Global Warming: Man made carbon emmisions or natural cycle?

[Khyron]

I just farted.... logged on just to tell everyone here my butt is responsible now.

[Big Lebowski]

I just farted.... logged on just to tell everyone here my butt is responsible now.

  Speaking of farting, I saw on the news, some farmers are getting taxed $$$ for every cow fart (Methane) emitted.

[Sabre]

Here is an excellent article from Dr. Tim Ball who has a PH.D in Climatology.  He gives us the straight dope, that those who put out the man made global warming myth are lying to you.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.


What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

[MichaelRW]

To sum that up, the global warming pushers have only used anecdotal information, i.e., the glaciers are shrinking, the polar bears are dying, hurricanes are worse, the computer models tell us....... and blah, blah, blah. Scientific fact must be empirical. I have not see any empirical information to prove human induced global warming. Have any of you?

[Ghoste]

Thank you, I have read a number of Dr. Ball's other essays on the topic and he certainly makes more sense than many of the alarmists.  Perhaps the six most important words in that last one would be these, "consensus is not a scientific fact".

[pettyfan43]

Now you guys are smart enough not to use common sense and the history of the planet, along with someone who has distanced himself from the "Sky is falling" Crowd!

That is not good enough, since the consensus is falling apart on this theory, we have to find some other theory to prove this is man made! After all, only Respected scientists can come up with theories for things that don't exist. Natural weather patterns, history and common sense be damned, we have to figure out how to bilk the world out of billions of dollars using garbage science.

"This is posted with tongue FIRMLY in cheek and was only meant as a joke"

Respected scientists and climatologists are abandoning this goofy theory like people jumping ship from the Titanic.

Some of the biggest believers in this thing a couple years ago are now some of the biggest ones who call it bunk.

It's a scam that is ALL about MONEY and POWER. 

[defiance]

 
It may be an inaccurate theory, but this money/power/conspiracy bull is just that: bull.  I'm done, though: no point talking sense to the wall, it still won't listen. 

[Mike DC]

I think Michael Chricton made more sense of this issue than anyone else I've heard in a long time.



He basically felt that regardless of whether GW/climate change is occurring or not, the current available evidence is nowhere near strong enough to tell us much of anything useful about it either way. 

It's not just that GW might not be happening, it's that for all well know it might actually end up being global COOLING . . . in which case any well-meaning action we took to fight it would be worse than doing nothing at all.



So therefore Chricton felt we have no business taking action on any of it.  Yet. 

       

[superbee383]

You've got to admit that the face of the planet looks a little different than it did 100 years ago, but like George Carlin said, the Earth is going to shake us off like a bad rash...

[AKcharger]

It may be an inaccurate theory, but this money/power/conspiracy bull is just that: bull.  I'm done, though: no point talking sense to the wall, it still won't listen. 

Well I don't see a "conspiracy" like people who say George Bush blew up the levee's in New Orleans, or 9/11 was executed by the U.S. gov't...But the power and money part is irrefutable. Trillions are planning to be spent battling G/W with "carbon offsets" and various taxes and power is being taken from local/State gov'ts and handed to Washington or the U.N; consider the death of the standard light bulb (replaced with a dangerous mercury one) that is scheduled to be illgal in 2010.   

[FJ571440B]

 I feel like all other government issues,its all BS! Billions of years this planet has been around,and to be arogant(and retarded at the same time) and think that we can change it so drastically over such a short period is just not logical. As said before,volcanoes and other natural phenomenon push more crap into the air than we ever will.  There are alot of stupid people around,look at how many time GW Bush was voted in!? Its just another way to direct your/our money to bigger and better things,none of us know about. I think if we had that much of a hand to make such a drastic effect,than we would be controlling the weather by now,dont you think!?
Its funny,I have to take my truck in for an emissions tests every other year,while 20 miles down the road,its not even mandatory.
  I like to call the stupid little ways the gov. and its entities fool us with this BS the trickle effect,because they slowly introduce this shit to us and twist it around to where it makes sense to those GW Bush voters out there if you get my drift.

[pettyfan43]

It may be an inaccurate theory, but this money/power/conspiracy bull is just that: bull.  I'm done, though: no point talking sense to the wall, it still won't listen. 

Well I don't see a "conspiracy" like people who say George Bush blew up the levee's in New Orleans, or 9/11 was executed by the U.S. gov't...But the power and money part is irrefutable. Trillions are planning to be spent battling G/W with "carbon offsets" and various taxes and power is being taken from local/State gov'ts and handed to Washington or the U.N; consider the death of the standard light bulb (replaced with a dangerous mercury one) that is scheduled to be illgal in 2010.   

Well thank you for making my point, at least someone else GETS IT! 

[defiance]

I've already made my point, and we're going in circles, so I'll stay done.  pettyfan43, you pm made me realize that I should clarify something.  If anyone is taking any of my points personally, remember we're arguing about a *point*, not about people.  You guys are probably all really great guys, and if you were around here and needed my help with some wrench time on your Chargers, I'd be happy to give it.  Please, don't take it personally!  And yes, the same applies to me - (several valid points *were* being blatantly ignored, but the brick wall comment was still personal).  And so with that, I withdraw.

Merry Christmas, all.

[pettyfan43]

I've already made my point, and we're going in circles, so I'll stay done.  pettyfan43, you pm made me realize that I should clarify something.  If anyone is taking any of my points personally, remember we're arguing about a *point*, not about people.  You guys are probably all really great guys, and if you were around here and needed my help with some wrench time on your Chargers, I'd be happy to give it.  Please, don't take it personally!  And yes, the same applies to me - (several valid points *were* being blatantly ignored, but the brick wall comment was still personal).  And so with that, I withdraw.

Merry Christmas, all.

I got it, Sent you a PM, We can agree to disagree and I have no issue with that, Marry Christmas to you as well.
no hard feelings or Ill will!

To all !

[AKcharger]

Interesting article...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

[Big Lebowski]

  Most of this century's 1* temp. increase happened before 1940...Since the mini-ice age ended around 1850-1900, it's not way out there to think that the Earth warmed itself. The 2* cool down in the 1300's lasted untill the 1800's, then we enjoyed the good weather for a while.

[PocketThunder]

Here is a pretty funny video from my old neighbor...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM&eurl=http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home

http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/

[moparsuebear]

Sheesh!! I don't know why everyone was getting so upset by this "discussion!" Isn't this an "off topic" place to post things? I feel bad when I read stuff by you guys bashing my husband! If subjects like this make your blood boil, just move on to something else and keep your nasty comments to yourself!!

Bill, you are 101% correct by posting this poll in off topic! It's nice to talk about our cars and get advice and stuff, but it's also nice to delve a little deeper, go beyond just car talk. That's how friendships are made, by learning what each other likes/dislikes!

Why were so many people saying to lock the poll??? Global warming is not politics, it's an environmental thing. I think some of you owe Bill (akcharger) an apology!! There, that's my feedback!!!

-Susan (AKA Mrs. Akcharger)

[AKcharger]

 

Bless your heart sweetie pumpkin-head...but everything is fine, no one owes me an apology. We're all just having a fun conversation about the earth, no one is mad or angry. 

[RECHRGD]

I agree that a civil discussion on subjects other than cars should be welcome on the site and that's why this particular forum exists.  I usually stay away from these "debates" due to the fact that most people are so entrenched in their beliefs that the threads turn into nothing more than a bunch of name calling.  Although there certainly has been enough heated exchanges on this subject, there has also been some well thought out and informed dialog that I have found interesting.  I'm an old guy and have seen plenty of theories over the years on many subjects that have never really come to fruition.  Some have, but most not.  Science is a wonderful thing and has made huge advances over the ages in all forms, much to the benefit of mankind.  Scientists however are human, and being so are subject to the same human frailties that all of us are, such as, ego, bias, greed, etc., etc..  One has to look at ALL the available studies on any given subject and come to your own conclusions regardless what side of a political isle you might prefer to stand in.  I have to agree with the "common sense" rhetoric of earlier posts.  We all know that the earths climate has been in a constant state of change, both cooling and warming, since the beginning of time.  Sun activity, volcanic activity, asteroid hits, etc. have all played their parts, but for the most part, the sun is the earths main thermostat from what I'm aware of.  Several years ago I vacationed in Banff, Alberta.  We visited the ice fields of the Canadian Rockies and were both awe struck at the beauty and saddened by the commercialization of them.  They were actually wearing them out in some places by a never ending stream of snowcats full of Japanese visitors traversing them.  There's a little museum in Banff that has scores of pictures taken of the same ice field over many decades probably starting in the early 1800's or as soon as cameras existed.  In each picture, you could see the shrinkage of the glacier over time.  So, at least, these glaciers have been melting for around 200 years.  Long before human industrial activity had reached a point to be thought of as a relevant cause.  There is a local meteorologist here that had a well written article a few months back about how undersea volcanic activity at the poles has been increasing significantly over the last several years.  Could this not be responsible for helping to increase the rate of polar ice melt?  Right or wrong, it makes one think.  I guess my biggest problem with all this global warming panic is that; we never seem to hear both sides.  The main stream media and most political rhetoric is all doom and gloom and it's all our fault.  I remember during the vice presidential debate when Joe Biden in no uncertain terms that "global warming is the biggest threat of our time and that human activity is definitely the reason".  Sorry Joe, that hasn't been proven to me yet and won't be in my lifetime.  Why has there not been a global debate on this subject.  This has become such a hot topic, but no one seems to want line up their favorite scientific genius's on both sides in front of God and everybody to let the people decide who makes the most SENSE.  That would be one show that would be watched by billions.  I'm not a conspiracy kind of guy, but, when money is to be made off of something all bets are off on honesty and integrity.  The political maneuvering on this subject has been so good that now the average Joe seems to be buying into carbon credit (tax) thing on CO2 emissions.  We now are in a full scale "green" revolution that is going to affect everything we do and buy for years to come.  This is big money folks and it's not going to get any cheaper.    Bob