posted
Our Work » Global Warming » Myths and Facts Global Warming Myths and Facts Email This Print MYTH: The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.
FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.
The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005)
The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.
MYTH: Even if global warming is a problem, addressing it will hurt American industry and workers.
FACT: A well designed trading program will harness American ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively, jumpstarting a new carbon economy.
Claims that fighting global warming will cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfounded. In fact, companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money. The cost of a comprehensive national greenhouse gas reduction program will depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for the reductions and the means of implementation. An independent MIT study found that a modest cap-and-trade system would cost less than $20 per household annually and have no negative impact on employment.
Experience has shown that properly designed emissions trading programs can reduce compliance costs significantly compared with other regulatory approaches. For example, the U.S. acid rain program reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 30 percent from 1990 levels and cost industry a fraction of what the government originally estimated, according to EPA. Furthermore, a mandatory cap on emissions could spur technological innovation that could create jobs and wealth. Letting global warming continue until we are forced to address it on an emergency basis could disrupt and severely damage our economy. It is far wiser and more cost-effective to act now.
MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?
FACT: Although water vapor traps more heat than CO2, because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2.
Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has warmed.
The best way to lower temperature and thus reduce water vapor levels is to reduce CO2 emissions.
MYTH: Global warming and extra CO2 will actually be beneficial — they reduce cold-related deaths and stimulate crop growth.
FACT: Any beneficial effects will be far outweighed by damage and disruption.
Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal communities, contaminate water supplies with salt and increase the risk of flooding by storm surge, affecting tens of millions of people globally. Moreover, extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts and floods, are predicted to increase in frequency and intensity, causing loss of lives and property and throwing agriculture into turmoil.
Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, scientists now think that the "CO2 fertilization" effect on crops has been overstated; in natural ecosystems, the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than desirable species.
Higher levels of CO2 have already caused ocean acidification, and scientists are warning of potentially devastating effects on marine life and fisheries. Moreover, higher levels of regional ozone (smog), a result of warmer temperatures, could worsen respiratory illnesses. Less developed countries and natural ecosystems may not have the capacity to adapt.
The notion that there will be regional “winners” and “losers” in global warming is based on a world-view from the 1950’s. We live in a global community. Never mind the moral implications — when an environmental catastrophe creates millions of refugees half-way around the world, Americans are affected.
MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.
FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.
People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)
Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.
We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.
MYTH: We can adapt to climate change — civilization has survived droughts and temperature shifts before.
FACT: Although humans as a whole have survived the vagaries of drought, stretches of warmth and cold and more, entire societies have collapsed from dramatic climatic shifts.
The current warming of our climate will bring major hardships and economic dislocations — untold human suffering, especially for our children and grandchildren. We are already seeing significant costs from today's global warming which is caused by greenhouse gas pollution. Climate has changed in the past and human societies have survived, but today six billion people depend on interconnected ecosystems and complex technological infrastructure.
What's more, unless we limit the amount of heat-trapping gases we are putting into the atmosphere, we will face a warming trend unseen since human civilization began 10,000 years ago. (IPCC 2001)
The consequences of continued warming at current rates are likely to be dire. Many densely populated areas, such as low-lying coastal regions, are highly vulnerable to climate shifts. A middle-of-the-range projection is that the homes of 13 to 88 million people around the world would be flooded by the sea each year in the 2080s. Poorer countries and small island nations will have the hardest time adapting. (McLean et al. 2001)
In what appears to be the first forced move resulting from climate change, 100 residents of Tegua island in the Pacific Ocean were evacuated by the government because rising sea levels were flooding their island. Some 2,000 other islanders plan a similar move to escape rising waters. In the United States, the village of Shishmaref in Alaska, which has been inhabited for 400 years, is collapsing from melting permafrost. Relocation plans are in the works.
Scarcity of water and food could lead to major conflicts with broad ripple effects throughout the globe. Even if people find a way to adapt, the wildlife and plants on which we depend may be unable to adapt to rapid climate change. While the world itself will not end, the world as we know it may disappear.
MYTH: Recent cold winters and cool summers don’t feel like global warming to me.
FACT: While different pockets of the country have experienced some cold winters here and there, the overall trend is warmer winters.
Measurements show that over the last century the Earth’s climate has warmed overall, in all seasons, and in most regions. Climate skeptics mislead the public when they claim that the winter of 2003–2004 was the coldest ever in the northeastern United States. That winter was only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single year of cold weather in one region of the globe is not an indication of a trend in the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire planet.
MYTH: Global warming can’t be happening because some glaciers and ice sheets are growing, not shrinking.
FACT: In most parts of the world, the retreat of glaciers has been dramatic. The best available scientific data indicate that Greenland's massive ice sheet is shrinking.
Between 1961 and 1997, the world’s glaciers lost 890 cubic miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air temperatures are the most important factor behind the retreat of glaciers on a global scale over long time periods. Some glaciers in western Norway, Iceland and New Zealand have been expanding during the past few decades. That expansion is a result of regional increases in storm frequency and snowfall rather than colder temperatures — not at all incompatible with a global warming trend.
In Greenland, a NASA satellite that can measure the ice mass over the whole continent has found that although there is variation from month to month, over the longer term, the ice is disappearing. In fact, there are worrisome signs that melting is accelerating: glaciers are moving into the ocean twice as fast as a decade ago, and, over time, more and more glaciers have started to accelerate. What is most alarming is the prediction, based on model calculations and historical evidence, that an approximately 5.4 degree Fahrenheit increase in local Greenland temperatures will lead to irreversible meltdown and a sea-level rise of over 20 feet. Since the Arctic is warming 2-3 times faster than the global average, this tipping point is not far away.
The only study that has shown increasing ice mass in Greenland only looked at the interior of the ice sheet, not at the edges where melting occurs. This is actually in line with climate model predictions that global warming would lead to a short-term accumulation of ice in the cold interior due to heavier snowfall. (Similarly, scientists have predicted that Antarctica overall will gain ice in the near future due to heavier snowfall.) The scientists who published the study were careful to point out that their results should not be used to conclude that Greenland's ice mass as a whole is growing. In addition, their data suggested that the accumulation of snow in the middle of the continent is likely to decrease over time as global warming continues.
MYTH: Accurate weather predictions a few days in advance are hard to come by. Why on earth should we have confidence in climate projections decades from now?
FACT: Climate prediction is fundamentally different from weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather.
It is often more difficult to make an accurate weather forecast than a climate prediction. The accuracy of weather forecasting is critically dependent upon being able to exactly and comprehensively characterize the present state of the global atmosphere. Climate prediction relies on other, longer ranging factors. For instance, we might not know if it will be below freezing on a specific December day in New England, but we know from our understanding of the region's climate that the temperatures during the month will generally be low. Similarly, climate tells us that Seattle and London tend to be rainy, Florida and southern California are usually warm, and the Southwest is often dry and hot.
Today’s climate models can now reproduce the observed global average climates over the past century and beyond. Such findings have reinforced scientist’s confidence in the capacity of models to produce reliable projections of future climate. Current climate assessments typically consider the results from a range of models and scenarios for future heat-trapping emissions in order to identify the most likely range for future climatic change.
MYTH: As the ozone hole shrinks, global warming will no longer be a problem.
FACT: Global warming and the ozone hole are two different problems.
The ozone hole is a thinning of the stratosphere's ozone layer, which is roughly 9 to 31 miles above the earth's surface. The depletion of the ozone is due to man-made chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). A thinner ozone layer lets more harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation to reach the earth's surface.
Global warming, on the other hand, is the increase in the earth's average temperature due to the buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities.
For more information, see our in-depth scientific report [PDF] on the myths and facts of global warming by Dr. James Wang and Dr. Michael Oppenheimer.
Posted: 18-Jan-2007; Updated: 03-Jan-2008
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
lets' start with Arthur B. Robinson "Professor of Chemistry" he works at The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine....The Institute is entirely supported by donations and grants from private individuals and foundations and by the independent earnings and resources of its faculty and volunteers. The Institute currently has six faculty members, several regular volunteers, and a larger number of other volunteers who work on occasional projects. Most of the Institute's work is carried out in a modern 7,000 square foot research laboratory.
let's see if i can dig up who "donates" to his work.... i wonder if the Petroleum Institute of America i s one...
7,000 whole square feet? LOL... i have that too.
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27105 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The institute, a non-profit research organization, first published the names and credentials of about 17,000 scientists in 2001. The current list of 31,072 Americans with college degrees in science includes 9,021 with Ph.D. degrees in various scientific fields
Signers include more than 40 members of the National Academy of Sciences? wow... do you realise there are over 2000 members of the NAS? i'd say that's not a very good sign that he's on the right track...
the NAS is not even the most highly regarded scientific society in the US..
PNAS, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences PNAS is one of the world's most-cited multidisciplinary scientific serials.
depsite the obvious joke about their Publication? it's also known as Probably Not Accepted in Science (Science being the pulication for American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). the most highly regarded in the US, Nature being more highly regarded, but published in Europe
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27105 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
LOL why do the creationists tend to not beleive in Global Warming?
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27105 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
gee all of your article come from the same dude...
what a shocker... lemme guess now, you teach YOUR kids at home from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and the • 1913 Noah Webster's Dictionary ...
oh my....
An Excellent K-12 Home School Curriculum Developed by a scientist and his six children
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27105 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Odd that you chose not to address the wikipedia link, Glass.
Let's look at some on that list:
Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[17][18][19]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[20]
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."[21]
George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[22]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[23]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[24]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[25]
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[26] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[27] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[28]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[29]
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."[30] David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[31]
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."[32]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[33]
Tim Patterson[34], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[35][36]
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[37]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo: "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".[38][39]
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[40]
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[41][42] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[43]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[44]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[45]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[46]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[47]
Believe cause of global warming is unknown Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."[48]
Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."[49]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."[50]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."[51]
Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory: "carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"[52]
William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, "It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system."[53]
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."[54]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."[55]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind."[56]
It's easy to pick apart one, harder when it's a growing group.
Posts: 635 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
The general finding is that toxins often have a positive effect on the health of organisms at low doses. This has serious implications for Environmental Protection Agency regulations based on linear extrapolations to zero dose - that condemn even the slightest trace of a toxin in the environment. In many (possibly most) cases, the EPA actually damages overall human health by these regulations. http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/ate/s41p900.htm
that's a pretty broad general finding....
reminds me of the homeopathic medicine theory...
and i thought only Edgar Cayce followers still subscribed to that....
OK, so take the 31,000 supposed scientists that signed his petition.
we graduate more Science students than that from CA universities alone each year...
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27105 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
did you notice all the GEOchemists? they are all petroleum people... funded by oil$
the fact is you have been provided a group of people representing less than 1/1000th of 1% of Scientists....
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27105 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
here's a link to an interview of Freidrick Seitz. past president of the NAS. you might want to read it SF.
No, no, no, no. Look, we sent out a questionnaire to 5,000 scientists and engineers; we got back [17,800]. Their friends in a similar field asked if they could have a Xerox copy to send back.
You're talking about the Oregon [Institute of Science and Medicine] mailer?
Yes.
When that was over, however, your own organization disavowed those findings. Why do you think that happened? That was very unusual.
[There were a few fakes]. How they happened, I don't know. They were either fake names or whatnot returned. What we expect is that people were so emotionally involved that they voted against these false names. ...
But wasn't it unusual for the National Academy [of Sciences (NAS)] to say that their former president, you, was wrong in the way that you handled those signatures?
I wasn't part of that committee. I think that tells it all. The committee was particularly chosen at the time. The new president was the leader of it. He's going to lead a new program, and we'll see. It will take about a year.
that's funny... he sounds paranoid...
he also when asked directly says:
Are we in hazard from CO2 emissions?
I just don't know.
and?
Why would scientists use their good names for the politics of global warming if they didn't believe that there was a danger ahead?
Look, there is a danger; anyone would be foolish not to admit it. The question is, how serious is the danger in the light of the present scientific information? That is the problem, if you recognize it: You're going to ruin the economy if you try any violent action fast.
hmmm... he dosen't even seem to be denying it:
That global warming is a good thing?
It could be. If I were Russian I'd think so. We'd be able to send people to live in Greenland again, as we did during the period 1,000 years ago when the Scandinavians settled it.
oooops: In the George C. Marshall Institution. Exxon gives quite a --
Yes, that was to support an institution that was doing what I regard as important work.
But it was funded by Exxon in part. You took money from the oil companies.
Yes.
The question I have is, how can you say to your critics -- and there are plenty of them -- that there isn't a relationship between the money that supported your work and the scientific positions that you took?
Well, you have to take my word for it. If you want to call me a liar, well, that's that.
It's the charge that you make against scientists who have taken positions different than yours.
I have never discussed the origin of money [going to] any other group. You raised the issue of whether a federal scientist should take strong political positions, and I said, "Well, that's his business." ...
We got lots of oil money then to support this institution.
Then, the issue of CO2 emissions wasn't such a big deal. It's become a big deal since the '90s.
Well, if you're going to stop the use of oil, God help you. You're really going to put the economy in a ditch. I've got to be practical somewhere along the line. There are people out there working, have jobs --
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27105 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Signers include more than 40 members of the National Academy of Sciences? wow... do you realise there are over 2000 members of the NAS? i'd say that's not a very good sign that he's on the right track...
And I suppose you want to claim that EVERY OTHER member of NAS is on record supporting global warming being solely man's responsibility. I'd love to see that citation link.
did you notice all the GEOchemists? they are all petroleum people... funded by oil$
First of all, claiming they are biased based on an unfounded claim of oil money is intellectually dishonest of you, Glass.
Second, let's see who else was on the list: Astronomers, mathmeticians, hydrologists, solid-state physicist, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, meteorologists, Professor of Climatology, oceanographers, paleoclimatologists, astrophysicists, professor emeritus of biogeography, professor of atmospheric science, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, and more.
And that's just the people I posted. There are more on the wiki link.
the fact is you have been provided a group of people representing less than 1/1000th of 1% of Scientists....
I don't believe that at all and I challenge you to even come close to substantiating that claim.
Posts: 635 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe that at all and I challenge you to even come close to substantiating that claim.
you are joking right?
AAAS History Founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals.
that's only people who joined AAAS...
then add anybody with a Bachelor of Sciences anywhere in the world (which is what your petition did) and you can easily surpass the numbers...
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27105 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I suppose you want to claim that EVERY OTHER member of NAS is on record supporting global warming being solely man's responsibility. I'd love to see that citation link.
the Academy itself officialy disagrees with him. as does the much larger AAAS.
you are offering the supposed testimony of 31,000 as if it's significant. it isn't.
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27105 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, claiming they are biased based on an unfounded claim of oil money is intellectually dishonest of you, Glass.
this is probably the most ironic thing i've ever heard spoken seriously here.
sheeeesh you gotta do better than that...
the fact is that all of these scientists you have on your list claim that the "global warming myth" is perpetuated by people who want money... haven't you read the articles written by the guys you put forth as your counter-"experts"? they all claim that it's a funding conspiracy...
here in the words of your "hero":
Science 1999
So, what has happened to the science of my youth? Why do I find myself writing a newsletter - founded by another scientist 25 years ago who foresaw the trend of dissolution in "science'' that has occurred - largely devoted to exposing and reducing "false science''?
The principal reason is that the United States government has extended tax-financed welfare payments to a large fraction of American "scientists,'' including most scientists who reside in academic institutions where pure science was once emphasized. Welfare socialism does not work, and it has had the same general effect on science as it has when applied to other human endeavors. In fact, given the ethics necessary to the conduct of good science, government welfare payments are even more harmful to it than they are to other endeavors.
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27105 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
At a meeting organized by AAAS and its journal, Science, the climate researchers argued that while some policy experts and sectors of the public dispute the risk, there is in fact no cause for doubt: The world is significantly warmer today than it was a century ago--and it's getting warmer. Without action now, they warned, the impact could be devastating.
Scientists generally agree that temperatures are rising as a result of human activities such as fossil-fuel burning, which releases carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This warming has caused glacial melting and subsequent increases in sea levels worldwide of up to 20 centimeters, or 7.8 inches.
Some scientists have disputed the pessimistic climate-change forecasts, and the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush has cited concerns about the models that predict dramatic climate change and the perilous consequences. White House science adviser John H. Marburger III earlier this year defended Bush's policy and rejected critics' claims that the administration is in denial about global warming. For example, he said, Bush acknowledged in 2001 that the concentration "of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution."
The scientists at Tuesday's climate conference acknowledged that questions remain about climate-forecasting models. And, they said, there will always be uncertainty about exactly what may happen and precisely how various factors exert an influence. However, the panelists also agreed that accurate predictions can be made over the long term--and that greenhouse gases released as a result of human activity are a major change agent. In fact, they said, the models are more likely making conservative predictions rather than generous ones. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/0616climate.shtml
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27105 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Temperatures have already risen 1.4°F since the start of the 20th century—with much of this warming occurring in just the last 30 years—and temperatures will likely rise at least another 2°F, and possibly more than 11°F, over the next 100 years. This warming will cause significant changes in sea level, ecosystems, and ice cover, among other impacts. In the Arctic, where temperatures have increased almost twice as much as the global average, the landscape and ecosystems are already changing rapidly. Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1). Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation. Carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in at least 650,000 years and continue to rise.
Global warming or climate change? The phrase “climate change” is growing in preferred use to “global warming” because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures.
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27105 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
you are offering the supposed testimony of 31,000 as if it's significant. it isn't.
Oh, but I think it is, Glass. The point is that the number of scientists that disagree is growing. And these aren't some grad students that happen to like suv's. These are leaders in their fields.
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
....
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.
What about some who were\are on the U.N.'s IPCC itself:
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."
New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: "The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."
Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions."
USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this." Wojick added: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."
These are the men that were chosen to work on this and other climate projects.
Even THEY say it's all crap.
This is why I feel that 'global warming' and 'climate change' doomsdayers are full of a heck of a lot of either ignorance or arrogance. The Earth's climate is ALWAYS changing. To claim that man's actions are the sole reason for change and that if we don't follow the Kyoto Protocol's we're all going to die is simply propaganda and scientifically unprovable.
Posts: 635 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD
and what were his changes?
Even THEY say it's all crap.
This is why I feel that 'global warming' and 'climate change' doomsdayers are full of a heck of a lot of either ignorance or arrogance. The Earth's climate is ALWAYS changing. To claim that man's actions are the sole reason for change and that if we don't follow the Kyoto Protocol's we're all going to die is simply propaganda and scientifically unprovable.
you haven't read any of the hard data at all then.
you are entitled to your opinion but i can give you some hard facts:
we utilize 83 million barrels oil per day on this planet..
83 million barrels represents (at 20 gallons of gasoline per barrel)
1,660,000,000 gallons of gasoline per DAY.
that's just gasoline mind you...
1 gallon of gasoline produces 19 lb of CO2
1.66 Billion gallons of gasoline produces 31.54 billion pounds of CO2 per day...
that's just gasoline..
now the diesel? 7.5 gallons per barrel goes to diesel...
diesel produces 22 pounds of CO2 per gallon...
622.5 million gallons of diesel per day produces 13.695 billion pounds of CO2 per day....
that's 45.23 billion pounds of CO2 per day just from diesel and gasoline... forget Nat-gas and coal, home heating oil and jet fuel...
yeah that's correct dude. per day.... go ahead and kid yourself, we aren't affecting the planet...
and don't start with the "helping the plants" line either...
the carbon sequestered in plants is visible. we call it wood and cellulose... there' no more plants now than there were 100 years ago...
the fact is? we are using up what the earth accumulated over a period of 100's of millions of years and we'll have used almost all of it in less than 300 years...
no, you and i won't be alive when the price comes due. but if there's any of our descendants around to contemplate what's going on right now? let's hope they are thanking US for standing up and facing the hard facts.
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27105 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Global Warming 101 Human Fingerprints -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- butterfly links in this section Fact Sheet (low resolution) High Resolution Fact Sheet (for printing)
Because most global warming emissions remain in the atmosphere for decades or centuries, the energy choices we make today greatly influence the climate our children and grandchildren inherit. We have the technology to increase energy efficiency, significantly reduce these emissions from our energy and land use, and secure a high quality of life for future generations. We must act now to avoid dangerous consequences. Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 199
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)