by Jack Lee
The accusations, and sometimes the hysteria, from the far left and to a lesser extent even from the far right, have made this “global warming” a politicized issue, even though it should be strictly a scientific issue.
For those who say global warming is mostly due to man-made things, well, I just can’t buy that. Okay, maybe a fraction is due to man, but it just doesn’t seem like its that much. There are so many other things that factor into atmospheric pollution. I have to wonder why we should spend billions on unproven science and damage our economy in the process, when we really don’t have conclusive data to support that we can change a global warming trend or even that we should. Everything I’ve read says we’re in a natural cycle of warming and cooling. That makes me somewhat ambivalent to all the dire warnings that global warming is going to wipe us out in few years.
If scientists can’t reach consensus on this stuff how can you blame a layman like me for being skeptical now? And I am especially skeptical about the motives behind those screaming the loudest (Al Gore) and asking for our tax money to fix “global warming”!
Now, just for fun I have chronicled some of the accusations flying around and I’ve also found a couple of easy to read and understand articles that present a pretty fair balance of what appears to be happening.
The accusations…anything here look familiar?
- There’s a lot of easy money to be made touting green issues, selling carbon credits, etc.
- Half the global warming spokespeople are really just looking for fame and money.
- The United Nations wish to promote a single, global government and the fear of global. warming will help advance their secret agenda.
- Environmentalists wish to halt most large scale industrial development.
- Climate science researchers wish to gain greater financial support.
- Socialists are leveraging off global warming fears to push their own agenda.
- Left-wing political activists wish to halt globalization.
- Right-wing political activists wish to halt globalization.
- Right-wing activists are dupes and pawns for big corporate polluters.
- Right-wing political leaders wish to promote nuclear power because they will get a financial kickback.
- Right-wing activists don’t care about protecting the earth’s environment, they’re short sighted, looking to make a quick buck anyway they can.
Unfortunately for us there is probably an element of truth in most of the above accusations and thats a problem. It really doesn’t help advance one side or the other, in fact people don’t know who to trust thanks to all the claims and counter-claims. These opposing allegations are cancelling each other out and in the process. If there is some truth we really need to know, we’re losing it in the fracus.
Below you will find two short articles that seems to make a lot of sense to lay people like me, although they are writen by egg heads. I hope you will enjoy them and take something away helpful to your understanding.
by Stephanie Stein Standard-Freeholder
The current debate about global warming is “completely irrational,” and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists.
Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet.
Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that “changes in the brightness of the sun” are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the “Little Ice Age” in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said.
“I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we’re about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere,” said Patterson. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it’s not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles.”
Patterson explained CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential plant food. (It should be noted that too much CO2 causes plants to become low in nutrients)
Billions of taxpayers’ dollars are spent to control the emissions of this benign gas, in the mistaken belief that they can stop climate change, he said.
“The only constant about climate is change,” said Patterson.
Patterson said money could be better spent on places like Africa.
“All the money wasted on Kyoto in a year could provide clean drinking water for Africa,” said Patterson. “We’re into a new era of science with the discussion of solar forces. Eventually, Kyoto is going to fall by the wayside. In the meantime, I’m worried we’re going to spend millions that could have been spent on something better like air pollution.”
Tom Harris, executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project – an organization that attempts to debunk some of the popular beliefs about climate change – supported Patterson’s findings.
Global warming assertions are based on inconclusive evidence put forth in science reports that had not been published yet, he said.
“The media takes (inconclusive) information that only suggests there could be a climate problem and turns it into an environmental catastrophe,” said Harris.
“They continually say we only have 10 years left, and they’ve been saying it for 20 years, and it’s ridiculous,” he said. “The only reason I got involved in talking to media is that I think our resources are being mismanaged.
“Go after something real and tangible like air pollution.”
After hearing a second scientist say climate change is part of a natural cycle, Elaine Kennedy – a local environmental activist – is interested in investigating the issue further.
She looks forward to examining scientific reports that will be published in a couple of months by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“The problem may not be climate change, but the problem is still pollution,” said Kennedy.
She’s not alone in her assertion global warming is a pollution problem.
David Phillips, a senior government environment expert, believes there is more than one contributing factor to global warming. There’s a human element, as well as natural cycles.
Difficult to convince
“I’m a man that’s difficult to convince,” he said. “What convinces me is the large body of evidence, and highly reputable people promoting global warming, who are not lobbyists, but only seeking truth in science. They say the the earth is warming up faster and greater now than in the past.”
People who are contradicting the global warming reality, Phillip thinks, have their own motives for doing so.
“These skeptics are keeping the debate alive (for their own interests). They try to confuse people into inaction,” said Phillips.
Phillips believes global warming is solvable.
“We solved the ozone and acid rain problem. With effort, and a new way of doing things we could solve this one too,” said Phillips.
And now this article from Texas A & M. . .
The earth is getting warmer. This warming can occur as a result of natural factors or human activity – or both. But warmer, compared to when? Current sea-surface temperature has risen in the last few years to the 3,000-year average.
To raise the earth’s temperature requires adding energy in the form of heat. Where can such energy come from? A build up of certain gases that do not allow heat from the sun to leave the Earth’s atmosphere would certainly raise the earth’s temperature. These heat trapping gases are called “greenhouse gases,” and are the chief cause for the increase in heat retention of the atmosphere. Most scientists believe that human activity is the cause of increasing gases, resulting from burning of fossil fuels.
However, a few scientists say that warming could be due to natural causes. Still other scientists claim that the evidence for warming is not convincing. The temperature sampling around the world is incomplete, especially in very cold areas that are accessible. For every iceberg that melts, new ones are forming. How can we know for sure just what is the average temperature of the earth?
Natural Causes of Global Warming
Dinosaurs used to live in the Northwestern part of the U.S. where it now gets very cold in the winter. Dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles. What does that tell you? A good part of Texas was once underneath the ocean. What does that tell you?
In short, we know from studying the earth’s history that there have been Ice Ages and global warming periods long before humans existed. Scientists do not know why these major climate changes have occurred, but there are some possibilities:
Explosions on the sun (“sun spots”)
For those who say global warming is mostly due to man-made things, well, I just can’t buy that. Okay, maybe a fraction is due to man, but it just doesn’t seem like its that much. There are so many other things that factor into atmospheric pollution. I have to wonder why we should spend billions on unproven science and damage our economy in the process, when we really don’t have conclusive data to support that we can change a global warming trend or even that we should. Everything I’ve read says we’re in a natural cycle of warming and cooling. That makes me somewhat ambivalent to all the dire warnings that global warming is going to wipe us out in few years.
If scientists can’t reach consensus on this stuff how can you blame a layman like me for being skeptical now? And I am especially skeptical about the motives behind those screaming the loudest (Al Gore) and asking for our tax money to fix “global warming”!
Now, just for fun I have chronicled some of the accusations flying around and I’ve also found a couple of easy to read and understand articles that present a pretty fair balance of what appears to be happening.
The accusations…anything here look familiar?
- There’s a lot of easy money to be made touting green issues, selling carbon credits, etc.
- Half the global warming spokespeople are really just looking for fame and money.
- The United Nations wish to promote a single, global government and the fear of global. warming will help advance their secret agenda.
- Environmentalists wish to halt most large scale industrial development.
- Climate science researchers wish to gain greater financial support.
- Socialists are leveraging off global warming fears to push their own agenda.
- Left-wing political activists wish to halt globalization.
- Right-wing political activists wish to halt globalization.
- Right-wing activists are dupes and pawns for big corporate polluters.
- Right-wing political leaders wish to promote nuclear power because they will get a financial kickback.
- Right-wing activists don’t care about protecting the earth’s environment, they’re short sighted, looking to make a quick buck anyway they can.
Unfortunately for us there is probably an element of truth in most of the above accusations and thats a problem. It really doesn’t help advance one side or the other, in fact people don’t know who to trust thanks to all the claims and counter-claims. These opposing allegations are cancelling each other out and in the process. If there is some truth we really need to know, we’re losing it in the fracus.
Below you will find two short articles that seems to make a lot of sense to lay people like me, although they are writen by egg heads. I hope you will enjoy them and take something away helpful to your understanding.
by Stephanie Stein Standard-Freeholder
The current debate about global warming is “completely irrational,” and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists.
Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet.
Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that “changes in the brightness of the sun” are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the “Little Ice Age” in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said.
“I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we’re about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere,” said Patterson. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it’s not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles.”
Patterson explained CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential plant food. (It should be noted that too much CO2 causes plants to become low in nutrients)
Billions of taxpayers’ dollars are spent to control the emissions of this benign gas, in the mistaken belief that they can stop climate change, he said.
“The only constant about climate is change,” said Patterson.
Patterson said money could be better spent on places like Africa.
“All the money wasted on Kyoto in a year could provide clean drinking water for Africa,” said Patterson. “We’re into a new era of science with the discussion of solar forces. Eventually, Kyoto is going to fall by the wayside. In the meantime, I’m worried we’re going to spend millions that could have been spent on something better like air pollution.”
Volcanic eruptions on a massive scale
Changes in earth orbit
Changes in earth’s orientation toward the sun
Explosions caused by large meteors hitting the earth
As the world evolves, changes in the earth’s environment affect the climate in various ways. For example, explosions on the sun generate even more heat than the sun normally gives off and some of this heat makes it to the earth causing rising temperatures. Volcanic eruptions on Earth can cause temperatures to decrease, because the smoke and gases given off can act like an umbrella shade and prevent sunlight from passing through the atmosphere. Any slight change in the earth’s orbit could cause the earth to move closer or farther away from the sun. This could radically change temperatures, because the earth would be closer or farther away from its principle source of heat.
Human Contributions to Global Warming
Humans burn organic compounds, and one of the results is a release of heat into the environment. Such heat is produced usually by burning “fossil fuels,” such as gasoline, coal, and natural gas.
Why do they call these “fossil” fuels? Scientists believe that oil (which is the source of gasoline), coal, and natural gas are made from decaying animal and plant life. In fact, the presence of fossils deep within the earth often helps oil drillers to locate oil and gas. But you say, “Oil can be found miles deep in the earth’s crust. How could animals and plants be buried so deep?” The answer seems to be that the oil and gas were created closer to the surface but seeped deeper through cracks in the earth’s crust.
So, are humans causing global warming? We do not know. We do know that burning fossil fuels adds to the heat given off into the atmosphere, and that certainly can’t help.
What is happening now?
The ice caps are melting. A huge piece of Antarctica just broke off because the ice is melting. This melting is leading to higher ocean levels. Scientists estimate that ocean levels have risen 4-8 inches in the last 100 years. Melting ice is raising the ocean levels. This could cause California, Florida, Texas, and much of the U.S. coastline to eventually go under water.
Iceberg B22 that has broken off from Antarctica, as seen from a satellite camera. This massive piece of ice is about 2,120 square miles in diameter. Source: NOAA.
Warmer air will mean more frequent and more severe storms (thunderstorms, hurricanes, tornados). Rainfall has gradually increased over the last hundred years, as temperature has risen. Rising temperatures may also make some areas more arid than they already are because of the increased heat. It is hard to say what will happen to specific regions.
But there is conflicting evidence. Consider the following facts:
A review of the evidence, published in The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 12 (2007) 79-90, cites published papers showing that::
1. glacier shrinkage started increasing around 1825 (before fossil fuels had any impact) and has increased with a steady slope that has not been affected by increasing use of fossils fuels. Similarly, sea level rise began around 1850, and its slope of increase is not changed by increasing use of fossil fuels.
2. Arctic air temperature correlates with solar activity, not use of fossil fuels. the same is true for U.S.surface temperatures.
3. number of severe tornados in U.S. over the last 50 years is decreasing and number of hurricanes making landfall in U.S. has not increased during the last 100 years.
4. long-lived trees are growing faster in correlation with the increase in atmospheric CO2.
5. increased CO2 accelerates growth of plants tested (wheat, orange trees, young pine trees)
6. the earth has had much warmer weather in the past and warmer weather increases the growing season, makes plants grow faster, and increases plant and animal habitats in cold climates. We should expect more plant and animal life in the future.
7. increasing use of fossil fuels in poor countries is actually helping lift these people out of poverty.