 |
2 more articles on this subject:
To hear the media and any number of politicians and climatologists who have come on board with the concept, the world is facing a crisis because of the onset of global warming. Not so fast, say paleontologists, who are coming out to show otherwise.
Back in May I did a piece regarding the changing of weather and temperature patterns around the globe and the back and forth teeter-tottering that climatologists have been putting the world through since the 1970's, as well as other agenda driven science. Before that there was my article showing how 400 scientists around the world disagreed with the man-made global warming concept, and of course there is the report by Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, entitled 35 Inconvenient Truths, The Errors in Al Gore's Movie.
Needless to say, I'm a huge skeptic of the whole man-made global warming hysteria, and there is a reason for it. Other than my required science courses for my education degree in college (I chose geology, and there's a reason for that), I have always had a fascination and more than a passing layman's interest in natural science, geology, paleontology, and archeology. According to my geology professor, when I was considering switching majors to geology (a move I still regret not making, actually), most of his converts into geology and paleontology come from the history disciplines. Needless to say, I've more than just the passing knowledge of how research is done than just to listen to the news or read an article in a newspaper or magazine. There are procedures that are followed, and there is data that is collected, correlated, researched, so on and so forth.
Any respectable scientist will tell you that there is nothing that is ever conclusively proven, there are only hypotheses that become accepted as fact due to sufficient evidence supporting them. Despite the hysteria created by Al Gore, Hollywood, and the main stream media, there is more sound and verifiable evidence to support that we are NOT facing a crisis because of man-made global warming, and that overall, the planet is actually going back into a cooling pattern, as discussed by Dennis T. Avery, co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, in an interview with Right Wing News.
Over the course of the interview, Avery answers questions and discusses the effects of solar radiation upon the Earth, how that geological records are obtained and studied, and what evidence is obtained from those records from the very planet itself, including taking samples from ice shelves. He also discusses in the interview how that, despite the claims of the alarmists, geological evidence shows that the current warming cycle that the planet is coming out of, which peaked somewhere in the 1940's, is much milder than other warming periods the Earth has gone through in the history of mankind, stating, "The...warming before our last ice age was much warmer than anything we've had since. We had a warming that peaked 9000 years ago, another warming that peaked 5000 years ago. Both were warmer than today. Probably the Roman warming and the medieval warming were both warmer than today -- and we've had 8 warmings of the earth since the last Ice Age."
According to Al Gore, who is heavily invested in has a great financial interest in the promotion of global warming and the subsequent "green" industry to counter it, "the debate is over," but according to scientists like Avery and Lord Monckton, it hasn't even "warmed up."
-
OK, Mr Garibaldi, a couple of questions. Sorry to beat the devil's advocate drum but I am curious...
/Chris pulls out the golden spoon.....
Any respectable scientist will tell you that there is nothing that is ever conclusively proven...
Do you believe that? No such thing as conclusive proof for anything? =)
Despite the hysteria created by Al Gore, Hollywood, and the main stream media, there is more sound and verifiable evidence to support that we are NOT facing a crisis because of man-made global warming, and that overall, the planet is actually going back into a cooling pattern
If we are entering a global cooling period, doesn't that also suggest there is something wrong with the planet? How can we warm and then cool so quickly? Is the cyclical argument going to play out here?
There are a lot of scientists who say global warming is not man-made, so how come you take their words as gospel without the same scrutiny as those who say it is man-made? Couldn't they be wrong?
What are the affiliations, backgrounds, partnerships, education, etc. of the scientists who refute the idea of man-made global warming? How many times has Big Oil taken these scientists out for lunch? haha
How do we know man-made global warming skeptics/scientists are more correct than the ones who say it is man-made if no science can ever be conclusively proven as you say above?
/Chris puts the spoon away =) -
@ Chris Hogg
/Chris puts the spoon away =)
I KNOW I gave you a shovel to replace that spoon. -
@ Sue D.
@ Chris Hogg
I KNOW I gave you a shovel to replace that spoon.
I haven't pulled out the shovel yet. I don't want to scare Mr. G away =) -
Chris, look over the data compiled by geologists and paleontologists that cover studies of the planet and it's life cycle over the eons and you'll see why so many of us who follow natural science disagree with the "man-made" notion. Our atmosphere was created by volcanic activity over the course of millions of years. Our world started out as a ball of molten activity whose crust and mantle were formed by millions more years of cooling. Over the millenia, life came into being on the planet. We know approximately when, through geological and fossil record, but not precisely how it happened. At one point in time, the area where I live now in west Tennessee was underwater, during a time when the temperature of the planet was significantly warmer than it is now. Again, we know this due to fossil records. In my own home county, there is a yet to be unearthed (we know it's there because of seismic devices used in searching) fossil of a plesiosaur, a creature not seen on the Earth since the Cretaceous period (see the Climate section of this article), all reported sightings of "Nessie" not taken into account. Mankind had not even graced the planet during this period.
Those of us in this section of the debate section are not discounting that there are warming and cooling trends that occur, quite the contrary. What we are pointing out is that the advent of humanity upon the planet has contributed insignificantly to what the natural cycle of the planet has been for millions of years longer than we have even existed as a species.
We, mankind, are a PART of the natural life cycle of the planet, not something separate and outside of it. Humanity was born of the dust of this earth, and to the dust of this earth we return when we die. We are as much a part of the natural order of things as that plesiosaur that lies buried for the past several million years in a fenced off area at the southern end of the county where I live. -
@ Chris Hogg
I haven't pulled out the shovel yet. I don't want to scare Mr. G away =)
LOL!!! -
@ Chris Hogg
I haven't pulled out the shovel yet. I don't want to scare Mr. G away =)
And no worries :) The last time I was afraid of anything was back in '86, and there were bullets involved. -
We, mankind, are a PART of the natural life cycle of the planet, not something separate and outside of it. however, we can behave as though we are not and engage in activities that are unhealthy and unwise such as pollution. Humans have an effect on the ecosystems they inhabit both good and bad and it is possible that one of the bad effects has been to contribute to climate change and make the natural cycles even more severe. -
Chris, look over the data compiled by geologists and paleontologists that cover studies of the planet and it's life cycle over the eons and you'll see why so many of us who follow natural science disagree with the "man-made" notion
I actually seek out info from both sides, so I do appreciate the links. However, that doesn't answer my question about the scientists who say global warming is not man-made. How do we know who is backing their research (financial backing of research can almost pre-determine results), the scientists' education and affiliations, etc.?
Those of us in this section of the debate section are not discounting that there are warming and cooling trends that occur, quite the contrary. What we are pointing out is that the advent of humanity upon the planet has contributed insignificantly to what the natural cycle of the planet has been for millions of years longer than we have even existed as a species.
In Canada, man-made global warming is talked about as though it is fact. In fact, many countries do. It seems the U.S. is the biggest skeptic of it. Why? I'm not sure who is right and never will know because I'm not a scientist, however it's an interesting observation I make.
Most serious environmental scientists I have spoken to roll their eyes when you say anything skeptical, or if you suggest it's not man-made. Most serious environmental scientists I have spoken to or read (not very many, but a few) will straight-up say any scientist who is willing to risk his/her reputation saying it's not man-made is an idiot.
We, mankind, are a PART of the natural life cycle of the planet, not something separate and outside of it. Humanity was born of the dust of this earth, and to the dust of this earth we return when we die. We are as much a part of the natural order of things as that plesiosaur that lies buried for the past several million years in a fenced off area at the southern end of the county where I live.
I have to disagree with you. We are natural, yes, but everything we do is not. I'm not an environmentalist, but I do believe we have impacted the planet negatively and it's very hard to refute that. We have enormous CO2 emissions that are certainly not natural. We didn't have six billion people even 50 years ago so comparing data is not entirely apples to apples. Even little things like recycyling; we have been doing it for a long time in Toronto yet I've been to places in the southern U.S. where they have never tried it. That is horrible. Makes me sound like a tree-hugger, maybe, but it's irresponsible to not recycle.
I don't think scientists argue against cyclical weather, but many do believe man-made factors have accelerated it. I find it difficult to argue against that.
As for people like Al Gore: I do think he has an agenda and he's turned environmental science into a circus. I hate that. On the one hand I think it's good he's helped propel the issue into the spotlight, but he's not a scientist. His public showboating on this issue, IMO, turned a lot of people off. That is a sad thing. -
Mike, I grouped two of the stories I did that have information that directly coorliates with yours. If you don't like the group you are more than welcome to ungroup. =)
The more I research this, the more I think we are going through global climate shift, and not necessarily just warming or cooling.
-
I actually seek out info from both sides, so I do appreciate the links. However, that doesn't answer my question about the scientists who say global warming is not man-made. How do we know who is backing their research (financial backing of research can almost pre-determine results), the scientists' education and affiliations, etc.?
The scientists who are being paid to back man made global warming are making tons more money than the scientists who refute. A story I did a while back gave a link to the testimonies of the 400 as well as thier positions held. Very interesting what they say. Some of the 400 do not even deny global warming, but doubt the effect man has had on the environment is as large as people are saying. -
Chris Hogg... their credentials, at least many of the 400 scientists that assert that it is not man-made is at the link he provided, where he links at his blog to the Senate report showing them, their credentials, and their comments..
@ Samantha A. Torrence
Mike, I grouped two of the stories I did that have information that directly coorliates with yours. If you don't like the group you are more than welcome to ungroup. =)
The more I research this, the more I think we are going through global climate shift, and not necessarily just warming or cooling.
What gets me the most Samantha is the arrogance in believing that we, human beings, that have been around for far less time than earth itself, "could" even do any damage to mother earth.
She was here before us and she will be here long after we are extinct. -
@ Samantha A. Torrence
The scientists who are being paid to back man made global warming are making tons more money than the scientists who refute. A story I did a while back gave a link to the testimonies of the 400 as well as thier positions held. Very interesting what they say. Some of the 400 do not even deny global warming, but doubt the effect man has had on the environment is as large as people are saying.
See this is my point Sam. Are you taking their word as gospel? Just because they are critics you trust them? How can we trust any of them when there is so much to lose and so much money in this?
Why do you trust the critics and how do you know they can be trusted? -
@ Samantha A. Torrence
Mike, I grouped two of the stories I did that have information that directly coorliates with yours. If you don't like the group you are more than welcome to ungroup. =)
The more I research this, the more I think we are going through global climate shift, and not necessarily just warming or cooling.
More than happy to have articles linked to mine, it strengthens the debate, rather than weakening it, when people are willing to come to the table and talk intellectually about an issue rather than bulldogging their way in and riding rough shod over anyone else's opinion.
@ Chris Hogg
I actually seek out info from both sides, so I do appreciate the links. However, that doesn't answer my question about the scientists who say global warming is not man-made. How do we know who is backing their research (financial backing of research can almost pre-determine results), the scientists' education and affiliations, etc.?
In Canada, man-made global warming is talked about as though it is fact. In fact, many countries do. It seems the U.S. is the biggest skeptic of it. Why? I'm not sure who is right and never will know because I'm not a scientist, however it's an interesting observation I make.
Most serious environmental scientists I have spoken to roll their eyes when you say anything skeptical, or if you suggest it's not man-made. Most serious environmental scientists I have spoken to or read (not very many, but a few) will straight-up say any scientist who is willing to risk his/her reputation saying it's not man-made is an idiot.
I have to disagree with you. We are natural, yes, but everything we do is not. I'm not an environmentalist, but I do believe we have impacted the planet negatively and it's very hard to refute that. We have enormous CO2 emissions that are certainly not natural. We didn't have six billion people even 50 years ago so comparing data is not entirely apples to apples. Even little things like recycyling; we have been doing it for a long time in Toronto yet I've been to places in the southern U.S. where they have never tried it. That is horrible. Makes me sound like a tree-hugger, maybe, but it's irresponsible to not recycle.
I don't think scientists argue against cyclical weather, but many do believe man-made factors have accelerated it. I find it difficult to argue against that.
As for people like Al Gore: I do think he has an agenda and he's turned environmental science into a circus. I hate that. On the one hand I think it's good he's helped propel the issue into the spotlight, but he's not a scientist. His public showboating on this issue, IMO, turned a lot of people off. That is a sad thing.
Notice I never said that mankind doesn't do things that are unnatural (wink). That's part of the teacher coming out in me, I suppose, and it ties in with Bob's comments about the severity of weather that we seem to be experiencing. We do affect the environment, and our climate, in both positive and negative ways. There is nothing, locally, that burns my Cherokee mutt soul more than to drive along a back road and see hillside after hillside that have been clear-cut of timber, leaving naked brown dirt behind to wash away over the coming rains until more vegetation can spring forth, but by then a great deal of minerals and nutrients in the soil have washed away. The flipside of that is that I know that the farmland of the midwestern U.S. was formed in much the same way because of both volcanic ash and topsoil washing down from the Canadian interior millions of years ago as the result of lightning ignited wildfires in the upperland forests. Again, though, that was a process millions of years in the making, not something caused by human clear-cutting machinery. The Brazillian rainforests have suffered similarly over the past few decades. And there is a direct tie in to THAT and the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, which still, however, remains at less than one third of one percent of the entire atmosphere.
As to the increase in intensity of storms, Bob, give me ten minutes :)
Maybe fifteen...lol. -
Oh, and Al Gore is a charlatan and an opportunist. Why do you think he couldn't carry his home state of Tennessee when he ran for President?
-
@ Chris Hogg
See this is my point Sam. Are you taking their word as gospel? Just because they are critics you trust them? How can we trust any of them when there is so much to lose and so much money in this?
Why do you trust the critics and how do you know they can be trusted?
I trust the ones that seem not to have an agenda. The people who back man made global warming have made millions of dollars. The taxes that they want to levee would make trillions of dollars. The funding they have backing them is, in my opinion, more questionable than the funding given to the scientists who do not back the man-made aspect of global warming. Many times the scientists who go against the grain make far less. and a report I did a while back showed they were even threatened with thier livlihoods. People tend not to want to risk thier behinds, so when someone does I at least try to listen. Honestly the scientists refuting man made global warming made me take the issue seriously because some pointed out how global warming is taking place.
Remember this article?
The global warming crowd has procured 50 billion dollars in funding since 1990, while the skeptical crowd has only gained 19 million from the company of Exxon Mobile and a few thousand on record for expenses generated by reports from skeptics.
This year a green fund was established to "turn" skeptics
Richard Widows, a financial ratings analyst from thestreet.com writes
Not everyone is sold on environmentalism, but it's hard to argue with the returns of some mutual funds that invest in "green" companies. The recent performance of the Allianz RCM Global EcoTrends Fund (AECOX) should convert skeptics faster than a code-red air-quality alert.
The $131 million fund has appeared in the top 10% of stock funds for several months this year. It advanced 28.13% in the six months through August, smartly outperforming the 5.71% total return of the S&P 500 over the same period.
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions.
“In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.”
James Spann, a meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society, implies that monetary gain is the reason for the alarmist postulation on global warming.
"Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story," Spann wrote on January 18, 2007. (LINK) "Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab," Spann added. -
The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.
Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
A small example of some of the 400 that disagree:
Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)
Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote.
Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.
France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!”
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”
Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases."
Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”
Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”
Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.
This is but a small sample of the 400 that disagree and how many scientists did the UN IPCC quote for their so-called "consensus"?
52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers
So, when looking at the numbers alone as well as the credentials...does it not strike anyone as amusing that 52 scientists would be cited and 400 would be ignored? -
@ Bob Ewing
however, we can behave as though we are not and engage in activities that are unhealthy and unwise such as pollution. Humans have an effect on the ecosystems they inhabit both good and bad and it is possible that one of the bad effects has been to contribute to climate change and make the natural cycles even more severe.
Ok, back to the question. Actually, for a lot of us, the jury is still out on that one. There is evidence to support that Mesozoic storms were much more intense than the storms we experience today:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env176.htm
However, researching storms from that far back takes time and the collection of a lot of data that is still being compiled, but does show a cyclic nature to storm activity as well as climatic changes:
http://www.livescience.com/php/video/player.php?video_id=pur5281_prehistorichurrican&plugin=f
These are just two examples that I've found online: if the bulk of my personal library wasn't in storage, I could find other resources and cite them for you in more of an APA format. -
However, back to this statement: however, we can behave as though we are not and engage in activities that are unhealthy and unwise such as pollution. Humans have an effect on the ecosystems they inhabit both good and bad and it is possible that one of the bad effects has been to contribute to climate change and make the natural cycles even more severe.
I find it interesting that people are so arrogant as to believe that their combined behaviour over centuries has no effect when the evidence, pollution, for one, is all around us.
yes of course there are natural climate cycles but the humans may well have effected those cycles. -
@ Bob Ewing
However, back to this statement: I find it interesting that people are so arrogant as to believe that their combined behaviour over centuries has no effect when the evidence, pollution, for one, is all around us.
yes of course there are natural climate cycles but the humans may well have effected those cycles.
That's the thing, Bob, look back at my statement about clear cutting from earlier. We're just now really and truly beginning to understand how our environment works, what the cycles are, how the cycles run, let alone what humanities impact IS on the environment. My point is not that problems don't exist and don't need to be corrected, my point is that we're only JUST beginning to recognize the problems, we're by no means experts yet in any way.
It is just as arrogant for Al Gore to proclaim "the debate is over" as it is for anyone else to proclaim "there is no debate."
The truth of the matter is we're only truly beginning to understand there is something TO debate. -
Interesting post and comments...glad to see that people aren't just going to settle into the 'scientists-say-it's-so, so-it-must-be-so' belief.
-
I hate how they harp on CO2. There are other "green house" gases that are far more likely to be affecting the environment than CO2, such as methane. Most of the so called man made climate change is from livestock. How come we don't see Al Gore out there advocating we become vegetarians? We could feed more people, there'd be less livestock spewing methane and CO2 AND there'd be more plants gobbling up CO2.
-
It is a very good conversation -- agree with Deb on that. I honestly don't know what to believe but I don't write off either side. In researching or understanding, I think it's important to look at the facts from both sides.
We can agree to disagree, but I don't think it's wise to say global warming is not man-made (or fuelled by man) just because 400 scientists say so. There are thousands more who believe it is, and those tens of thousands are just as well respected. Both sides are important. Al Gore should not be part of this conversation or debate because it's sensationalized in the media.
I also think the media has been irresponsible or ignorant (don't know which) in reporting environmental climate change and man-made global warming because they write from a press release rather than truly understanding the deep science. This works on both sides too: Those who say it is man-made have evidence to believe that, the media boils it down into a 400-word report and readers can be naturally skeptical of that; while on the flip side, the skeptics might be disagreeing with parts of others' theories and their words get boiled down into a press release and readers only see "I disagree" but don't look at why.
How many people have actually looked at the thousands of pages of research theses? When skeptics say it's not man-made, is it because they read a dozen media reports and summaries, or do skeptics take time to research it objectively and look at raw data. Raw data is the best benchmark from which to make any conclusion. I don't think most people look at that data (both those who believe it is man-made and those who don't).
I will argue, however, that skeptics are more likely to avoid the raw data and only read the "I disagree" part of scientists' comments. I think those who do believe it's man-made are more likely to look at the data to make that conclusion. Agree or disagree? Why?
Good topic. It's been done to death, but it still fascinates me that there is so much disagreement. As I said, I like hearing both sides, not reading one side that works very hard to disprove the other. That is not science.
-
@ atroxodisse
I hate how they harp on CO2. There are other "green house" gases that are far more likely to be affecting the environment than CO2, such as methane. Most of the so called man made climate change is from livestock. How come we don't see Al Gore out there advocating we become vegetarians? We could feed more people, there'd be less livestock spewing methane and CO2 AND there'd be more plants gobbling up CO2.
The flip side to that though, is that the more vegitation there is, there is going to be more methane from when the left overs die and rot. Increased agriculture is partly to blame from reports I have read.
Chris I have to disagree that the skeptics do not read anything but media reports. I have read many scientific magazines on the subject, and I am sure Mr. Garibaldi has also read scientific reports. Every article leads to questions, which leads to research. I have not seen any conclusive evidence past the connection between agriculture, that our current global warming is soley man made. Infact many things blamed on man, have been shown to be caused by nature just as often as it has been cause by humans. -
@ Samantha A. Torrence
Chris I have to disagree that the skeptics do not read anything but media reports. I have read many scientific magazines on the subject, and I am sure Mr. Garibaldi has also read scientific reports. Every article leads to questions, which leads to research. I have not seen any conclusive evidence past the connection between agriculture, that our current global warming is soley man made. Infact many things blamed on man, have been shown to be caused by nature just as often as it has been cause by humans.
You read articles in scientific mags, but have you looked at the raw data? Scientists in this field look at the numbers to come up with these conclusions and both sides can be wrong. Forget about reading anything summarized or boiled down for you -- look at the numbers and patterns and data. -
Well where do you find these thesises? I usually read the articles, find key words I have questions about, do research on the topic and get alot of different results. Usually the articles include data and give refrence to further readings.
-
@ Samantha A. Torrence
Well where do you find these thesises? I usually read the articles, find key words I have questions about, do research on the topic and get alot of different results. Usually the articles include data and give refrence to further readings.
There is a lot of data on the web if you look for it. You can also email organizations and ask them to send it to you. A government organization like NASA makes most if not all of its research available. The research papers can be boring like hell but it does include observation and raw data rather than a journalist's perspective of that data.
Reading references, media reports, etc. is hugely important but I do think looking at data is equally as important :) -
@ Samantha A. Torrence
Well where do you find these thesises? I usually read the articles, find key words I have questions about, do research on the topic and get alot of different results. Usually the articles include data and give refrence to further readings.
Quite a lot of the reports will specify the name of a specific report itself, if you do searches for the name of the report, you can usually find the PDF version of it. Or if they list the "group" that conducted the research and you go to their site and do an internal search, you can find almost every original results from the research conducted.
Takes time and many of them are hundreds of pages long but well worth the time it takes to go through them so you are not letting anyone tell you how to think. -
see I learn sumthin new every day. =)
-
@ Samantha A. Torrence
see I learn sumthin new every day. =)
That's my entire point, Sam, outstanding!
We are constantly learning new information, particularly in climatology, paleontology, geology, biology, chemisty...name a particular branch of science and we are learning new things all the time. Einstein theorized that faster than light travel was not possible, yet physicists and astrologers since have developed theories that it is, using a warp field, not unlike the technology envisioned by Roddenberry (a genius in his own right) in the Star Trek series.
We actually have Trek to thank for several advances in modern technology. Take a look at your cell phone, for instance. ever notice that flip phones bear a remarkable similarity to the communicators carried by Kirk and the crew in the original series? Science fiction is often ahead of it's time in foretelling of things to come, such as Verne's Nautilus, decades ahead of modern nuclear powered submarines.
If we, as a species, are to survive, we are going to have to learn to separate science from the political process so that we can ensure that what we are getting results untainted by pressures from funding sources who have a particular interest in seeing the results that they want are achieved.
Politically driven scientific research creates flawed results, and such pompous proclamations by snake oil salesmen that "the debate is over" before any debate has actually even begun. -
Is the Newest " the Earth is cooling " Theory posted by Mr. G to be criticized any more than the Alphonse Bore's "the earth is Burning" diatribes?
Remanber the 70's gave us the same " scientists" who are now with Al who Swore that the Ice Age was Upon us.... So Spoons and shovels to the Shed and let's see what really is coming....
-
Beautiful, this has been one of the best discussion that I have read since joining this site, it is actually civilized. I am not a scientist or anything but for my two cents worth. Mankind may not be responsible for global warming but we are contributing to it how much I won't know but my grand-kids will be the ones who will have to live with what we leave them. What I see is the melting of the glaciers on the mountains in the Cascade Range over the fifty plus years I have been on this planet, with the exception of Mt. Shasta. To me that shows there is some form of warming, who is to blame, nature and man. I am going to follow this string with interest.
-
@ Shelly Kemnow
Beautiful, this has been one of the best discussion that I have read since joining this site, it is actually civilized. I am not a scientist or anything but for my two cents worth. Mankind may not be responsible for global warming but we are contributing to it how much I won't know but my grand-kids will be the ones who will have to live with what we leave them. What I see is the melting of the glaciers on the mountains in the Cascade Range over the fifty plus years I have been on this planet, with the exception of Mt. Shasta. To me that shows there is some form of warming, who is to blame, nature and man. I am going to follow this string with interest.
Well said, Shelly...and welcome to Digital Journal! -
I guess the REAL question here is this: is the Global Warming argument convincing enough for us to enact restrictive laws like the state regulating home thermostats remotely, or passing a $6.5 TRILLION Climate Security Act that will kick up our taxes and the price of everything in our lives by thousands of dollars a year?
Will such acts push us into a new Great Depression?
Will Al Gore be subject to the same restrictions, or will he merely buy carbon credits from himself and continue to generate a carbon footprint the size of Rhode Island?
Is our only choice "Save The Planet, Kill Mankind" or to return to the Stone Age?
I'm not convinced. Not enough to enable draconian taxes and bureaucrats to run roughshod in our homes and wallets, that is.
-
@ Johnny Simpson
I guess the REAL question here is this: is the Global Warming argument convincing enough for us to enact restrictive laws like the state regulating home thermostats remotely, or passing a $6.5 TRILLION Climate Security Act that will kick up our taxes and the price of everything in our lives by thousands of dollars a year?
Why couldn't taxation be done more responsibly? I think it might be a bit of an assumption that it would make everything in your life cost thousands more because it would totally depend on actual implementation.
I hate taxes and wasteful spending just like any conservative does. I also, however, think it's crazy to just ignore these environmental problems because I don't want it to cost me an extra few bucks at the end of the day, just like any liberal does.
In all honesty, why is it not worth a bit extra to clean things up and take care of the planet a bit more? Forget about trillions in taxation to plant a tree for everyone to hug -- i'm talking about real strategic change implemented properly. As I mentioned in a comment above, there are still places that don't recycle and that is ludicrous.
This issue, especially in the U.S., seems to be flogged on party lines whereas I'm not convinced the rest of the world is so partisan on environmental issues.
I hinted on this earlier, but does anyone have any thoughts on why America seems to be so divided on this while the rest of the world mostly supports the idea of man-made global warming? Is that a fair statement or is that just how I perceive it? -
@ Samantha A. Torrence
The flip side to that though, is that the more vegitation there is, there is going to be more methane from when the left overs die and rot. Increased agriculture is partly to blame from reports I have read.
Chris I have to disagree that the skeptics do not read anything but media reports. I have read many scientific magazines on the subject, and I am sure Mr. Garibaldi has also read scientific reports. Every article leads to questions, which leads to research. I have not seen any conclusive evidence past the connection between agriculture, that our current global warming is soley man made. Infact many things blamed on man, have been shown to be caused by nature just as often as it has been cause by humans.
Sure but nearly as much as livestock. Some scientists that do believe in anthropogenic global warming think it started 10000 years ago when humans started domesticating animals. -
-
Chris, Here's some food for thought:
What are carbon credits? They allow an underpolluting company to sell its pollution "credits" so another company can overpollute by the same amount.
I see plenty of gain for carbon traders like Al Gore, but where's the net gain to the environment? Same amount of pollution. Right?
They're selling smoke. It's the Enron of environmentalism. The Ponzi Scheme of Pollution. Still the same overpollution, only people are making money on it. I have a real problem with that.
Also, if the UN were so concerned about carbon footprints, why did they leave one the size of China in Bali?
I see too much greed, dirty politics and conflicts of interest to believe this is all legit. If Al Gore were principled, he would get out of the CC trade. Pure conflict of interest there.
Don't hold your breath on that one, if you'll pardon the pun.
-
@ Johnny Simpson
Chris, Here's some food for thought:
What are carbon credits? They allow an underpolluting company to sell its pollution "credits" so another company can overpollute by the same amount.
I see plenty of gain for carbon traders like Al Gore, but where's the net gain to the environment? Same amount of pollution. Right?
They're selling smoke. It's the Enron of environmentalism. The Ponzi Scheme of Pollution. Still the same overpollution, only people are making money on it. I have a real problem with that.
Also, if the UN were so concerned about carbon footprints, why did they leave one the size of China in Bali?
I see too much greed, dirty politics and conflicts of interest to believe this is all legit. If Al Gore were principled, he would get out of the CC trade. Pure conflict of interest there.
Don't hold your breath on that one, if you'll pardon the pun.
I agree with you 100% -
My point is not that problems don't exist and don't need to be corrected, my point is that we're only JUST beginning to recognize the problems, we're by no means experts yet in any way.
I have little problem with this statement as it basically fits with what i am saying, but this does not mean that we sit back and do nothing but that we get together and discuss what we can do and how we can do it while maintaining and improving our economic and environmental situation. I also disagree with the JUST what we know is that when we clear cut a piece of land we change that land what we do not know is what the extent of the changes are which means perhaps before we clear cut we need to understand those consequences.
We do not know what the full extent of using coal and oil is but we do know that we have pollution that is killing people, perhaps we should consider that before we suggest continuing on without any changes.
I see much of the denial movement being mostly about stalling, wasting time rather than moving towards any social and economic action which can benefit all.
Oh and the 400.
Here's a quick breakdown of Johnson's findings:
*
Inhofe's list includes 413 people. (Score one Inhofe; the math holds up.)
*
84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.
*
49 are retired
*
44 are television weathermen
*
20 are economists
*
70 have no apparent expertise in climate science
http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2008/01/11/inhofes-400-global-warming-deniers-debunked/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailygreen.com%2Fenvironmental-news%2Flatest%2Finhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101&frame=true-
@ Bob Ewing
JI have little problem with this statement as it basically fits with what i am saying, but this does not mean that we sit back and do nothing but that we get together and discuss what we can do and how we can do it while maintaining and improving our economic and environmental situation. I also disagree with the JUST what we know is that when we clear cut a piece of land we change that land what we do not know is what the extent of the change are which means perhaps before we clear cut we need to understand those consequences.
We do not know what the full extent of using coal and oil is but we do know that we have pollution that is killing people, perhaps we should consider that before we suggest continuing on without any changes.
I see much of the denial movement being mostly about stalling, wasting time rather than moving towards any social and economic action which can benefit all.
Oh and the 400.
Here's a quick breakdown of Johnson's findings:
*
Inhofe's list includes 413 people. (Score one Inhofe; the math holds up.)
*
84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.
*
49 are retired
*
44 are television weathermen
*
20 are economists
*
70 have no apparent expertise in climate science
http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2008/01/11/inhofes-400-global-warming-deniers-debunked/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailygreen.com%2Fenvironmental-news%2Flatest%2Finhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101&frame=true
Funny, change that number to 4000 and he could be talking about the IPCC "scientists". -
@ Bob Ewing
The 400.
I hope everyone here reads this article that Bob links to. I don't know who is right but this is EXACTLY what I was talking about when it comes to knowing who these 400 scientists are. There are two sides to every story and when one group says they are well respected, it's important to read this side that says it's all B.S.
From the article:
- Inhofe's list includes 413 people. (Score one Inhofe; the math holds up.)
- 84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.
- 49 are retired
- 44 are television weathermen
- 20 are economists
- 70 have no apparent expertise in climate science
- Several supposed skeptics have publicly stated that they are very concerned about global warming, and support efforts to address it. One claims he was duped into signing the list and regrets it.
Before we get ahead of ourselves, here are some concessions and explanations:
- Taking money from companies that have an established stake in burning fossil fuels doesn't mean your science is junk, but it ought to sound alarm bells for anyone aiming for the label of "skeptic."
- Being retired doesn't mean you've lost your smarts, but it does make it harder to be considered "prominent" on a cutting-edge issue.
- Weathermen help us navigate the vagaries of weather on a local level every day, but this isn't a discipline that requires forecasting world climate conditions decades from now. (Prominent? In one sense: They are more frequently seen and heard.)
- Economists, clearly, are valuable participants in policy debates. Clearly, they aren't climate scientists.
- Finally, we could line up 59 regular people (hi Mom!) who don't have any particular expertise in climate science, but believe adamantly in it. You wouldn't care what they think.
Now, I can't say who is right and who is wrong but what do you guys think about this? Sue? Johnny? Mr. G? Sam? If you have links or research showing this stuff is B.S. please share. -
Catchy article... But there are a few points that need to be made. First, although 'global warming' may still be debatable, carbon emissions are not (and they are increasing drastically thanks primarily to India and China); couple that with the depletion of our major forests and even if global warming was myth, a significant decrease in the quality of our air would not be - and surely air quality directly affects the quality of our lives.
Secondly, if global warming is real, it will lead to global cooling very quickly. Increased precipitation due to melt water will increase cloud cover, increase storm rates, and decrease sun exposure. I haven't seen 35 inconvenient truths, but don't global coolings/ice ages often follow periods of global warming? I think one of the biggest mistakes made by concerned scientists was naming this situation global warming, it should have been called weather extremification, or something along those lines, because that is what will follow environmental instability.
Lastly, regardless of whether or not climate change is real, our impact on the environment and all it's inhabitants (which of course includes us) is very real. Our impact has been negative. Driven by capitalism, the stock market, and an insatiable appetite for more of everything and anything, we're at a point in human history where collectively we have to consider how we are going to sustain our existence on this planet. Climate change aside, our impact on the environment is too great as is; so whether it's global cooling or global warming should not be the fundamental question - the question should be how can we minimize our impact to ensure environmental sustainability in the years to come.
-
Funny, change that number to 4000 and he could be talking about the IPCC "scientists". got a link to prove this? -
@ Bob Ewing
got a link to prove this?
Sure. Here you go.-
First 52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
Second, the links you provided showed a site who has as it's main goal, an attempt to discredit or cause pause on the list of 400, yet it doesn't show them debunking the reasoning those scientists gave with data.
Because people are retired, doesn't make their credentials any "less", and when you are looking to a site discussing the "green revolution", do you really think they are even attempting to be objective?
If you read and followed each link in the Senate report of those 400, you would see that many came forward despite threats made against them, some even providing the wording of those threats.
The fact is, there is conflicting data on both sides and instead of all the scientists getting together to pool their resources, scientists from both sides of the issue are too busy infighting and then the same happens with observers.
If they were forced into one set place and told to compare notes and not come out until they have all reached conclusions without any attempt to influence them from political sides of the issue, I would wager that we would find that neither side can prove their results conclusively.
The debate will continue to rage, with each of us picking the reports and the word of the experts that we believe makes more sense and provides better data, but not being those experts, we cannot prove our points conclusively because they themselves cannot prove their conclusions conclusively.
-
@ Sue D.
The fact is, there is conflicting data on both sides and instead of all the scientists getting together to pool their resources, scientists from both sides of the issue are too busy infighting and then the same happens with observers.
I think the media needs to be equally as responsible with this. I don't think it's fair to write something saying global warming is or is not man-made without showing both sides.
Mr. G has a great Op-Ed here, but it seems one-sided IMO. No offense meant there, but it only treats this subject as fluff science or exaggerated science (at least that is my impression, so correct me if I'm wrong). There are other reports on DJ that speak of man-made global warming as it being a fact and they too are one-sided.
If you can see that scientists are too busy fighting, will you agree journalists and media outlets do the same? What about reports on DigitalJournal.com -- many Op-Eds are biased on both sides also. Do you think all of us should step back and treat each of these reports fairly even if we don't agree with them? -
@ Sue D.
The debate will continue to rage, with each of us picking the reports and the word of the experts that we believe makes more sense and provides better data, but not being those experts, we cannot prove our points conclusively because they themselves cannot prove their conclusions conclusively.
That goes for BOTH sides of the argument, darlin :) Which is what I've been trying to say all along. The only way we're really going to see exactly what is going on with the environment in regards to carbon emissions, depletion of rain forests, pollution, clear cutting, ect, is for both sides to realize that neither is one hundred percent correct and neither is one hundred percent incorrect, stop putting out things that are causing hysteria, and LOSE the damned politicians who are in it for personal and political gain. -
@ Chris Hogg
I think the media needs to be equally as responsible with this. I don't think it's fair to write something saying global warming is or is not man-made without showing both sides.
Mr. G has a great Op-Ed here, but it's one-sided. No offense meant there, but it only treats this subject as pure fluff science (at least that is my impression, so correct me if I'm wrong). There are other reports on DJ that speak of man-made global warming as it being a fact and they too are one-sided.
If you can see that scientists are too busy fighting, will you agree journalists and media outlets do the same? What about reports on DigitalJournal.com -- many Op-Eds are biased on both sides also. Do you think all of us should step back and treat each of these reports fairly even if we don't agree with them?
Personally I think everyone needs to stop writing about...media and CJ's, until scientists can prove it either way, BUT, how do you propose to make people do it?
One scientist will say something about man-made global warming and then some media outlet will report and CJ's will then report about that article.
Another scientist will say they debunked it and come out with their evidence that it is not man-made and the media will report it and then CJ's will report on that report.
It is an endless cycle that won't stop because those that believe it is man-made are not going to stop writing about and then those that do not believe it is man-made are n ot going to stop responding.
Neither side is going to stop first and allow the other "side" to continue unchallenged. -
@ Sue D.
Personally I think everyone needs to stop writing about...media and CJ's, until scientists can prove it either way, BUT, how do you propose to make people do it?
One scientist will say something about man-made global warming and then some media outlet will report and CJ's will then report about that article.
Another scientist will say they debunked it and come out with their evidence that it is not man-made and the media will report it and then CJ's will report on that report.
It is an endless cycle that won't stop because those that believe it is man-made are not going to stop writing about and then those that do not believe it is man-made are n ot going to stop responding.
Neither side is going to stop first and allow the other "side" to continue unchallenged.
I don't think it should stop, I just think both sides should be presented. "John Smith says...." and "Jane Smith disagrees, saying..."
It is dangerous territory when only one side is shown, IMO. It's like the AP publishing Op-Eds as you wrote about. Most people who read that said they want the AP to just deliver the news. Well, when we report I think the news is important even in an Op-Ed. I think both sides are important.
Not all American media does this anymore. It's now Conservative radio or Liberal radio. I personally vote for objective radio or TV or print and I hate bias. I see a lot of liberals and conservatives say the media is biased, then turn around and publish or say the same stuff. HuffPo is a great example, and there are also conservatives who do the EXACT same thing. -
stop putting out things that are causing hysteria, and LOSE the damned politicians who are in it for personal and political gain. sounds good. but it is still worth writing about and very wrong to stop. -
@ Chris Hogg
I think the media needs to be equally as responsible with this. I don't think it's fair to write something saying global warming is or is not man-made without showing both sides.
Mr. G has a great Op-Ed here, but it seems one-sided IMO. No offense meant there, but it only treats this subject as fluff science or exaggerated science (at least that is my impression, so correct me if I'm wrong). There are other reports on DJ that speak of man-made global warming as it being a fact and they too are one-sided.
If you can see that scientists are too busy fighting, will you agree journalists and media outlets do the same? What about reports on DigitalJournal.com -- many Op-Eds are biased on both sides also. Do you think all of us should step back and treat each of these reports fairly even if we don't agree with them?
Look back over my piece from May, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/254311 , on agenda driven science and my call for science to be conducted for the sake of research and true, uncorrupted, unbiased results without the influence of political agenda and wrangling. I believe, if I'm not mistaken and without looking back at the comments right this second, that my thoughts on the matter were not completely well received, the same thoughts you're expressing now, Chris.
The ONLY way we're going to get to the bottom of things and create real solutions for real problems is for both sides to come to the table and put their data together, test it, research it all, and work on it together. Until then, the hysteria continues.
OH, and as a side note, I make sure that mine are labeled as being my opinion on the matter, because while I have large interest in the subject, I know I'm far from an unbiased outlet and I also know that I, personally, am not one of the experts. I would dare say that none of us here can claim to be either unbiased or expert in this field. -
You know I hear few people talking about global climate change on a day to day basis as I go around town and certainly no hysteria, in the media maybe but hey hysteria sells ads.
-
|
Email
Print
Share
Opinion: And We're Back to Global Cooling Again
