'll hit investing in this carbon trading scheme. Not to mention the green companies that are popping up should be a decent investment, depending on what any particular company means when they say they're "green".
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
