Global Warming: Hoax or Reality?

Comments

17 responses to “Global Warming: Hoax or Reality?”

1. January 22, 2010

   Wichitator

   This debate on man-made global warming is long overdue. This is especially true as the number of record low temperatures around the world increases.
2. January 23, 2010

   scott owens

   No debate is long overdue – you have been fighting the EVIDENCE for years and even China sees it.
   http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/07/science-experts-cold-snap-doesnt-disprove-global-warming/

   Do you need some more time to verify fossils or do you think Kansas is 2000 years or 6000 years old ?
3. January 24, 2010

   sue

   Considering the latest error by the IPCC regarding Himalayan glaciers (interpretation: the UN got it wrong!) go here:

   http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece

   and the scandal over the leaked emails showing the collusion to “hide the decline” in world temperatures to bolster the claim for AGW, the evidence can only lead me to believe AGW is a “man-made” hoax.

   Also Mr. Mann’s use of the faked temps to create the now disputed “hockey stick,” makes the fraud even more clear.

   I saw the movie “Not evil just wrong” and thought it was very well done. I would recommend it.
4. January 25, 2010

   scott owens

   Sue,

   No Sue, going to see Little House on the Prairie or Seven Brides for Seven Brothers is not going to turn back time or refute what many, many independent scientists and scientific groups have shown in many, many studies and climate modeling exercises.

   Australia is one of the countries that is strongly impacted and also the source for many studies – here is a post from down under – http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9937

   Here is ABC news on that “non scandal” – http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9319400
   “E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

   The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”

   The results of ( except financially beholden to the coal/petro funding ) has shown : “Thus there is no basis for claims that the case for human-caused global warming has collapsed, nor that these or any climate scientists have been discredited.”

   Really,
   I am quite sure you don’t understand how your phone or carburetor work. You expect people to think that somehow you suddenly picked up a degree in statistics, climatology, and advanced math and that somehow we should consider you a credible resource capable of interpreting the multitudes of data points that 1,000s of scientists over the last 20 years? ( yes, this is intended to discredit your views). Did you know that the first people who actually wrote about man made climate change were scientists back under the Reagan White House and that the CIA and Pentagon both consider this a major threat to world-wide stability ?

   The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total.
   Sue, did you read any of the emails ? ( I did not think so ).
5. January 25, 2010

   scott owens

   And for those who think reducing coal usage is just for the global warming aspect – http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1706997.html

   Think you want to be one of those ratepayers who will be kicking in an extra $1000 or more because your power comes from dirty coal
6. January 25, 2010

   Pat

   Global Warming may be happening as a natural function of the earth’s cycle. It’s terribly more arrogant of mankind to think that we somehow can “control” the Earth’s climate.
7. January 27, 2010

   scott owens

   On HBOFW look for a program called “Too Hot Not to Handle”, start watching about 20 minutes in for photographic evidence of Alaskan glacier melting.
   It really is pretty simple.

   All Alaskan ice can melt -> ocean rises 1 or 2 feet.
   Greenland ice melts -> ocean rises 20 feet.
   Anarctic ice melts -> ocean rises 200 feet.

   half of all US residents live within 50 miles of the coasts.
8. January 27, 2010

   scott owens

   Pat,
   how about you watch that HBO show too.

   You really have to have your head in the sand not to see the data/trends/effects.

   Are you old and don’t plan on being alive in 20 or 40 years ?
   I’m not old and would like not to live in a arid environment in the later part of my life when I am supposed to enjoy it.
9. January 27, 2010

   scott owens

   If you hold yourself out as a conservative republican – why isn’t the conservation portion of that description being honored ?
10. January 27, 2010

    Pat

    Problem with global warming gloom and doom proponents is that they tend to ignore earth’s history of warming and cooling cycles. Secondly, they also tend to think irrationally without considering 1) any of the consequences of what they are proposing, 2) any other factual, contradictory evidence, 3) the underlying empirical data, 4) want to spend other people’s money, and 5) , most importantly, they seem to think that the world in which we live is a static environment that is subject to man’s control and desires.
11. January 30, 2010

    scott owens

    Pat,
    No the scientists (are you one ?) do not ignore the warming/cooling cycles. They do take these into account.
    The consequences are just a tad bit worse than a bad hair day.
    And what is purposed are GOOD things; reduced CO2 emissions mean less coal which means more efficient building/dwellings which means less money spent.
    2 & 3 have been well reviewed and well argued. Can you find a major print news media that has not adopted the human impacted warming effect ? Any one ?
    Every research organization – short of those supported by Mobil/The American Petroleum Institute/Peabody Coal have come out recognizing human impacted warming. This includes faith based folks as well.
    #4 & #5. You probably want the government to allow un-scanned luggage or hazardous liquids to fly or cars without good brakes or foods free from pesticides or foreign militia to invade – all of which require spending money.
    I seem to recall not seeing your posts on not going to war back a few years ago when we started a most horrific military financial build up to support the removal of oil from mideast.

    Are you in favor of needs testing for Social Security – did you know that on average most people who collect SS get about 10 or 20 times what they paid in ?
    Would you write a post or two about dropping that percentage ? After I start collecting of course.
12. January 31, 2010

    Pat

    Geez Scott, are you ADD? Rambling from global warming all the way to Social Security? As to our national security policies, I am fully supportive of our military actions in the Gulf.

    The earth and its atmosphere are for the most part a closed system. The various forms of elements, i.e. carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc., that exist within the system are fixed, meaning that the elements don’t increase or decrease in quantity but are in a constant state of reorganization.

    The number of dissenting scientists on global warming is well-documented and not all of the media has bought into Al Gore’s crap. It’s unfortunate that many apparently just choose to “listen” to the mainstream media without giving independent thought as to what is being discussed. Lastly, if you understood “scientific theory” and how “scientific conclusions” are developed, you would probably be more skeptical. Remember, at one time, the world was flat.
13. February 1, 2010

    scott owens

    Pay, you are right.
    matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
    However CO2 in the form of C and O2 ARE dramatically different in their behavior. Neither have been shown to contribute to global warming – CO2 has.

    Please toss out the standard line that China and India are such polluters that we could never do anything that would offset their dirty coal. Ignoring stories like this http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html

    China IS trying to clean up their act … and make money off of us. Course we will allow green technology to become just like the car industry – run by everyone other than the US.

    I’ll quote from the NY Times article –

    “China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.

    These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.

    “Most of the energy equipment will carry a brass plate, ‘Made in China,’ ” said K. K. Chan, the chief executive of Nature Elements Capital, a private equity fund in Beijing that focuses on renewable energy.

    President Obama, in his State of the Union speech last week, sounded an alarm that the United States was falling behind other countries, especially China, on energy. “I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders — and I know you don’t either,” he told Congress.”

    We don’t make cars, we don’t make electronics and we won’t make clean energy technology. But we can sell you some strip mined coal and fly ash.
    What a slogan.

    And we know the Chinese like us as much as the Mid East does (If we are their body guards – how come they aren’t paying us ?).

    187 Countries/States have signed the Kyoto Protocol.
    What do you know that all of them don’t ?
14. February 1, 2010

    Pat

    Scott, politics and science don’t make good bedfellows. Why would 187 countries sign the Kyoto Protocol? Could it be that they want OUR money? Methinks so.

    China is turning to alternative energy because they can’t compete with the US for fossil fuels. Kind of like their telecommunications infrastructure. They don’t have a lot of land lines but they have a pretty good cellular system. Furthermore, China has the vast majority of natural resources for the minerals used for advanced battery manufacturing. They are going to keep that asset pretty close.

    CO2 makes up less than 0.003% of the earth’s atmosphere. So, yes I am very skeptical. Nonetheless, you have never addressed my main point which is the arrogance of mankind to think that we can control our earth’s climate. We can’t and we ain’t a going to. Yet, we are going to spend a ton of money trying.
15. February 2, 2010

    scott owens

    Wrong on that CO2 percentage, its 10 times that.

    We are impacting the earth not only by adding to the CO2 but also by massive deforestation ( slash/burning of the rain forests ).
    It is the unfortunate behavior of CO2 that it absorbs infrared energy and raises temperatures. O2 does not. The percentage is irrelevant – ask any cook how much corn starch they use to thicken gravy.

    Do you know how much rare earth metals are in your catalytic converter? A gram or two. Yet this minutely small amount can help clean over a 100 million cubic feet of exhaust over the life of a car.

    China has our money already and they are looking at the rest of the world stop using it as well.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/world/asia/24china.html

    We don’t have money for those countries – and we have historically been opposed to the Kyoto so there was zero political gain for those countries to sign anything – Bush didn’t sign and we fell behind ( but please back your argument up with ANY published documentation that shows your “me thinks so” has any validity).

    China is turning to alternative energy to eat our lunch.
    Plain and simple. If it helps them save money over the long term they don’t mind waiting – the next fiscal quarter is not what they are interested in, the next decade or century is.
    They have 13% of the worlds coal and can buy ANYthing they want energy wise including all the coal they need ( or coal sands from Canada which they currently are buying )
    http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100109/BUSINESS/701099907/1005

    I am glad you think we can’t change climate – you are however wrong – we have been doing it for years for the worse and we need to stop.

    Have you ever been part of a court case ? You know that saying used as instructions to a jury – “beyond a reasonable doubt”. It does not mean 100% never, ever, ever not.
    It means what reasonable people would agree on.
    Of the still existing science magazines & books that were in the library when you went to school; that were in the library when I went to school and are being read online by my children ALL have written about the impact global warming is having on the planet.
    Car magazines, financial journals, government reports including those from the CIA writing about destabilization around the world all write about the impact global warming is having on the planet.
    Domestic and foreign newspapers of both low-lying and elevated countries all have written of the impact global warming is having on the planet.

    Do you understand how or why concrete functions better with flyash in it; how about what occurs in the core of a fast breeder reactor. Can you tell us about the levels of calcium in coral and how the effects of 1/1000ths of percentages in CO2 raise the ph of the ocean and inhibit the coral growth ?

    Not wishing to deride your education but those are the types of areas of discipline studied by people who do the research that has shown the effects of human impact on the earths environment.

    With the stakes being what they are – I vote with the folks who are trying to save us.

    The earth was once flat, the sun rotated around the earth and women who floated were witches.
    Every one of the people who felt otherwise were ridiculed as well. They were eventually vindicated.
16. February 3, 2010

    Dave O’Brien

    Scott,

    The only human contribution to warming the globe comes from the hot air you’re discharging.
17. February 3, 2010

    scott owens

    ad hominem Dave

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.